International Human Rights Abuses: UK Response

Maria Miller Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to speak in the debate. Given the number of people on my list, Members will have seven to eight minutes to speak. I call Debbie Abrahams.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Maria. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) on securing this important debate.

I would like to talk about the Government’s response to Israel’s violations of international law in Gaza and about revelations that I believe should be a major news story but that, as far as I am aware, have been covered by only one mainstream outlet. They relate to recently released court documents that reveal that, from very early on in the war, the Foreign Office had major doubts about Israel’s compliance with international law—a fact the Government have hidden.

The documents show that, on 10 November, just a month into the war, the Foreign Office had made an internal assessment of Israel’s compliance with international law and judged that

“the volume of strikes, total death toll as proportion of those who are children, raise serious concerns.”

It went on to say that His Majesty’s Government’s

“inability to come to a clear assessment on Israel’s record of compliance with IHL poses significant policy risks.”

However, those serious concerns were kept secret from Parliament and the public.

Instead, Ministers continued to give reassurances about Israel’s commitment to international law. For example, just four days after that assessment was made, I asked the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, in the main Chamber whether Israel had used British-made weapons for war crimes in Gaza. He replied that

“the President of Israel…has made it clear that his country will abide by international humanitarian law.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2023; Vol. 740, c. 523.]

That was despite the fact that, as shown by these documents, his Department doubted the Israeli President’s words.

The documents reveal that another assessment was made by the Foreign Office on 8 December, expressing “concerns regarding” Israel’s

“commitment to comply with the obligation not to arbitrarily deny access to humanitarian assistance”

and saying that it was “possible Israel’s actions” in relation to the provision of humanitarian relief

“were a breach of International Humanitarian Law.”

Those damning judgments were, again, not made public. Instead, Government Ministers continued to reassure the public about Israel’s commitment to international law, and they continue to do that.

The documents show that, a few days after that assessment, the Foreign Secretary

“decided he was satisfied there was good evidence to support a judgment that Israel is committed to comply with International Humanitarian Law.”

On that basis, he continued allowing arms sales to Israel, despite the fact that, according to our Government’s policy and international law, arms export licences should not be granted if there is a clear risk that they could be used in violation of international law. That recommendation was accepted by the Business Secretary on 18 December, and arms sales to Israel were allowed to continue.

When questioned about these matters at the Foreign Affairs Committee this month, the Foreign Secretary failed to disclose the fact that his Department had carried out a formal review of Israel’s compliance with international law, and he denied that he had made a ministerial decision about allowing arms sales to continue. Members will be unsurprised to learn that the Chair of that Committee is writing to the Foreign Secretary to ask him to clarify his comments.

What does this tell us? First, it tells us that, early on in the war, the Foreign Office had serious concerns about Israel’s breaches of international law. Secondly, it tells us that Ministers hid that fact, pretending in Parliament and in the media that they had confidence in Israel’s commitment to international law. Thirdly, it tells us that we should have absolutely no confidence in the Government’s arms export licensing regime, which Ministers boast consists of

“the toughest regulations anywhere in the world”—[Official Report, 27 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 565.]

but which are clearly grossly inadequate.

To finish, I would like to ask some questions of the Minister. Why did Foreign Office Ministers not reveal that their Department had serious concerns about Israel’s behaviour from as early as 10 November? Was that because they wanted to give Israel the green light for its bombardment of Gaza and they thought that revealing this assessment would simply make that too hard? Why did the Foreign Secretary recommend continuing with arms sales to Israel even though his Department had those concerns? Was it because this Government are too cowardly to stand up for international law, or is it because they do not care about international law when it does not suit them? Finally, will the Government comply with their own rules and with international law and the basic humanity at the heart of it and stop arming Israeli war crimes?

[Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)]

I call Alyn Smith.