Arms and Military Cargo Export Controls: Israel

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

One horrific example of why we must stop supplying the parts for the F-35 fighter jets is the al-Mawasi attack last July. F-35s dropped 2,000 lb bombs on a designated safe zone in Gaza, killing 90 civilians and injuring 300. The use of such powerful munitions in densely populated areas is clearly a violation of international humanitarian law. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) said, key parts of the F-35s that carried out that attack may well have come from Britain; they clearly have done in other attacks. If we want to avoid any complicity in such Israeli war crimes, do we not need to stop these exports immediately?

[Steve Witherden]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am very glad that the al-Mawasi attack has been mentioned and I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments he expressed.

Freedom of information data reveals that the F-35 open general export licence was used 14 times to export to Israel in 2023—three times as much as in any other year. Israel is heavily reliant on F-35s for its attack on Gaza and is expanding its fleet. Without UK components, those jets could not fly.

The latest report from the Palestinian Youth Movement further details the F-35 supply chain. It shows that subassemblies and parts for F35s, including those used for repairs and maintenance, are all “logged and documented”, and that the global supply chain for the US-run F-35 maintenance programme has “robust traceability”. Therefore, the Government’s claim that it is impossible to halt supplies of F-35 components to Israel without undermining the global F-35 supply chain does not stand up to scrutiny. That raises serious questions around the UK’s legal duty to prevent genocide, yet the weapons continue to flow.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alexander]

We make approximately 15% of the components that contribute to the F-35 programme; it is an international programme of which we are but one partner. We continue to supply the programme because our judgment as a Government is that not doing so would undermine the continuing functioning of the programme, which is in the Government’s view, as I say, of critical importance to European and global security.

[Richard Burgon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Alexander]

I have given way several times on that point, so I am keen to make some progress. The Government have made these judgments calmly and soberly, and will continue to do so with full awareness of our responsibility.

Let me now turn to the question of transparency. As the UK Government, we publish quarterly official statistics and an annual report about export licences granted and refused. We provide a searchable database allowing users to produce bespoke reports, drawing on this data, and we are committed to openness on strategic export licensing, which provides the means for Parliament and the public to hold us to account.

[Mr Alexander]

I am keen to make a little more progress before I take further interventions.

Because these are exceptional circumstances, the Government have heard requests from Members on both sides of the House for us to release further details, including information on licence applications in progress, and as full information as we can disclose on the types of equipment that are covered by each extant licence. Recognising the exceptional nature of this issue and the importance of providing transparent and robust information to ensure that Parliament and the public can hold the Government to account, in December we laid in the Library of the House an exceptional release of export licensing data focused specifically on Israel, setting out plainly how many licences remained extant at that time, how many had been granted since June 2024, and how many had been refused.

In summarising that release, let me assure Members that remaining licences relate to non-military items, military items for civilian use, or items not for use in military operations in Gaza. These licences also extend to components in items for re-export to other countries—that is, those that then leave Israel. Ongoing licensing applications are also decided on that basis. In fact, of the 352 licences extant for Israel, as of 6 December 191 were non-military. They included commercial aircraft components, equipment for private manufacturing firms, and parts for submersible vessels for use in scientific research. That left 161 licences relating to military equipment. However, less than half those related to the Government of Israel or the IDF. Most related either to UK components that private Israeli companies would incorporate before re-exporting an item to a third country, or to military-grade equipment for civilians such as body armour for journalists and NGOs.

I can advise the House that recent reporting on this topic does not provide distinctions between items for civilian and for military use, or between items remaining in Israel and those for re-export. The UK is not allowing the direct export of arms for use in Israel’s military operations in Gaza.

[Richard Burgon]

The Minister is giving a detailed response, but may I return him to the issue of the international pool of F-35 spares? Is it the Government’s contention that a conditional licence is impossible—that is, that we could provide F-35 spares, but on the basis that they are not then sent to Israel to be used in Gaza?

