Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
I do not. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. <em>Amendment, by leave, </em><em>withdrawn</em><em>.</em>
Showing every spoken contribution, including 142 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement
The prospect of UK fighter jets carrying Donald Trump’s nuclear bombs cannot be anybody’s vision of security. This decision flies in the face of our obligations under the non-proliferation treaty. It ties us further into a US military that cannot even keep its own classified intelligence secure. It ties us further to a Trump Administration who are the very definition of a loose cannon. Given the inescapable truth that nuclear weapons make the world more dangerous, and that normalising tactical weapons is incredibly reckless, how can the Minister possibly justify this decision?
- Hansard source
Nuclear-certified Aircraft Procurement
The letter, not the spirit!
- Hansard source
Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. This is not my first Public Bill Committee, but I will certainly benefit from your guidance on the particulars of the proceedings. In general, I am a big fan of the Bill. I am a bus person at heart. Wherever I go in the country, I make a point of taking the buses—I take notes and sometimes write to local councillors. That is how passionately I feel <span id="10" class="column-number" data-column-number="10"></span>about this. The good measures in the Bill need to be backed up by clause 1, which was added to the Bill in the other place. The Bill has come from the other place in very good shape, and the clause is part of that. I worry about what the move from the Government to strike out the clause portends for the rest of the Committee proceedings. Is it the sign of real commitment that the bus services deserve? Is it a sign that we will see high-quality, reliable, frequent, high-performance, accessible bus services for the whole country? The Government should explain more why they want to remove this very good clause. I support new clause 22, tabled by my Lib Dem colleagues the hon. Members for Wimbledon and for North Norfolk. It would extend a stronger duty, including an accountability, to local transport authorities. Empowering local authorities is great, but those who need buses—those who struggle with car dependency and cannot reach essential services—need the good measures in the Bill to be backed up by both those duties and real funding as soon as possible.
- Hansard source
UK Military Base Protection
On the proscription of Palestine Action, I remind the Minister that there are number of recent examples of juries finding defendants, in cases similar to the Brize Norton incident, not guilty based on a necessity defence, as people believed they were acting from a desire to prevent war crimes. Given those juries were clearly able to draw a proportionate line between direct action protest and serious crime, does the Minister agree that the use of the Terrorism Act in this case sets a dangerous and worrying precedent?
- Hansard source
Pride Month
In contrast to the Minister, I fully support the decision that has been made by the major Pride organisations to tell us that as political parties we are not welcome this year on parades or marches. Is the Minister not as sad as I am at the absolute state of political policy and discourse around trans rights that has directly led to this action?
- Hansard source
Middle East
The Iranian regime has long been a threat to peace, democracy and human rights, and the unilateral, illegal and dangerously provocative Israeli and, now, American attacks have made a tense situation extremely perilous and are completely outside international law. It is therefore deeply concerning to hear the Foreign Secretary echo the talking points of Netanyahu and Trump instead of standing up for those principles, clearly condemning the illegality of these bombings, and unequivocally ruling out the UK’s being dragged into any military action to support such illegal action. Why will he not do so?
- Hansard source
UK Modern Industrial Strategy
I welcome the investment in skills announced today. What seems to be missing, though, is a commitment to give wraparound support to the 3 million workers in the UK currently in high-carbon industries, who will need reskilling and retraining in order to make the most of the green jobs boom. Can the Secretary of State give us any information on what is planned for those workers specifically, and does he agree that the fossil fuel giants should be the ones shouldering the cost of that support?
- Hansard source
Middle East
This morning, the Foreign Secretary was repeatedly asked whether he considered the US’s bombing of Iran to be legal. Although I am sure everyone in this House recognises the brutality of the Iranian regime, his obfuscation in reply was clear, as is the refusal to say whether Britain would get involved in any capacity if the US falls deeper into a conflict with Iran. Can we have a clear answer from the Foreign Secretary now to that question, and will he clearly state that de-escalation must mean no UK involvement?
