Chris Law

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 28 October, in response to a question on his statement on the middle east, the Foreign Secretary stated that the terms of annihilation, extermination and genocide were “largely used when millions of people lost their lives in crises such as Rwanda and the Holocaust of the second world war. The way that people are now using those terms undermines their seriousness.”—[Official Report, 28 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 556.] The following day, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary seeking urgent clarification. The convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide states clearly that the genocide means a specific set of acts “committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. It is not defined by the number of people killed, but rather the acts committed and the intent behind them. Indeed, as recently as July 2024, the UK Government made a statement on the 29th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide, commemorating the massacre of approximately 8,000 mainly Muslim men and boys. I could go into some detail, but to get to the point, I have subsequently written two letters to seek clarification from the Foreign Office and the Foreign Secretary. In both accounts, I have had letters from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), neither of which address either what was said in the House or, indeed, the definition of genocide. The reason I stand here to make a point of order is this: have the UK Government moved away from what we have agreed to since 1947 in the convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide? I seek clarification on the matter.