[Mr Alexander]

I am acutely conscious of the time, Madam Deputy Speaker. The exclusion from the suspension decision for F-35 components should not, in principle, apply to licences for F-35 components that could be identified as going to Israel for use by Israel. Exports of F-35 components directly to Israel are therefore suspended unless they are for re-export.

Let me return to the specific point that I know has been the subject of much scrutiny in relation to recent reporting outside the House. The majority of military licences approved last year are for components of military items for re-export to third countries, including the UK’s NATO allies, of about £142 million-worth of military goods licensed for Israel and in 2024. The vast majority of that overall value was supporting the production of items for use outside Israel. That includes more than £120 million, or about 85% of the total licence value, for components to support exports of military items from Israeli companies to a single programme for a NATO ally.

These remaining licences have no utility in military operations in Gaza. The suspension of such licences was not required by our export licence criteria, and would have done nothing but harm UK companies and UK businesses engaged in authorised and legal trade. Since September, we have refused all licence applications for military goods that might be used by Israel in the current conflict in line with the suspension decision. More applications were refused in 2024 than in the preceding four years combined.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Let me give this reassurance. As soon as that step was taken, my team and I started work to try to ensure that we could return to a situation of full support for Ukraine. I will not detail everything that was involved over the last week, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that a huge amount of hard work, discussions and diplomacy was used with all our allies, and others, to ensure that we could get yesterday to go as well as we hoped it would. I am pleased that we made progress—I think that is very important for Ukraine—and I am extremely pleased that support has been put in, backed by the UK. So that is what I did once I understood what had happened. I am pleased with where we have got to, but, as ever, we must go further.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Q6. Disabled people in my constituency are frightened because they are again hearing politicians use the language of “tough choices”. They know from bitter experience that when politicians talk about tough choices, it means the easy option of making the poor and vulnerable pay. Instead of cutting benefits for disabled people, would not the moral thing—the courageous thing—to do be to make a real tough choice, and introduce a wealth tax on the very wealthiest people in our society?

[The Prime Minister]

The Conservative party left a broken welfare system that locks millions out of work, and that, in my view, is indefensible, economically and morally. Of course we must support people who need support; we must help those who want to work to get back into work, and I think there is a moral imperative in that. My hon. Friend talked about a wealth tax. We have raised money through the energy profits levy, taxing non-doms and air passenger duty on private jets, but this is not a bottomless pit, and we must kick-start growth to secure the economic stability that we need.

Ukraine

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. I went to Kyiv just the other week. There were many moving aspects, but one was some of our NHS workers in a burns unit in a hospital in Kyiv. I met some who had returned from the frontline with the most appalling burns—very difficult to see, watch and look at—and civilians who been caught up in blasts. I, for one, was very proud that we had NHS workers there, with the health workers of Ukraine, working together to do the very best they could for those in that burns unit. That is a small example of what she speaks of.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the growing push from numerous countries for a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. That must be a just peace. Too many lives have already been lost following Putin’s illegal and brutal invasion. But I am alarmed by the issue of deploying British troops on the ground in Ukraine and British military planes in the skies over Ukraine, because there is no getting away from the fact that that would risk our country coming into a direct military conflict with a nuclear-armed Russia. The consequences for millions of people in our country and across Europe of such a war and nuclear conflict really do not bear thinking about. Given the enormity of such a decision, will the Prime Minister commit to ensuring a vote in the House of Commons before any such deployment, in keeping with the important principles of our parliamentary democracy?

[The Prime Minister]

The risk to our country is if we do not fight for the peace. My position on the sustained deployment of our troops is that this House would of course want to discuss that and vote on that, but we are nowhere near that stage at the moment.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question. As he will understand, I will not go into details on the Floor of the House as to our capabilities, but he will know that the involvement so far—for example, in relation to the attack in April—related to Israel’s self-defence, when missiles were raining in on Israel. That is the support that we did provide and would always be prepared to provide.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)]

Today, as we remember all those killed in the 7 October Hamas attack and all those killed day after day in Israel’s war on Gaza and now Lebanon, the case for peace, the preservation of human life and the protection of human life has never been more urgent and compelling. An immediate ceasefire is desperately needed to stop all the killing, end the war crimes, free the hostages and get aid into Gaza. However, it is clear that Israel’s right-wing political leaders will keep rejecting ceasefires and keep violating international law without stronger international pressure. To get Israeli leaders to back a ceasefire, do we not need to see tougher action, including an end to all arms sales, as recent international court rulings demand?