- Hansard source
Non-violent Drug-related Offences: Prosecution
<Question HRSContentId="{3C859E86-060A-41AB-89FA-D9C5DBF14673}">4. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{610E79B4-2C66-4286-8E9E-C4523BFF0E71}">If she will take steps to reduce the number of prosecutions brought for non-violent drug-related offences. </QuestionText></Question>
- Hansard source
Non-violent Drug-related Offences: Prosecution
As drug-related deaths are now at record levels, particularly because of the increase in synthetic opioids, I believe that we need to look again at supervised drug-consumption facilities, which are an evidence-based intervention that could save lives and public spending. Both the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the Health and Social Care Committee support the idea. Will the Solicitor General consider facilitating a legal mechanism here, as in Scotland under the <span id="571" class="column-number" data-column-number="571"></span>Lord Advocate, to enable local health and police authorities that wish to pilot such facilities to establish their efficacy to do so?
- Hansard source
River Pollution
As the Secretary of State knows, my constituency of North Herefordshire is very seriously affected by water pollution in the Lugg and the Wye. I confess that I am disappointed that, in both his answers to the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes), he did not mention agricultural pollution at all. That is despite the fact that agriculture is the main source of water pollution in the country, as is shown in the report of the Independent Water Commission, which unfortunately was not allowed to look into it in any detail. I pay tribute to River Action, which this week won a court case forcing planning authorities to consider the cumulative impact of industrial agricultural development, and to Greenpeace, which last week pointed out the impact of toxic sewage sludge. Will he confirm whether he is updating the farming rules for water? Given that he has cut the budget of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—
- Hansard source
Warm Home Discount
Today’s announcement is very welcome and will make a real difference to many of our constituents. I am glad to hear the Minister reaffirm today that in addition to support with bills, the Government recognise the urgent need to ensure that every home is well-insulated and affordable to heat—a genuinely warm home—and are doing that through both hugely increasing standards for new homes and insulating existing homes. She has referenced the £13.2 billion Government commitment to the warm homes plan, which is welcome, though not enough, but why do the spending review documents show that more than a third of that money—£5 billion of the £13.2 billion—is money that the Government expect to get back, presumably to be repaid by households?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
The BBC reports that overnight, President Trump approved a plan to attack Iran. There is potentially a very small window of opportunity before he decides whether to escalate this war, so I was concerned yesterday when, in Prime Minister’s questions, the Deputy Prime Minister did not give me a direct response when I asked her to confirm whether the Government would explicitly seek Parliament’s consent for any military support for Israel in this war. Can we have assurances from the Leader of the House that there will be a debate and a free vote in those circumstances? Given the Attorney General’s reported concerns about the legality of Britain’s potential involvement in the crisis, it is critical that we get that opportunity, and I would be grateful for a clear yes/no answer on this issue.
- Hansard source
UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy
I welcome this announcement, and while there are aspects that I do not support, I particularly welcome the Government’s investment in vital flood defences. As the Minister knows, these are critical in ensuring that we are better protected against the impacts of climate breakdown. With the Met Office warning this week that we could reach 45° temperatures in the current climate, clearly the effects of climate breakdown are already here. Does he agree that protection needs to be fully integrated into every aspect of our economy—from housing to transport and farming—and does he also agree that it is a good idea to put climate resilience and preparedness on a <span id="615" class="column-number" data-column-number="615"></span>statutory footing by requiring all major infrastructure providers to carry out climate risk assessments in order to make us all safer?
- Hansard source
Crime and Policing Bill
I will not be able to speak to all the amendments that Members have worked so hard on and that I have supported so many times by putting my name to them, but the Members know that I support them. New clauses 21, 25, 13, 18, 10, 43 and, in particular, new clause 122 are all important proposals that the Government should listen to. I do not support new clause 7 from the official Opposition, and I cannot support new clauses 2 and 3, as I do not believe there is any evidence that those measures would help make sex workers safer. We have to respect evidence and listen to sex workers and their voices on these issues. Principally, I rise today to speak to my new clauses 26, 27, 109, 30 and 49, and new clause 50 from the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel). First, new clause 26 would require the Home Office to publish quarterly data on antisocial behaviour orders, including the number of times that stop-and-search powers were used prior to such orders being issued and the protected characteristics of individuals who receive those orders. That is important scrutiny to make sure the powers are being exercised fairly. New clause 27 would enable regulations to vary the ability of police forces to use stop-and-search powers. Specifically, it would require the Government to suspend the use of those powers by any police force subject to Engage status under His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services. If a force has reached the point of requiring formal monitoring due to systemic issues, it is right that the most intrusive and abused police powers are subject to heightened scrutiny or even suspension. New clause 30 would prohibit the deployment and use of certain forms of “predictive” policing technologies, particularly those that rely on automated decision-making, profiling and artificial intelligence, to assess the likelihood that individuals or groups will commit criminal offences. My hon. Friends will recognise that danger. Such technologies, however cleverly sold, will always need to be built on existing, flawed police data, or data from other flawed and biased public and private sources. That means that communities that have historically been over-policed will be more likely to be identified as being “at risk” of future criminal behaviour. As I have always said in the context of facial recognition, questions of accuracy and bias are not the only reason to be against these technologies. At their heart they infringe human rights, including the right to privacy and the right to be presumed innocent.
