That this House has considered UK compliance with the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. On 29 December 2023, South Africa brought a case before the International Court of Justice regarding the application of the convention on the prevention of and punishment of the crime of genocide in the Gaza strip. South Africa argued that Israel’s deliberate denial of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians could constitute one of the prohibited acts under the genocide convention by
“deliberating inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”.
On 26 January 2024, the ICJ issued an interim response, which recognised a “plausible risk” that Israel’s acts could amount to genocide being committed against the Palestinian people. The president of the ICJ at the time subsequently stated that the purpose was to declare that the Palestinians had
“plausible rights to protection from genocide”,
which were at a real risk of irreparable damage.
The ICJ’s ruling was very clearly not intended as a determination of whether a genocide had occurred; rather, it was intended to indicate that if some of the acts that South Africa cited in its case were proven, they could fall under the United Nations convention on genocide. Those acts were military operations in and against Gaza; killing, injuring or destroying life and preventing births; displacement, deprivation and the destruction of life; incitement and encouragement to genocide; the destruction of evidence; and genocide itself. At the same time, the ICJ called for “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in the occupied Gaza strip from the risk of genocide by ensuring sufficient humanitarian assistance and enabling basic services.
Today, the humanitarian situation in Gaza is beyond imaginable. Oxfam summarises it as follows—
Marvellous. As I was saying before the Divisions, the humanitarian situation in Gaza is horrific beyond imagining. Oxfam summarised it as follows:
“The Israeli military has killed over 52,000 Palestinians in Gaza, including thousands of children. Entire families and neighbourhoods have been destroyed…Israel is blocking all but a trickle of life-saving aid into Gaza - people are struggling to access basics like food, water, medicine and shelter… All of Gaza is at risk of a manmade famine. Starvation is widespread, and children and families are already dying from hunger…Israel has cut electricity to Gaza’s main desalination plant that supplied clean water to around 500,000 people.”
Last month, the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs said the territory was:
“The only defined area—a country or defined territory within a country—where you have the entire population at risk of famine. One hundred per cent of the population at risk of famine…Gaza is the hungriest place on Earth.”
It seems clear that what the world is witnessing, in real time, is the continued cruel and inhumane policy of using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and collective punishment. We see this daily.
The BBC reported today that 51 Palestinians were killed today while waiting for flour at a Gaza aid site. This all happened since the ICJ’s 2024 assessment that there was a plausible risk of genocide in Gaza. If that risk existed then, it has existed every day since, and it is now absolutely undeniable. However, the UK Government’s actions and choices do not appear to recognise that risk, and it is not clear what they have done, if anything, to assess the risk of genocide before making policy decisions.
Amnesty International has done that work, however. It argues that there is evidence of a “calculated” plan to bring about the “physical destruction” of Palestinians in Gaza, and it concludes that factors that include the obstruction or denial of lifesaving goods and humanitarian aid, the killing of civilians, damage and destruction of civilian infrastructure, forcible displacement, and the restriction of power supplies taken together constitute genocide.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) for securing the debate. As she alluded to, we have had many exchanges on events in Israel and Palestine.
Let me start by setting out a little of the legal position in relation to the 1948 convention on genocide. The convention was clearly born out of the horrors of the second world war. It was a solemn commitment by the international community to say, “Never again.” Today, upholding the convention is of paramount importance to the Government. I thank the hon. Member for her thoughtful contribution on the issue.
Complying with international law is a fundamental part of the Government’s commitment to the rule of law. I can confirm that we continue to treat all our international legal and humanitarian obligations seriously. That is what our assessments are focused on, and we abide by all of them, including those under the genocide convention.
I will make a little progress, and then of course I will.
More than 75 years after it was created, we remain fully committed to the responsibilities set out in the genocide convention. As the hon. Member knows, the long-standing policy of the UK Government is that any formal determination as to whether genocide has occurred is a matter for a competent national or international court, rather than for Governments or non-judicial bodies. That allows a decision to be made in the light of all available evidence, in the context of a credible judicial process.
The hon. Member asked repeatedly for a risk assessment of genocide. There is a difference between the lower bar of the serious risks that we determined in the September assessments and the higher bar. I recognise that she would prefer different answers, but as a Minister I must attend to the legal questions on me, which are at the lower bar. I will not speculate about legal determinations beyond that. I have confirmed repeatedly, to her and to the whole House, that the Government understand our legal obligation under the genocide convention and we have met it. We have set out the assessments that we have made and we continue to keep them under review.