[The Prime Minister]

I completely agree that we need an immediate ceasefire. That is what we are working for and what the US is leading on. I do not agree with a complete ban on arms sales. That would include a ban on arms being used for defensive purposes. Looking at the attack of only a few days ago by Iran, I think the House will understand my position on this and the position of many across the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am delighted to hear about the new community diagnostics centre at my right hon. Friend’s local hospital. We are working tirelessly to reduce the overall NHS waiting list, which has come down by around 200,000 since September last year. That is an achievement in light of the pressures from industrial action, but she is right: there is more to do. Our productivity plan will free up clinicians to spend more time with patients and, to her point, our long-term plan for the NHS will ensure that we train more doctors and more nurses to meet the workforce requirements of the NHS for the future.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Q2. Thirty thousand Palestinian deaths are not enough to move this Prime Minister to end arms sales to Israel. The killing of British aid workers is not enough to move the Prime Minister to end arms sales. It even seems that an all-out assault on Rafah, with all the death and destruction that would entail, would not be enough for him, unlike the US, so just what on earth would be enough finally to move this Prime Minister into the same position as the majority of the British public and end arms sales to Israel?

[The Prime Minister]

I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, unlike the US, the UK Government do not directly sell arms to Israel, and neither do the UK Government offer any military lethal aid packages to Israel, as the US does. He should not conflate these issues.

As part of the Government’s robust arms control regime, we regularly review advice to ensure compliance with international law, and Ministers act in accordance with that advice. As the hon. Gentleman knows, our position with regard to export licences is unchanged following the most recent assessment, and it is, indeed, in line with other partners, including the United States.

Iran-Israel Update

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I send my condolences to you, Mr Speaker, on the loss of your father, who will have been very proud of you.

This is a very dangerous moment. The UN Secretary-General rightly told the Security Council last night:

“Now is the time to defuse and de-escalate”.

Ordinary people in both Israel and Iran, and across the whole region and the wider world, will pay the price if this escalates. The Secretary-General also rightly reiterated the call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, as the Security Council voted for, given the huge loss of life there. This is the first opportunity that we have had to question the Prime Minister since the recent killing of British nationals in Gaza. Is he planning to appoint an independent adviser to scrutinise the Israeli inquiry into those deaths of British nationals, similar to what Australia has done?

[The Prime Minister]

I spoke to Prime Minister Netanyahu after that incident to express our very strong concerns about what happened. We are carefully reviewing the initial findings of Israel’s investigations into the killing of the aid workers, and welcome the suspension of two officers as a first step. The findings must be published and followed up with an independent review to ensure the utmost transparency and accountability.

Protecting Steel in the UK

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am not ignoring that investment; I am making the case that it is a bad deal and that there is a better deal for the resources available that would satisfy far more of our objectives and give a better future to Port Talbot.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I grew up, like the shadow Minister, in a region ripped apart by the economic vandalism of Thatcher. Is it not the case that the Tories are repeating the mistakes of the past and claiming there is no alternative, when the reality is that steel jobs can not only be saved, but even created, with a proper plan that takes advantage of the global demand for steel—especially low-carbon, green steel—which is going up fast?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I agree with that case. That is why this is such an important issue for Parliament to consider. I always acknowledge that there are parts of it that are difficult. Decarbonising industry is an urgent priority, but in some cases the technology is uncertain or expensive. It is my contention, however, that getting it right is more important than doing it quickly or necessarily at the cheapest cost. To state the obvious, we can decarbonise anything by shutting it down. The cheapest path will likely always involve outsourcing most of our industrial production to other places. If we do that—it is the Government’s plan for Port Talbot—we will spend millions of pounds, and we will see huge job losses and global emissions rise as we effectively offshore our emissions and then claim that is progress. That would be a fundamental political mistake with potentially enormous ramifications for the future of the transition to net zero. We should know that from our own past.

