Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Graham Leadbitter

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

We are witnessing in Gaza a catastrophe that was not only foreseeable but preventable. For over two years, the UK Government have hidden behind legal sleight of hand while a genocide has unfolded in Gaza. The definition of genocide set out in article II of the genocide convention is precise. It involves specific acts

“committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.”

First, article II(a) prohibits killing members of such a group. As of January of this year, 71,500 Palestinians have been killed, including 570 aid workers and 1,700 health workers. That is not collateral damage; it is the destruction of a people and it is sickening.

Just yesterday, during the current supposed ceasefire, the BBC reported that at least 20 Palestinians, including several children and a paramedic, had been killed and almost 40 others wounded in Israeli strikes in Gaza, according to hospitals in Palestine. The response from the Israel Defence Forces stated that they had carried out “precise strikes”—so precise, apparently, that they had to further state,

“The IDF is aware of the claim that several uninvolved civilians, including a medical staff member, were hit in the strike.”

That is a familiar trope that they have used throughout the conflict. If those were the reactions of our own military, the standards we would apply in investigation and response would be rigorous and likely lead to court martial because it is not even close to our, rightly, highly robust rules of engagement rooted in moral integrity.

Secondly, article II(b) prohibits

“Causing serious bodily or mental harm”.

We know that over 143,000 people have been injured, with many maimed for life, and the population has been subjected to torture and arbitrary detention. Thirdly, and perhaps most damningly, article II(c) prohibits

“Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction”.

Amnesty International has found that Israel has systematically destroyed life-sustaining infrastructure, including water, sanitation and energy grids. By creating a so-called buffer zone, Israel has razed 59% of agricultural land in that area and, as of last month, 81% of all structures in Gaza have been destroyed or damaged, and all the while it has severely restricted vital aid and supplies. This is the deliberate erasure of the means of survival, which has led to widely reported and verifiable famine.

When Israeli leaders describe Palestinians as “human animals” and speak of “flattening Gaza”, and then proceed to destroy 19 hospitals and block essential aid, the only reasonable conclusion is that there is the “intent to destroy” the group, as per the definition. Even now, despite the UN commission of inquiry finding in September 2025 that Israel has committed genocide and Amnesty International confirming that the genocide continues despite the October ceasefire, the UK refuses to act.

History will judge this Government and this Parliament for their—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I call Andy McDonald.

Warm Homes Plan

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Graham Leadbitter

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I have confidence that the Secretary of State is across his brief and does not need to be warmed up before a question, so get straight to the question so that we get on to the next Member.

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I welcome the additional investment in energy efficiency measures, which is a good thing. I certainly welcome the simplification of the energy efficiency systems that people can bid into, which can only be a good thing for consumers because that has been a veritable maze. However, the biggest barrier for many of my constituents and people across Scotland is price. They cannot invest in their home if they cannot get a decent price for their energy and deal with the cost of living that is affecting them right now, with the bills they are getting on their doorstep right now. The north of Scotland has the highest energy prices in the UK, and the SNP has put forward proposals for a social tariff. Will the Secretary of State seriously consider those measures, and put in place a social tariff to enable people to take advantage of such schemes?

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Graham Leadbitter

2nd reading
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Government Members have talked about difficult choices. Not taking away the winter fuel payment from people, or voting to remove the two-child cap, might also have been difficult choices, but instead they have been easy targets. This Bill adds to those easy targets.

The Bill, presented under the guise of fiscal responsibility, is a thinly veiled austerity measure that will disproportionately burden Scotland and undermine our ability to deliver vital services to our citizens. The increase in employer national insurance contributions is touted by the Government as a necessary step to bolster public finances. However, closer examination reveals the stark reality: the increase will lead to a significant shortfall in Scotland’s public sector funding. We will be left grappling with the fact that the UK Government undervalued the cost of the measure by at least £200 million.

Scottish Government figures, corroborated by independent analysis from reputable institutions such as the Fraser of Allander Institute, paint a grim picture. The national insurance hike will cost Scotland more than £500 million, including a staggering £191 million burden on our already stretched NHS. That figure rises to an alarming £750 million when we factor in indirect employees in sectors such as childcare, GP practices and social care—sectors vital to the fabric of our society.

In Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, a local firm with a number of care homes across the north of Scotland faces an £800,000 bill. It provides vital services to the community. To give another example, a local dentist has said that the increased cost of employment as a result of the Bill may force them to go private to recoup those costs. Finally, the Bill is a double whammy for GP practices. They face the national insurance hit, but by dint of being designated a public service, are not eligible for employment allowance.

The UK Government’s paltry offer of £300 million in Barnett consequentials is simply not enough to bridge the gap, and it fails to account for Scotland’s proportionally larger public sector, which employs 22% of the workforce, compared with 17% in the UK as a whole. Among other reasons, that is because in Scotland, we already have a publicly owned and managed rail service, and a publicly owned and managed water service. The funding disparity is a clear indication that the UK Government have given scant consideration to the unique needs and circumstances of Scotland. That includes the disregard demonstrated in the winter fuel payment debacle, which exposes a pattern of neglect, regardless of which party occupies the Government Benches. It is exactly this pattern of neglect and lack of understanding of Scotland by successive UK Governments that strengthens the case for Scottish independence, and for our ability to take decisions for ourselves, like every other normal country, on the delivery of public services and taxation that impacts us.

The impact of the Bill goes far beyond mere budgetary concerns. It will have a ripple effect across our economy, harming businesses, stifling growth and ultimately hurting the very workers it purports to protect. The Office for Budget Responsibility has cautioned that the increase will likely lead to lower wages and higher prices; effectively, the burden will be passed on to consumers, and the purchasing power of hard-working families will be eroded. We urge the UK Government to reconsider this damaging Bill, to fully fund the cost of this tax hike to public services in Scotland, and to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the Scottish Government, so that Scotland’s interests are protected.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We have two remaining Back-Bench contributions. Colleagues who have contributed to the debate should consider making their way back to the Chamber before the wind-ups.

Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Graham Leadbitter

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 19th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Graham Leadbitter.

[Graham Leadbitter]

The SNP supports the Bill and the Government’s position on the Lords amendments, mainly because the SNP Government in Scotland have already driven forward with public ownership. Sadly, without full and normal powers of independence—those will come in due course—the Bill is the current means to support and underpin those actions by the Scottish Government.

I accept the Secretary of State’s position on Lords amendment 1. To take an example from my constituency, Inverness Airport station was opened relatively recently, and that adds time to the journey between Inverness and Aberdeen. Kintore station in Aberdeenshire was also opened, adding time to the overall length of the journey, but I do not think anybody would dispute that those are good improvements to the railway. They open up the railway to far more people, meaning that more people are using the line, spending money on rail services, and taking cars off the road, even if the overall journey time has not been reduced. Therefore the definition of an improvement in performance is really important, and the amendment gives no indication of how that will be dealt with. For that reason, the SNP does not support it.

We agree that Lords amendment 2 could result in further loss to the public purse and the paying of excessive fees over an extended period. We want that money to come back to the public purse so that it can be reinvested in the railway and increase the usage of our trains. This is not the 1980s. There is a lot of talk about going back to how things were prior to privatisation, but governance and scrutiny are now in a very different place from 40 years ago, and we should acknowledge that. A railway that is publicly owned might bring about a real and sustained age of the train, which we might recall from our youth, with real infrastructure investment like that seen in Scotland. We want to continue to do more of that. That will drag people back on to the railways and move them off the roads, which will contribute to our efforts on climate change and gently improve people’s lives. That is why we support the Government’s position on the Lords amendments.

[Several hon. Members rose—]