Israel: Arms Exports

Question

14:36:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the remarks by Baroness Chapman of Darlington on 3 September 2024 (HL Deb cols 1065-69), whether they had discretion not to suspend the arms exports to Israel which they suspended.

My Lords, the assessment that there was a clear risk that certain UK exports might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law meant that such exports were no longer permitted under our strategic export licensing criteria, and were thus suspended. The SELC are statutory guidance, from which the Government may depart only when there is a good reason. Moreover, the UK’s international obligations, such as under the Arms Trade Treaty, remain binding on the UK under international law, irrespective of whether the SELC are being applied. My noble friend Lady Chapman was therefore quite correct to say that, under the criteria, the Government were required to suspend certain licences.

I thank the Minister for that answer but, when the Foreign Secretary announced the suspension, he was careful not to use the word “required”, and specifically referred to the fact that international humanitarian law was not the only factor to be taken into account. Whether one thinks that all arms exports to Israel should be suspended or no arms exports to Israel should be granted, surely we can all agree that Parliament must be given an accurate reason for the Government’s decision. Is not the very fact that the suspension is only partial proof that, contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, told your Lordships on 3 September and subsequently, the Government had a discretion in this matter that they chose to exercise in a particular way?

I must reiterate that my noble friend Lady Chapman was absolutely correct to say that, under the criteria, the Government were required to suspend certain licences. The decision not to suspend the F35 licences was a departure from the criteria, and Ministers anticipated such a course when the criteria were introduced. However, our international obligations remain binding on the UK under international law, regardless of whether the SELC are being applied. So, for example, our actions to depart from the SELC and continue the export of items for the F35 programme still have to comply with the Arms Trade Treaty. Article 7 of that treaty requires a balancing exercise, considering factors including the risk of serious violation of international humanitarian law and whether exports “would contribute to or undermine peace and security”. Exports are prohibited under this article unless the risk of negative consequences is overriding. Finally, the Government have been clear about the international humanitarian risks in this case, but also that F35 licences cannot be suspended without serious prejudice to the entire programme and, therefore, to international peace and security. Thus, the exemption of F35 licences was a case-specific decision based on specific factors, while the suspension of other licences was mandated by the criteria.

My Lords, the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and others have all condemned Israeli brutality and genocide against Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. The International Criminal Court has declared Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, guilty of war crimes and issued a warrant for his arrest. Will the Minister agree that, in continuing to supply arms to Israel, however diplomatically we put it, we are complicit in the genocide of Palestinian men, women and innocent children?

Ultimately, these are matters for the courts to determine, not the Government. However, the clear risk of serious breaches of international humanitarian law has led us to suspend those licences. I will say one further thing: Prime Minister Netanyahu has not been found guilty of any breaches up until this date.

My Lords, are the Government taking a bit of a pick-and-mix attitude to international law? In the case of Prime Minister Netanyahu, what about the law of sovereign immunity? He has immunity as a head of state, and it is a state that never signed up to the International Criminal Court. The Government need to be clear on what they consider to be international law and what is not, and not just pick and choose.

I can only reiterate what I have just said, which is that this is a matter for the courts, not the Government, to determine. However, we have made our own decisions about the clear risk of serious breaches of international humanitarian law, which have led us to suspend the licences being debated.

My Lords, on 15 October my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne asked a Written Question of the Attorney-General, who I am pleased to see in his place. He asked whether the Attorney-General’s advice was that licences to export arms to Israel had to be suspended. The Attorney’s reply cited the usual convention that his advice was confidential. But, on 5 September, the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, referred expressly to the substance of that advice when explaining to this House why arms exports had to be suspended. Her answer therefore both breached the convention on Attorney-Generals’ advice and contradicted the Foreign Secretary’s explanation, because he said in the other place that the Government had a “discretion” on whether to suspend the licences. Can we now finally have a clear answer to a clear question? Were the Government legally required to suspend those arms export licences or did they have a discretion that they chose to exercise in a particular way?

As I have made clear, our assessment was that there was a clear risk that there would be serious violations of international humanitarian law, so my noble friend was correct in her decision. The strategic export licensing criteria are cumulative, in that before a licence can be issued it must comply with all the criteria. Criterion 5 of the SELC is a separate criterion that allows the Government to weigh national security concerns when considering whether to license an export, and as such provides a discretionary basis on which to refuse exports. There is no scope to balance criterion 2(c) on international humanitarian issues against criterion 5.

My Lords, is it not a fact that we all know and can agree on that, during the course of the war in Gaza, schools, hospitals and aid convoys have been attacked, and families have been attacked in areas that the Israel Defense Forces has declared as being safe to go to? Rather than looking at the intricacies of legal arguments, is it not an absolutely clear fact, bearing in mind the proportionality principle of international humanitarian law, that it would be an astonishing argument to say that there have been no violations of international humanitarian law?

I thank my noble friend for raising those issues. We strongly oppose Israel’s resumption of hostilities and urgently want to see a return to a ceasefire. More bloodshed is in no one’s interest. The reported civilian casualties resulting from the recent strikes are appalling and we urge all parties to return urgently to talks, implement the ceasefire agreement in full and work towards a permanent peace. For the sake of the remaining hostages and their loved ones, for the people of Gaza and for the future of two peoples who have suffered so much for so long, we will continue to strive for a return to the path of peace.

My Lords, these Benches agreed with the assessment carried out last summer. But, given that there have been considerable and grave breaches since then, why have the Government not reviewed their assessment, to take into consideration the more recent developments and the concerns over breaches? Given that the assessment concerned the risk of grave breaches in Gaza, we have also seen—with almost impunity—the deteriorating situation in the West Bank. Surely the Government should be using the precautionary principle and we should not be trading with the Occupied Territories and should be restricting further activities, because these export licence restrictions represent less than 10% of all licences. Surely the Government must now use the precautionary principle and widen restrictions even further, especially with regard to the West Bank?

My Lords, we keep all these decisions under review. The noble Lord is right to say that not all the licences have been suspended. Some of the items are not being used actively in combat; they are being used for humanitarian aid and other issues, to help, for example, the NGOs in those territories, so we did not feel that a full suspension was necessary.