The Minister is relying on arguments that, as I have articulated, do not answer my question. He says that the Government take their responsibilities under international law seriously, including the responsibility under article I of the genocide convention to prevent genocide. Does he recognise that we cannot wait for a court to determine that genocide has occurred if we are to prevent that genocide? We have to act before that. Does he recognise that by repeatedly relying on the assessments relating to export licences and IHL, he is not addressing the question? Has a risk assessment of genocide in Gaza been conducted by the Government? It should be, if we are to fulfil our obligations under international law.
I understand that the hon. Member does not like the answers that she has been provided with, but they have remained consistent, because our position is consistent. I can assure her that, armed with the full legal advice of the Government, I am confident that the Government are complying with the genocide convention. She raises the very—
20 of 37 shown
I do not have enough time to cover the extent to which all the tests are being met, but I do not think the Minister or any other Member can possibly be unaware that the Israeli military has targeted hospitals, refugee camps and schools, with multiple generations of families wiped out because of direct or indiscriminate attacks. They cannot be unaware of the vast damage and destruction inflicted on critical infrastructure, including essential parts of the food production system; hundreds of thousands of residential homes; water, sanitation and hygiene infrastructure; hospitals and other healthcare facilities; roads and energy infrastructure. No one can be unaware of how the Israeli authorities have issued large numbers of the civilian population in Gaza with evacuation orders that have caused repeated mass forced displacement under utterly unsafe and inhumane conditions, that Gaza has been under electricity blackout since the 11 October 2023, that power supplies have repeatedly been used as weapons of war, or that in March 2025 Israel shut off the electricity supply to a desalination plant for drinking water.
That is all occurring against a backdrop of well-documented statements from Israel’s political and military leadership that indicate a pattern of dehumanising, racist and derogatory rhetoric against Palestinians, which escalated significantly after the horrific and utterly inexcusable terror attacks of 7 October. That rhetoric from the Israeli Government includes statements calling for, or justifying, genocidal acts.
Consider, too, the other violations of international law that, as stated by Amnesty International, at the very least point to potential genocidal intent, such as incommunicado detention, torture and other ill-treatment of Palestinians from Gaza, and the widespread destruction of cultural, historical and religious sites, including after Israel had already gained military control over them and where there was no apparent military necessity. Those are just some of the factors considered by Amnesty International in reaching its conclusion that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians in Gaza.
The UK Government have been crystal clear that it is for the international courts to determine whether or not genocide is happening in Gaza. I do not agree, but that is anyway irrelevant to the UK’s obligation under the genocide convention to act to prevent genocide. By definition, that must happen before it is established that a genocide has taken place. Indeed, the ICJ established in Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro that the threshold for taking action to prevent is where there is a “serious risk” that genocide might take place. Therefore, the UK has a clear and legal obligation to act to prevent genocide, along with all other signatories of the United Nations genocide convention under article I of the convention. This should not wait for a court determination; that will be too late.
Indeed, that argument was the basis on which South Africa brought its case to the ICJ, and it makes a mockery of our obligation under international law if prevention hinges on genocide being conclusively proven in court, by which time the targeted group in question may have been wiped out. On 14 May 2025, the Minister seemed to recognise that point and asserted that this Government
“have not waited for…the determination of international courts, to take action.”—[Official Report, 14 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 353.]
He referred to the suspension of some arms licences to Israel and the sanctioning of some individual settlers, and even two individual Israeli Ministers, as examples of action that has been taken. While that is hugely welcome, I respectfully note that these actions do not amount to doing everything possible to prevent genocide.
Indeed, the implication of the Government’s position is that, because the courts have not made a genocide determination yet, they are not required to take a level of action that would constitute meaningful prevention, such as a full arms embargo, full sanctions against military and political leaders, a complete ban on all military co-operation, the suspension of the existing trade agreement, a ban on settlement goods and so on.
The Government will not even name the genocide in Gaza, but that is not the point I want to dwell on in this debate. Rather, I want to ask the Minister to tell us what the UK Government are doing to assess the risk of genocide and to determine whether there is any potential that it might be happening in Gaza, because that should surely be informing every single decision they make in relation to Gaza.
The ICJ has been very clear that the risk of genocide is plausible. A September 2024 UN special committee warned that
“the policies and practices of Israel…are consistent with the characteristics of genocide.”