- Hansard source
Engagements
This Refugee Week is an opportunity for the House to show solidarity with those fleeing war, persecution and oppression. Compassion and welcome are core British values, but for decades the Home Office has been undermining those values, as my new report “No Way Home” shows, by treating migration as a crime rather than making it work for our communities and for newcomers. Will the Deputy Prime Minister read the report and consider its recommendation to remove migration from the responsibilities of the failing Home Office?
- Hansard source
Businesses in Rural Areas
The hon. Member is doing a great job in advocating for rural businesses. I was speaking the other day to the Suffolk chamber of commerce, which highlighted just how critical rural bus services are for people being able to get to work, training and other activities, and therefore how critical they are for our rural economy. Does he agree that we need better funding for rural bus services not only to support the economy, but to tackle social isolation?
- Hansard source
Engagements
<Question HRSContentId="{74AE19BD-26E1-40FF-BF56-11070E9E5D86}">Q1. <QuestionText HRSContentId="{36C1831C-C6F1-4689-A905-4852B76484FD}">If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 18 June.</QuestionText></Question>
- Hansard source
Engagements
Given the strong consensus across this House on the importance of de-escalation of the deeply worrying conflict between Israel and Iran, does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that this House’s actions must match its words? Will she therefore give a commitment that before any further military support is given to the Israeli Government, whether it be the deployment of RAF jets or armed forces, her Government will first give MPs in this House a free vote on the matter?
- Hansard source
Crime and Policing Bill
I rise to speak to amendments 4 to 8 on child criminal exploitation. I thank the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for their speeches and proposals. I voice my support for amendment 21, tabled by the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler), which would prevent driver’s licence information obtained by the police being used for the purposes of intrusive facial recognition and gathering biometrics, and amendment 164 tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson), which would remove clause 108 and the ban on face coverings in protest situations. The hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) has also tabled mitigating amendments on that subject; amendment 184 would create exceptions, and not just defences, relating to health, work, and religious faith coverings. I also support amendment 185, which proposes an equality review. I hope the Government will look at them all. I welcome the efforts in the Crime and Policing Bill to protect vulnerable children, and I particularly welcome the introduction of a new offence of child criminal exploitation, which will signal to perpetrators that coercing, manipulating and exploiting children into criminal activity is child abuse and will be treated as such. Criminals are exploiting thousands of vulnerable children; Children In Need data shows that more than 15,000 children were at risk of exploitation in 2023-24, and that is likely to be just the tip of the iceberg. The perpetrators of exploitation include serious organised crime gangs, which are well versed in taking advantage of legislative gaps. Even though the Bill takes a huge step forward, areas of it must be strengthened if we are to protect children and bring the perpetrators of that abuse to justice. That is why I have tabled amendments 4 to 8.<span id="203" class="column-number" data-column-number="203"></span> First, amendments 4 and 5 would amend the wording in clause 38 to ensure that the offence includes activities that put children at significant risk and are linked to criminal conduct but are not in themselves criminal offences. Examples of this include carrying large amounts of cash on public transport, being used as a look-out or decoy, and guarding unsafe accommodation alone. Amendment 6 expands the definition of “exploitative activity” to ensure that preparatory acts, such as grooming and coercion, are captured by the offence. I welcome the Minister’s comments earlier, and am grateful for the engagement with these amendments, but it is not yet obvious to me how referencing only the facilitation of future offences covers the gaps that would be closed by amendments 4 and 5, and amendment 6 seems to have been only partly addressed. I would therefore welcome further clarification, or a discussion of the issue with the Minister, ahead of consideration in the other place. Secondly, amendment 7 would remove clause 38(1)(b), which currently amounts to a defence if the perpetrator reasonably believes that the child is over 18, unless the child is under the age of 13. While such provisions are common in other areas of law, in the case of criminal exploitation, this clause risks undermining the prosecution of perpetrators due to the well-publicised issues of adultification and racism within the criminal justice system. The recent Independent Office for Police Conduct report into race discrimination and the Alexis Jay report on criminally exploited children on behalf of Action for Children both highlight the roles of adultification and racism in the criminalisation of children, and how it leads to failures in safeguarding responses specifically, but not only, for young black boys. