Israel and Palestine
Debate between Liam Byrne and Carla Denyer(1 week, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.