The UN special rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, Francesca Albanese, found that
“There are reasonable grounds to believe that the threshold indicating”
that Israel has committed genocide
“has been met.”
Even if the UK does not formally recognise the assessment made by Amnesty International, the evidence accumulated must surely point to a possibility. For a responsible signatory to the genocide convention, that possibility is everything, because without having conducted an assessment of the risk of genocide in Gaza, I fail to see how the UK can carry out its legal duty to prevent. An assessment of risk is also fundamental to any determination of whether the UK may be complicit in any genocide—for example, by continuing to provide F-35 parts via the global supply pool, which are used in attacks on civilians in Gaza.
Although I welcome the publication of a summary of the assessment process and decisions that led to the suspension on 22 September 2024 of some arms export licences, the assessment was limited in scope. It has three short sections entitled “humanitarian”, “treatment of detainees” and “conduct of hostilities”. It was concerned solely with whether UK exports might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law—IHL. There is no reference, for example, to forced displacement, the deliberate restriction of power supplies, or genocidal encouragement, incitement or intent. As such, that assessment falls far short of an assessment of the risk of genocide. Parliament has so far struggled to get a straight answer on whether such an assessment has been conducted, let alone get any assessment published, if it does exist.
On 6 May, during an oral statement on the middle east, my Green colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay), explicitly asked the Minister:
“When did he last assess the real risk that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza?”
This was the Minister's response:
“We assess risk. I can confirm that those assessments are ongoing and that a prevention of humanitarian aid reaching Gaza is part of them.”—[Official Report, 6 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 588.]
On 14 May, replying to an urgent question in the House, the Minister advised that there were ongoing assessments in relation to international humanitarian law, and that these considered all the relevant tests. He specifically cited the genocide convention when making that point. The following day, I used a written question to ask for the most recent risk assessment to be published. The reply I received on 3 June referred me not to an assessment of the risk of genocide, but back to the Government statement of 2 September in relation to export licences. The statement, which is definitely not an assessment of the risk of genocide and which was made more than six months ago, begs the question: has there been no more recent assessment? Has there been any assessment of the risk of genocide?
The Government’s submission in Al-Haq v. Secretary of State for Business and Trade suggests that such an assessment does exist. It stated that the FCDO’s assessment and the Government’s conclusion is that there was no serious risk of genocide occurring. That was their assessment in 2024.
I asked about that again in an oral question to the Minister on 4 June, the day after his unilluminating written reply to me. I asked very specifically if he would publish his most recent genocide risk assessment without delay. His response indicated that there has in fact been no genocide risk assessment. He said,
“the question that we assessed in relation to international humanitarian law was whether there was a real risk of a breach of IHL. That was the assessment we made when we first entered government. That is a considerably lower bar than the questions to which the hon. Member refers. We continue to make those assessments, which cover the entirety of international humanitarian law. We have updated the House on that initial assessment, which is at a rather lower bar than she is suggesting, and the assessment broadly remains in place.”—[Official Report, 4 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 348.]
Again, that refers back to the assessment, which is not an assessment of a risk of genocide.
In the meantime, the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) asked a written question, which elicited a response confirming that there have been regular IHL assessments since the beginning of the conflict on 7 October 2023, and that these assessments are continuous, with the latest due to be finalised before the end of the month. What still has not been confirmed is whether these include an assessment of the risk of genocide.
My purpose in securing this debate is simple. I want to know whether the UK Government have carried out any assessment of the risk of genocide in Gaza. In case I have not made myself clear, I do not consider the assessment that led to the change in export licences in September 2024 to be a test of genocide. The Minister himself appears to have already acknowledged that that one, or any other assessment that may or may not have been conducted, met a lower bar by being focused solely on the risk of breach of IHL. I very much trust that he will not cite that in his reply today. I also trust that he will not retreat to the Government’s well-worn position that it is for the international courts to make a determination of genocide. For the purposes of this debate, I accept that that is the legal position and it needs no further explanation at this time.
I think I have demonstrated that there is a wealth of evidence of the risk of genocide, and that there is widespread acceptance that that is the case. Now I simply want to understand—yes or no—whether the UK Government have conducted any assessment of the risk of genocide in Gaza. Preventing genocide goes to the heart of our obligations under international law—under the genocide convention—and it seems unconscionable that such an assessment would not have been conducted. We need to know. On that note, I look forward to the Minister’s unambiguous reply. I am sure he will understand that I will seek to intervene on him if an unambiguous yes or no is not forthcoming.