As my hon. Friend mentioned, when I was a child growing up in the north-east in the 1980s, there was a major transition. We saw the end of coalmining and shipbuilding and the old nationalised industries as we knew them then. Many colleagues across the UK have similar personal experiences. Nobody today would propose that the UK should have an economic or energy policy based around large-scale coalmining, but how we manage the transition is fundamental. In the past, as a country, we have got that wrong. Levelling up—supposedly the Government’s flagship policy—is surely a recognition that the scars of those years and the impact of deindustrialisation are still felt in many parts of the UK today, yet the Government risk making exactly the same mistakes all over again.

The decision of this Conservative Government to hand over half a billion pounds of taxpayers’ money to make thousands of people redundant is quite simply a bad deal. It is a bad deal for workers, a bad deal for taxpayers and a bad deal for the future of our industrial sovereign capability. Worse than that, it sends a message that decarbonisation effectively means deindustrialisation. I put it to Conservative colleagues that if net zero becomes a zero-sum game for working people, that risks the very support that we need to achieve the transition. There must be public consent for the transition, and that requires our economy to benefit from better jobs and better opportunities. This is the real politics of getting net zero right: it is not imaginary meat taxes or made-up claims about seven bins but whether the transition is just and fair and delivers something for Britain’s workers. The Government’s plans so far are simply none of those things.

The race to decarbonise is a race for jobs and prosperity, and this could be a hugely significant time for steel. As the Minister knows, I have many criticisms of Government policy, and I believe that we have weak business investment, weak productivity and weak growth as a result. I recognise that the Port Talbot site is in a challenging financial position, but the Government have already recognised that uncompetitive energy prices need tackling. We have procurement rules in place that are seeing significant steel content from the UK in infrastructure projects, and we are getting close to carbon border adjustment mechanisms both here and in the EU, which will be a major development. CBAMs in particular will likely completely change the economics of the UK steel industry. There is no reason to believe that the UK cannot have a vibrant steel sector, so to make this irreversible decision now, when the policy background is clearly improving, seems odd indeed. Better options are on the table; anyone claiming otherwise is simply being disingenuous.

When it comes to Port Talbot, there is a specific alternative proposal available—the multi-union Syndex plan—which is not far off Tata’s original proposals, which were known as Project Kronus. Other proposals have also been put forward. All we ask is that the Government consider the issues involved and do not make any fundamental decisions that are irreversible.

It is widely accepted at Port Talbot that blast furnace No. 5 is at the end of its life and may need to close, but blast furnace No. 4 will not need to be relined until 2032. For the Government to force that furnace to close now, as we await the arrival of new technologies, is an act of economic vandalism. We acknowledge that electric arc furnaces are part of the answer, but we do not want to put all our eggs in one basket, which means being open to all technologies, and especially direct iron reduction, which is one of the most exciting possibilities.

The counter-arguments put forward so far are not robust. I believe that safety issues could be managed in the same way that they are every day at a major steelworks. The claim that 90% of what Port Talbot does could be met with an electric arc furnace does not stand up, as key products in packaging and automotive materials cannot be produced in one. At Scunthorpe, I understand that the lack of sufficient grid connections and the cancellation of the first carbon capture programme back in 2010 have severely limited the options available. Again, I ask the Government not to make irreversible decisions, to be open to all technologies and to recognise the growing importance of and demand for steel.

We are not the only country with these challenges, but everywhere we look, other countries are doing it better. Take the Netherlands, where Tata is in negotiations with the Government on DRI technology; Sweden, with the collaboration between SSAB, Vattenfall and LKAB; Canada, where ArcelorMittal signed an agreement some time ago to build a new green steel plant; or the news just in of a $5 billion investment in a new green steel plant in Saudi Arabia. Everywhere we look, other countries are seeing growth and investment in their steel sector, but we are seeing the opposite. I put the question to Ministers: why is the UK pursuing this path alone?

