Asked by
To ask His Majesty's Government what representations they have
received following their announcement to restrict certain arms
sales to Israel.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth
and Development Office ( of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, as was expected and as is understandable, the range of
reactions to our suspension of some export licences to Israel
illustrates the depth of feeling about the conflict. Our
licensing criteria state that the Government will not issue
export licences if there is a clear risk that they might be used
to commit or facilitate serious violations of international
humanitarian law. We have concluded that there is a clear risk.
Our priority remains achieving a ceasefire in Gaza with hostages
released, civilians protected and aid flooding in.
(Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but will
she reflect on the fact that this announcement coincided with the
cold-blooded and barbaric murder of six Israeli hostages by
Hamas? What sort of message does this send to Hamas and its
backers in Iran? Also, what does it say to Israel, a democratic
ally, which is basically being accused by us of being a rogue
state when it is defending itself against terror?
May I ask the Minister a question about licences? Out of 350,
only 30 have been suspended, on the grounds of humanitarian
problems and the treatment of detainees, but surely if there was
a serious legal problem, they would have all been suspended. Can
the Minister confirm to the House that this decision was based
specifically on legal advice and not on internal Labour
politics?
of Darlington (Lab)
If the noble Lord wants to talk about internal Labour Party
politics, he has come to the right place. I have spent a lot of
time on this topic, and I can assure him at this Box—and he must
hold me to this—that this decision had nothing to do with
internal Labour Party politics, and neither should it.
On the 30 licences, as the noble Lord is probably aware, there
are a number of licences. Not all the items the licences are
subject to could be used either in Gaza or for actions that might
compromise international humanitarian law, such as food-testing
kits. That is the reason why 30 specific licences have been dealt
with as they have.
(Lab)
My Lords, had all the licences been suspended, the accusation
from the Benches opposite would have been valid. It is because
those 320 licences have not been suspended that we are assured
that we are prepared and willing to help Israel defend itself
against Iran or Hezbollah, or whatever external forces may be
intent on destroying the State of Israel. Does my noble friend
not agree that that confirms that this process has been entirely
proper?
of Darlington (Lab)
This decision came at the conclusion of a process which the
Foreign Secretary initiated upon his appointment, where a review
was commenced. The earliest opportunity to make both Houses aware
of the conclusion of that review was on the first day we
returned, earlier this week, and that is the reason for the
timing of the announcement.
(CB)
My Lords, yesterday the House debated a new Holocaust learning
centre in Westminster and much was made of the vacuous statement
“never again”. Today we hear of support for arms for Ukraine. We
supply them to Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other countries that kill
their opponents. Why do the Government undermine protection for a
state that needs them for self-defence to combat murderous
terrorists whose avowed aim is to kill Jews? Has she read the
American book? Everyone loves dead Jews; the living, not so
much.
of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, the UK remains and will always be committed to
supporting Israel's security and wider regional stability. The
Foreign Secretary reaffirmed this with his Israeli counterparts
on a recent visit to Tel Aviv on 19 August with the French
Foreign Minister, and our position has not changed in this
respect. We continue to support Israel's right to defend itself
and to take action against terrorism, provided it does so in
accordance with international law.
(Con)
My Lords—
(LD)
My Lords—
(Lab Co-op)
My Lords, we will hear first from the noble Lord, Lord Howard,
and then from the noble Lord, Lord Purvis.
(Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. The Foreign Secretary in his
Statement said that the commitment to comply with international
humanitarian law is not the only criterion in making export
licensing decisions, and he justified the decision to exempt the
F35 equipment on other criteria. So does it not clearly follow
from that the Government could, had they wished, have decided
against a ban on the ground that Israel is acting in self-defence
against an organisation committed to its destruction and
recognised by our own Government as a terrorist organisation? In
the light of that, will the Minister now accept that when she
told your Lordships' House on Tuesday that the Government were
required to suspend certain export licences, what she said was
both factually inaccurate and grossly misleading?
of Darlington (Lab)
No, I do not accept that. The legal test we have is that there is
a clear risk, and the advice we received was that in the case of
these 30 licences it could present a clear risk—not that it has
done, not that there is a breach, but that there is a clear risk.
This is not an embargo on sales of arms to Israel. I am fairly
confident that the noble Lord will know that the case of the F35s
is different. We supply components which are part of a global
supply chain, and stopping those components being provided could
cause very difficult disruption and there would be an impact on
global security.
(LD)
My Lords, we support the Government's moves regarding the
situation in Gaza, but I hope all parts of the House have been
shocked by the extreme violence of the outpost settlers in the
West Bank. The outpost settlers are acting contrary to
international law but also to Israeli law. Shin Bet's director
said in August that the violence was being provided to support
legitimacy and praise by extreme elements of the Israeli
Government. Will the Government assure the House that they are
looking at potential restrictions of licences and sanctions of
those parts of the Israeli Government which are actively, under
the decision by the internal security service of Israel,
facilitating the outpost settler violence?
of Darlington (Lab)
All I am going to say on that for today is that we recognise
Israel's need to defend itself against security threats, but we
are deeply worried about the methods that have been employed and
by reports of civilian casualties and the destruction of civilian
infrastructure, and by the ongoing military operation in the West
Bank and the attacks there. It is in no one's interest for
further conflict and instability to spread in the West Bank. The
risk of instability is serious; there is a need for de-escalation
and that need is urgent.
(Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that the decision to reduce arms supplies to
Israel will offer great encouragement to Hezbollah, Hamas and
Iran. In view of the importance of that decision, can we see the
full details of the advice that the Government received which led
them to this very unfortunate decision?
of Darlington (Lab)
My Lords, I encourage my noble friend to read and consider the
summary published alongside the Statement on Monday. That will
probably answer many of his concerns.
(Con)
My Lords, further to my noble friend Lord Howard's question, I
recall, when I was a Minister in Defence, having to look at
export licence applications and requests. You had to determine
what was being supplied, make a linkage to where it was going and
then make a reasoned assumption as to what it might be used for.
To the best of our ability, we tried to apply these tests
objectively. I do not recall any reference to other criteria
entering that assessment process. When did this change?
of Darlington (Lab)
The assessment process has not changed; this assessment was made
on the basis of clear risk and our ability to have sight in
theatre of what was being done, alongside reports about issues of
aid and treatment of detainees. I believe this is consistent with
the approach taken by the previous Government. We have not had
sight, rightly, of the legal advice provided to them and their
decisions are for them to comment on—we make no criticism of or
comment on that. The decision we made was based on the advice we
received.
