Ensure no UK-made weapons used to ‘ethnically cleanse' Palestinians, MP urges
The UK Government must suspend all arms exports to Israel to remove the risk of British-made weapons being used to 'ethnically cleanse' Palestinians, the Commons has heard.
Labour MP Steve Witherden said Gaza is 'already a slaughterhouse' as he urged ministers to detail their 'red line' which would halt further exports.
The MP for Montgomeryshire and Glyndwr added the 'true scale' of UK military exports to Israel 'remains unknown and unaccountable' before raising questions over the supply of 'crucial' components to Israel connected to the F-35 fighter jet programme.
We cannot condemn atrocity whilst simultaneously fuelling the machinery that enables it.
Labour MP Steve Witherden
Business minister Douglas Alexander said the UK Government is not selling F-35 components 'directly to the Israeli authorities' and the export licence prevents 'direct shipments for Israel for use in Israel'.
MPs were told the UK's exports of spare F-35 parts are part of a global supply network and exporters have 'no sight and no control over the specific ultimate end users for their export'.
In September last year, Foreign Secretary David Lammy announced the suspension of around 30 arms sale licences to Israel amid concerns a 'clear risk' exists that they could be used to breach international humanitarian law.
The Government said exports to the global F-35 programme would be excluded from the suspension decision, except where going directly to Israel, to avoid 'prejudicing the entire' scheme.
Al-Haq, a Palestinian human rights organisation, which has brought a legal action against the Department for Business and Trade over its decisions, said the 'carve-out' gives 'rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'.
Mr Witherden, leading an adjournment debate on arms and military cargo export controls and Israel, told the Commons: 'The Foreign Secretary's recent condemnation of Israel's action as 'monstrous' was welcome but incomplete for my very same Government continues to facilitate such actions.
'We cannot have it both ways. We cannot condemn atrocity whilst simultaneously fuelling the machinery that enables it. We cannot claim to uphold international law while profiting from its breach.'
Mr Witherden raised several issues, including asking the Government to explain how it defines 'defensive' weapons and what makes an F-35 component compatible with this definition.
He said: 'It's the Government's position that the need to continue to supply F-35 components outweighs the risk of genocide and, if so, is there any circumstance that would lead to the UK stopping that supply?
'The Government has claimed that there are red lines that would trigger a halt to exports, but Gaza is already a slaughterhouse.
'Children are emaciated or dying of hunger. Hospitals have been intentionally destroyed. Israel's leaders vow to wipe out Gaza and still the weapons flow.
'So finally I ask the minister where is our red line? I call on this Government to suspend all arms exports to Israel to ensure that no British-made weapons are used in Israel's brutal plans to annexe, starve and ethnically cleanse the Palestinian population.
'The credibility of this House depends not just on what we condemn but on what we enable and history will remember we enabled too much.'
Mr Alexander began by condemning the 'act of barbarism' by Hamas in Israel on October 7 2023, which killed around 1,200 people, before he warned that Israel's operations have been 'indefensible', 'disproportionate' and 'counterproductive to any lasting peace settlement'.
The minister reiterated that the UK Government in September last year suspended arms exports licences for items to the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) that could be used in military operations in Gaza.
He said: 'This measure is still in place and I'd like to reiterate that based on our current assessment of potential breaches of international humanitarian law, we are not licencing military equipment provided directly to the IDF that could be used for military operations in Gaza.
'It is right to acknowledge that our export licences granted in relation to Israel cover a wider remit than simply those items that may be used in Gaza.
'There are a relatively small number of licences for the IDF relating to equipment which we assess would not be used in the current conflict, including – for example – parts of air defence systems that defend Israel from acts such as the major aerial attack from Iran in April 2024.
'We also think it is right for us to continue providing military grade body armour used by non-governmental organisations and journalists and to provide parts to the supply chain which are ultimately re-exported back out of Israel to support the defence of our Nato allies.'
Mr Alexander also said: 'Undermining the F-35 programme at this juncture would, in the view of the Government, disrupt international peace and security, Nato deterrence and European defence as a whole.
'In relation to components for the F-35 aircraft, our exporters provide these to a global spares pool and the common production line for new aircraft where they have no sight and no control over the specific ultimate end users for their export.
'Put plainly, it is not possible to suspend licencing of F-35 components for use by one F-35 nation without ceasing supply to the entire global F-35 programme. It was therefore judged necessary by the Government to exclude F-35 components from the scope of the suspension.