At Business and Trade oral questions, the Minister has been asked repeatedly—mostly by Government Members—about the assessment the Government have made of becoming the only major economy without primary domestic steel production. Her answers hint that she might get it, but the Government have ploughed on regardless. I ask her again: how can any Government possibly justify making thousands of workers redundant in the name of cutting our carbon footprint only to pay to ship in more carbon-intensive steel from halfway across the world?

It does not have to be this way. We cannot afford to blow this opportunity, repeat the mistakes of the 1980s and leave regional inequality entrenched—we can still see those scars. That is why I always say that, under Labour, decarbonisation will never mean deindustrialisation. I want green steel, and I believe that the workforce are our greatest asset in delivering that. Any real plan for green steel must cover the whole industry. It must be open to all technology that is available, and it should fundamentally be a story of new jobs, new opportunities, new exports and renewed British economic strength, rather than outsourcing our emissions and pretending that that is progress.

Action Against Houthi Maritime Attacks

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out the economic impact of attacks on shipping on everyone here at home and across the world. There is a meaningful economic cost to container ships rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope. That is an important reason why we must have freedom of navigation and it demonstrates why it is right that we take action. Prosperity Guardian is the operation providing more maritime security in the area.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

To follow up on the Prime Minister’s comments on Gaza, 25,000 people have now been killed there, so is it not time that our Government did more than express sympathies and instead used their diplomatic power to prevent more deaths there, starting with a UN Security Council motion calling for an immediate ceasefire and ending arms sales to Israel?

[The Prime Minister]

Our actions are clear: we have trebled our aid commitment this year, we are doing everything we can to open more crossings, and recently we worked to deliver a new humanitarian land corridor from Jordan into Gaza, with 750 tonnes of lifesaving food and aid arriving on its first delivery. We can be proud of the impact that we are having, but of course, there is more to do, and that is why we will continue to have those conversations to get more aid in.

Defending the UK and Allies

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have addressed that previously. With regard to South Africa’s referral of Israel to the ICJ, that development is unhelpful. We do not agree with it and I do not believe it is right. As we have previously stated, Israel has a right to take action in self-defence against Hamas. It is important that it does that in accordance with international humanitarian law, and we will continue to make that point to it.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

We are now in a very dangerous moment, when the war in Gaza risks spreading into a much wider and even more deadly war across the middle east. There is a real risk that our country will find itself in yet another war in the middle east that it cannot get out of easily. To avoid any wider war, do we not now need an emphasis on de-escalation and diplomatic efforts? Does the need to seek such a wider diplomatic solution not make it more urgent to be pushing for a ceasefire in Gaza?

[The Prime Minister]

As I said, no one wants to see the conflict in Gaza go on a moment longer than is necessary. We support a ceasefire, but it must be a sustainable ceasefire that will last. That means Hamas no longer in power in Gaza and no longer able to threaten Israel with rocket attacks and other forms of terrorism. Hamas simply do not represent the Palestinian people’s legitimate aspirations.

Israel and Gaza

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

It is important that people act in accordance with international law, that those procedures are followed and, indeed, that Israel takes every precaution to avoid harming civilians. In the meantime, we will ensure that we get humanitarian support into the region. Those efforts are starting to bear fruit, but we must double our efforts.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

The horrific death toll of this crisis now includes 1,800 Palestinian children. More children will die while the bombs are dropping. The aid needed will not get through. The United Nations Secretary-General is calling for a ceasefire; so is the EU foreign policy chief and so are France, Spain, Japan and Brazil. We need more than just expressions of regret about the loss of civilian lives; we need action to stop it. Is it not time to back a ceasefire, binding on all sides?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that is a mischaracterisation of some of what some of those countries have said. I spoke to the President of France last night and also leaders from the US, Canada, Italy and Germany. We are united in supporting Israel’s right to self-defence, acting in accordance with international law, and committed to getting humanitarian aid into the region, as we are now doing.