Middle East
Debate between David Lammy and Alistair Carmichael(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I am grateful, as I am sure the whole House is, for the update on that situation. I will not comment on the individual case, but when I was making the IHL assessment on a clear risk, which was previously referred to, one of the areas that I looked at closely and where I did believe there was a clear risk was the treatment of prisoners. I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House about those humanitarian concerns.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Is the Foreign Secretary aware of the concerns expressed by his noble Friend Lord Hain about the possibility of contracts under the Army Collective Trading Service being awarded to Elbit Systems UK, whose parent company Elbit Systems Ltd markets its weapons as being “battle tested” in Gaza and on the west bank? Lord Hain wrote to the Defence Secretary to say:
“Awarding this contract worth an estimated £1.9 billion to £2.5 billion would entrench Elbit Systems at the core of the UK’s defence infrastructure for a full 15-year period”
and that to proceed with the contract would
“erode confidence in the integrity of our procurement system”.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Lord Hain’s comments should be given the fullest possible consideration and that, if they are shown to be of substance, his right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary should not be awarding contracts to a company like that?
Mr Lammy
I reassure the right hon. Gentleman that this is an open procurement. No decisions have been made, and no decisions will be made until 2026. The whole House will have heard what he said.
Conflict in Gaza
Debate between David Lammy and Alistair Carmichael(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lammy
I do condemn those words and I would ask Minister Katz, who is very experienced, to withdraw them.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The language that we use in this conflict matters. We know what has happened and the Foreign Secretary has reminded us today: for weeks, supplies of basic goods and electricity have been blocked. To say that Isreal “risks” breaching international law for having done that is to say that this country does not see those acts as a prima facie breach of international law—that is how it will be heard in Tel Aviv. Is that really the Government’s position?
Mr Lammy
The Government’s position is based on the law that was set out in our export licensing regime, which the right hon. Gentleman supported in the last Parliament. The language of that legislation, if he looks at it closely, states that I, as a Minister and on behalf of the Government, have to make an assessment of clear risk. That is the language that I have used 10 times in this House since September. I stand by it, and so should he.