'But let me be very clear, the UK Government is not selling F-35 components directly to the Israeli authorities and the licence that allows the export of F-35 components was amended in September to specifically make clear that direct shipments for Israel for use in Israel are not permitted.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
25 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Letter of the week: The politics of poverty
Photo byI wholeheartedly support Gordon Brown's urgent call to action on child poverty in your recent special edition. The sad but undeniable truth is that child poverty is not just a statistic, but a defining fault line in British society today. It is the greatest driver of social division, a scar on our national conscience, and, if left unchecked, a threat to the future prospects of millions of children. As Brown rightly notes, this is not simply a moral emergency; it is an economic and educational crisis. We cannot talk about fixing Britain without talking about child poverty. Nor can we talk about restoring fairness or social mobility without tackling the structural barriers that trap children in disadvantage. Unless we address the deep-rooted educational inequalities that mirror and reinforce child poverty, from postcode lotteries in provision to the hollowing out of early years and special-needs support, we will fail to give every child a fair start. Millions believe that we are all better off when we care for the worst off. That compassion must now be matched by policy. Because child poverty is not inevitable. It is the result of political choices. And with the right choices, we can lift the next generation out of poverty and into promise. Mike Ion, Shrewsbury Food for thought One of my earliest memories is visiting the clinic with my mum to collect my orange juice and cod-liver oil, provided free by the government to keep me healthy. At my primary school there was free milk for everyone every day. This was about 1946, when the country was virtually bankrupt after fighting the war. Later, at secondary school we all had a midday meal of meat and two veg and pudding, again free. This was not just socialist ideology – nothing was withdrawn by Churchill or Macmillan. It was taken for granted by both parties that children must be properly nourished. Compared to those days the country is now enormously wealthy, but children go hungry. What has happened? John Lowell, Cheadle Hulme Brown's bairns I find it more than curious that in Gordon Brown's guest-edited child poverty issue there is no reflection on the fact that the one part of the UK where levels of child poverty are dropping is where he lives – in Scotland. Why has he not mentioned this? Child poverty in the UK has risen to 31 per cent while that in Scotland has dropped to 22 per cent. Surely there is a story worth looking at here. Ernie Watt, London Relative riches In 1950 my parents had to give up our modern house in Birmingham because they couldn't make ends meet, and we moved to an old terrace house with an outside toilet and no hot water. The present houses in Ladywood would have seemed lovely. We of course had no phone and no car, and our clothes were hand-me-downs (so was my bike) or were made by my mother. But we had a radio and a cat, I played cricket and football in the street, I could go to the park and to the library, a government scheme enabled us to build a bathroom, I had two parents who loved me and loved each other, and through Mr Tunnicliffe and Miss Swift at Rookery Road Junior School and through the eleven-plus, things changed for my sister and me. I guess we were poor, though we were typical of our street. After reading the New Statesman issue, I still don't have a very clear picture of what poverty means in 2025. I need stories, and also an impression of how typical they are. And maybe we need to set the problem and the desired actions about poverty alongside the questions Rowan Williams raised about how democracy recovers a grounding in solidarity. John Goldingay, Oxford Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Lineker's red card Although Gary Lineker is on the right side in the Gaza debate, it was only proper that he left the BBC for his mistake (Media Notebook, 23 May). Though I do feel he has become a victim of one of the pitfalls of social media. It's so easy to hit share within seconds of seeing content only to notice something sinister moments later when the damage has already been done. So what will happen to the social media outlet that allowed the post in the first place? I'm guessing nothing. Maybe this is another reason we still need the old media Alison Phillips talks about. Some research first, then the story. Rob Grew, Birmingham Trump's ties 'Superhuman narcissism' (Neil Kinnock, 23 May) is one but not the only explanation for Trump's behaviour. For example, his failure in months to bring the peace in Ukraine he boasted he'd achieve within hours can be explained, as FBI and congressional investigations have shown, by his loyalty to Vladimir Putin. Former allies of Russia's president have admitted to interfering in US elections. Trump may, therefore, owe a lot to Putin. Similarly his failure to safeguard the planet boils down to another favour returned. For this election campaign, while he didn't quite receive the $1bn in contributions he reportedly pushed for from oil executives, it was close. So again, he owes them. He's a narcissist, but he won't bite the hands that feed him. David Murray, Wallington Rivers of life Thank you for the interview with Robert Macfarlane (Encounter, 23 May). I hope there will be more articles about the environment in the front pages because, as with the water issue, the environment is political. Flood risks can be reduced at next to no cost by introducing beavers. Carbon can be sequestered without spending billions on carbon capture and storage simply by preserving peatland. You can't chop down old orchards and woodlands and expect the same ecological benefits from compensation planting elsewhere. Children in poverty can benefit from, among other things, access to nature. Here in Cambridge, there are children from poor households who have never seen the River Cam, even though they live just a mile away. Ecological literacy is important and as long as this Labour government bats away people who care about, well, bats and other wildlife, voters will desert them. Tim Tam, Cambridge Write to letters@ We reserve the right to edit letters [See also: Gary Lineker and the impartiality trap] Related