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 is clear: children cannot consent to their own exploitation, and this principle must be upheld by our removing this part of the offence. Finally, amendment 8 to clause 53 would insert the words “aged 18 or over”. This would ensure that children could not be criminalised under the new offence of cuckooing. It would recognise that they are more often than not the victims, not the perpetrators, in these situations. The children targeted are often very young and extremely vulnerable, and they need protection, not prosecution. These amendments are not merely technical; they are essential. They reflect the lived experiences of children, and the findings of numerous reports and reviews that provide compelling evidence of the need for a more robust and child-centred legal framework. I urge all Members of the House to support these proposals. Together, we can take a decisive step towards better protecting vulnerable children from exploitation.
- Hansard source
Genocide Convention: UK Compliance
I beg to move, 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—
- Hansard source
Genocide Convention: UK Compliance
For clarification, since the Minister is not in his place and no one from the Government is here, is it correct that I continue?
- Hansard source
Genocide Convention: UK Compliance
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. 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 <span id="60WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="60WH"></span>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 <em>v.</em> 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.”<span id="vol767_col353" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="353" data-volume-number="767" data-external-id="0CC713CE-3FB5-4AAE-917E-E374A861537E">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 14 May 2025; Vol. 767, c. 353.]</span> 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.”<span id="61WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="61WH"></span> 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.”<span id="vol766_col588" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="588" data-volume-number="766" data-external-id="204EE354-7B83-40F2-91D8-4FE7627305CA">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 6 May 2025; Vol. 766, c. 588.]</span> 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 <em>v.</em> 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.<span id="62WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="62WH"></span> 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.”<span id="vol768_col348" class="cross-reference" data-house-id="1" data-column-number="348" data-volume-number="768" data-external-id="8D74A7DB-F1FE-40E8-9E90-855201448BD0">—[<em>Official Report</em>, 4 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 348.]</span> 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.
- Hansard source
Genocide Convention: UK Compliance
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
Genocide Convention: UK Compliance
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.
- Hansard source
Genocide Convention: UK Compliance
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
Genocide Convention: UK Compliance
Will the Minister give way on settlements?
- Hansard source
Genocide Convention: UK Compliance
I thank the Minister. Will he address the question I have previously raised in the House? Trade in settlement goods is trade in the proceeds of crime, so will he ban it?
- Hansard source
Genocide Convention: UK Compliance
Will the Minister give way on that point?
- Hansard source
Disabled People in Poverty
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
- Hansard source
Disabled People in Poverty
Today the Minister has heard many MPs, representing their constituents, express their huge concern about the effects of the PIP cuts on disabled members of our communities. She says that she cares about disabled people in poverty and about dignity. Why are her Government refusing to raise funds through a wealth tax so that our disabled constituents can have the support they need to live full and supported lives?
- Hansard source
Care in the Community
The Darzi report pointed out that 13% of hospital beds are occupied by people who are fit for discharge but who cannot get out because social care is broken. Lord Darzi said that we cannot fix the NHS until we fix social care. It is nearly six months since the Secretary of State promised cross-party talks and a commission, but the talks were cancelled and never rescheduled and the commission is delayed. Please, when will the Government stop going slow on social care? Please, when can we all get around the table to talk about fixing social care so that everyone gets the care they deserve?
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
The British Dental Association recently published analysis showing that the proportion of NHS funding spent on dentistry more than halved under the Conservatives, who failed to account for inflation and demand to the cost of £1 billion. It is no wonder that we have dental deserts across much of the country. Will the Secretary of State ensure that dentistry receives its fair share of funding from the new NHS funding allocated in the spending review?
