Israel and Palestine

Carla Denyer Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Liam Byrne]

Let me come to exactly that argument. The Foreign Secretary was followed by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, who said that there were now “significant doubts” about Israel’s “record of compliance”. In court, His Majesty’s Government said bluntly, in their opening statement on 12 November 2024, that Israel is

“not committed to complying with international humanitarian law”.

Yet the Government have not cancelled all licences; they have cancelled some, but not all, and they have kept open the licences for F-35 parts.

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Liam Byrne]

I will not, because time is so short.

Last week, in front of the Business and Trade Committee, a Defence Minister said that although it is technically possible to track the parts, it is contractually impossible. Indeed, Lockheed Martin has supplied me with a letter that states that, if I want to know anything about the parts, I need to address my queries to the Department of Defence in the United States.

The Government defend their case by pointing to the 28 words that allow them to make it up as they go along when it comes to weapons exports. Those words were written by the last Government and were published in the House on 8 December 2021. They state:

“The application of these Criteria”—

the selective licensing criteria—

“will be without prejudice to the application to specific cases of specific measures as may be announced to Parliament from time to time.”

There we have it. However, what Ministers have not explained is the part of criterion 1 that states:

“The Government will not grant a licence if to do so would be inconsistent with…the UK’s obligations under the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty”.

Of course, the UN arms trade treaty is very clear. Article 7 requires this Government, as a signatory, to assess any items that we may seek to export. If there is an overriding risk of the use of those weapons to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law,

“the exporting State Party shall not authorize the export.”

Now, if there was any question, doubt or dispute about whether F-35 parts that we supply could be used in such a way, perhaps the Government would have a case for keeping the licences open. But there is nodoubt, dispute or question about the Government’s analysis of F-35 parts, because in their opening statement to the High Court on 12 November 2024, they said:

“The F-35 carve-out accepts that there is clear risk that F-35 components might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of IHL”.

We now have the advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice, the arrest warrants and the Government’s own assessment. I cannot see how this Government can now legally defend a position of keeping these arms export licences open.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

Every week of the last year, virtually, we have had a debate in this or the main Chamber: questions are asked and then we go home and watch on television the bodies of children being dug out of rubble—body parts, in some instances—with those white wrappings around their bodies. In every debate we seem to have got virtually nowhere because the arms are still being sold. We are still supplying essential parts for the F-35—the very vehicle that is dropping the bombs, firing the weapons and killing the children.

[Carla Denyer]

Was the right hon. Member as shocked as I was to learn that, contrary to the notion that the UK’s trade in F-35 parts is untraceable, as we were told previously, not only is it traceable but the US Government are tracking it? The reason we do not have that information is that we have not even asked them.

[John McDonnell]

I will be careful with my language here, but one of the frustrations, in this debate as well, is getting the truth about what is happening and what is contributing to the murders that are taking place. Unless we can stop that and prevent the UK from participating, we will all be implicated. History will judge us all for not doing enough to stop it.

I am pleased that the petition has taken place and pleased about the numbers; I congratulate the people who organised it. The petition represents the sense of frustration felt out there and the real depth of anger. I have been on virtually every national demonstration. They have been peaceful, but there is a level of frustration that I do not think we can contain any more. We are alienating whole sections of our own community. It is not about the Labour party or other political parties, but democracy itself. People say, “You’re an MP. You go to Parliament. Why aren’t you stopping this? It’s no good just shouting on demonstrations. Why isn’t democracy being exercised to stop this?”

I want to make just one point about the lack of action by the Government. Yes, petitions are taking place, but other people are taking direct action and have been imprisoned. Those cases will be sub judice, so I will not mention them individually. But Palestine Action took direct action to close down an arms factory that was supplying goods and materials for the F-35 and the drones. Those people were arrested under counter-terrorism powers and detained. They are young people, a lot of them young women—some of them just starting out at university. They exercised their influence and power because we failed to exercise ours. Some have been in court; when they are in front of a jury, they usually win the case. A number of them are now on remand and will have been in prison since last March until next November, when their trial is listed.