- Hansard source
Iran-Israel Conflict
We all watched in horror as the conflict between Israel and Iran escalated. Today, we have heard strong calls in the House for the UK to be a prevailing voice of restraint and diplomacy in this fragile and volatile time. While everyone in the Chamber recognises the brutal nature of the Iranian regime, the focus must be on de-escalation, so I am concerned to hear about RAF jets being sent to the middle east. Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear that the UK will play no part in any aggression? Will he explicitly rule out any further military support for the Israeli Government?
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I rise to speak in support of new clauses 13 to 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), to support amendments 94 and 95, and to oppose amendment 42. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Spen Valley for her compassionate leadership and immense hard work, to the Members of all views who served on the Bill Committee for their thoughtful and hard work, and to those who have worked behind the scenes to scrutinise the Bill and contribute to the debate. I thank all the constituents who have been in touch with all of us. I am sure that, like me, hon. Members have carefully reflected on those contributions and taken them into account. It is clear that the status quo is not acceptable. That is why it is right that we have this legislation before us, and that we are scrutinising it so carefully and looking at it in such immense detail. Turning to new clause 13, regarding the regulation of substances for use in assisted dying, those substances obviously have to be properly regulated, although it is equally obvious that they cannot be subject to conventional clinical trials in the same way as other medicines, which is why the proposal to make that process go through the MHRA is inappropriate. The regulations provided for in new clause 13 will ensure that that critical part of the process is carried out with the highest possible level of scrutiny and harm prevention. It is essential that there is transparency and assurance of the process, from manufacture all the way through to administration, which is what new clause 13 does.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue and giving me the opportunity to speak about the detailed evidence given by my constituent Emeritus Professor Sam Ahmedzai, with whom I spoke at length yesterday about precisely this detail. I have reviewed a number of tables of data about this. Any substance has side effects but, as the comments made today have indicated, in reality those substances are being held to a far higher standard than substances routinely used in palliative care. We have to recognise that there is a huge amount of evidence about the efficacy of the substances that are talked about in relation to assisted dying. There is a huge amount of published, peer-reviewed evidence about the effectiveness of those substances, and people like Professor Ahmedzai, who has 40 years of experience and is a global expert in this area, point out that we know how to assist people to have a peaceful, compassionate death effectively, and that is what the Bill is about: helping people who are terminally ill to die with dignity and to face those final moments with the support, love and care of their family around them; not in agony, but in whatever degree of peace is possible when facing death. As the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) said, new clause 14, which relates to advertising, has been developed in consultation, as a result of concerns raised by opponents to the Bill, to try to ensure the crucial fact that assisted dying is not an <span id="1282" class="column-number" data-column-number="1282"></span>advertised service. There is a crucial distinction between advertising and information, and this new clause will ensure that assisted dying remains a careful, clinical process and not something that would be promoted commercially. It is a balanced, cross-party safeguard supported by people on all sides of this debate.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I am very short of time, so I think I had better continue. Turning to new clause 15, which relates to the role of coroners, if the Bill is passed, assisted dying would be a very strictly regulated process—the choice of an individual; not a death caused by others, but by the individual themselves. As Aneez Esmail has pointed out, this would be the most scrutinised type of death in the country, and it therefore makes no sense to require another legal process at the end when there have already been multiple layers of scrutiny before the death.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I am so sorry, but we are very short of time. New clause 15 is a compassionate and practical clause. There are strong safeguards already in place, and requiring a coroner’s inquest would go against the spirit of compassion that should be driving us all. I will briefly turn to amendment 42, tabled by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), which would remove the backstop commencement. Essentially, the amendment would leave it in the hands of the Secretary of State to decide when, or if, the Bill comes into effect. That would go against the will of the House. If the House passes this Bill, it is perfectly reasonable and workable for the detail of it to be worked out within the next four years. We have already doubled the length of time allowed for that to happen. Amendment 42 is effectively a wrecking amendment that seeks to kick the Bill into the long grass. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> That would be its effect. To conclude, I will briefly address the misconception that seems to have informed some of the comments I have heard in today’s debate, which is the assumption that families would want to pressure family members to die quicker. My mum is a specialist palliative care social worker, and she has told me that in all her years of practice she has never experienced that happening. It is the other way around.
- Hansard source
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill
I am sorry, but I am concluding. We are each speaking from our own experience and from the heart.