New Statesman
25 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Mike Berners-Lee: 'Being a billionaire can make people go nuts'
Illustration by Ellie Foreman Peck 'We need to completely reset the idea that it's OK to be dishonest in public life,' Mike Berners-Lee told me on a bright spring afternoon at the New Statesman's offices in London's Hatton Garden. The 61-year-old environmentalist radiated with the same quiet rage I recognised from his latest book, A Climate of Truth. In it, he argues that misinformation and dishonesty have become normalised in British politics, which has had a calamitous effect on any discussion of the climate crisis. 'We have a political culture in which you can get away with saying things that don't honour the truth,' he said, 'and it becomes harder to defend arguments that don't stack up.' One crucial example of this, outlined in the book, is the moment in September 2023 when the then prime minister, Rishi Sunak, announced the government's intention to grant new oil and gas licences. In doing so, he advanced the persistent but flawed idea that by increasing domestic production, the UK could become self-sufficient using oil and gas extracted from the North Sea, ending our reliance on imports and lowering UK consumers' energy bills. What this argument fails to take into account is that British fossil fuel prices are set by international energy markets and have little, if anything, to do with North Sea output. In other words, the prime minister's reasoning was at best a distortion of the truth and at worst, a lie. Fed up with Sunak and other politicians' 'abusive dishonesty', Berners-Lee, who is a professor in practice at Lancaster University, set out to compile a handbook for readers feeling similarly furious. In A Climate of Truth, he criticises those who, he believes, have helped to sow confusion over the severity of the climate crisis. Berners-Lee spent much of his career as an academic, specialising in carbon pricing, the system that aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by assigning a cost to carbon dioxide. In recent years, however, Berners-Lee's role has evolved beyond academia: he's published four books in five years, drawing on his expertise to warn of the consequences of humankind's 'failure to find an anthropocene-fit way of living'. His 2019 book There Is No Planet B already feels as though it was published in a different era of climate action: one in which Greta Thunberg led hordes of children in her Skolstrejk for Klimatet and Theresa May signed the UK's 'Net Zero by 2050' target into law. It is an entertaining to-do list of preventative measures to stave off the most pernicious effects of climate change. In contrast, A Climate of Truth is angrier and more direct. It was published just nine days after the Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, denounced Net Zero 2050 as 'impossible', telling a press conference on 18 March that the target could not be achieved 'without a serious drop in our living standards or by bankrupting us'. Sunak and his energy secretary, Grant Shapps, both come in for criticism in the book, but it is Boris Johnson for whom Berners-Lee saves the most vitriol, describing him as a 'serial propagator of bullshit'. Two of the most egregious examples of this – the partygate scandal and the £350m for the NHS Brexit promise – are both neatly catalogued in an appendix at the back of the book. It is Johnson's election as prime minister in December 2019 that Berners-Lee holds up as the point at which deceit was 'normalised'. Berners-Lee told me that since then the public has been 'in an abusive relationship with our politicians'. Mike Berners-Lee was born in London in 1964 to Mary Lee Woods and Conway Berners-Lee, two computer scientists. The pair met working on the Manchester Mark One computer, one of the earliest stored-programme computers, in the late 1940s. Mike is the youngest of four; his eldest brother, Tim Berners-Lee, created the World Wide Web in 1989. 'I look back now and particularly think what my mum would make of the trajectory computing has taken,' he said. 'I think she'd be horrified by the unintended consequences.' Those unintended consequences include not only the rapid, often unregulated development of artificial intelligence, but also the political and cultural power of tech barons. Berners-Lee points to Elon Musk, the billionaire owner of X, who last year reposted content from the far-right agitator Tommy Robinson during the riots in Southport. Musk also accused Keir Starmer of two-tier policing following the Prime Minister's crackdown on the rioters. 'I think he's nuts,' Berners-Lee told me. 'Being a billionaire has a tendency to make people go nuts.' In A Climate of Truth, Berners-Lee accuses tech barons and other 'malign influences' of 'creating targeted fake content to corrupt democracies'. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Berners-Lee writes that to break out of this fake-news doom cycle, users must take their data elsewhere (he has abandoned X for its more progressive, if duller, successor, BlueSky). But his tirade against fake news does not end with the digital world. He also rebukes the mainstream media, noting a recent Daily Mail headline in which the paper described the latest report by the UN-mandated International Panel on Climate Change as 'climate hysteria'. This type of coverage, he claims, feeds into the normalisation of dishonesty in public life. the Times, the Telegraph and even the BBC have all, in Berners-Lee's view, allowed this atmosphere of dishonesty to grow. His bolshy vision for overcoming these cycles of 'bullshit' is to make it 'socially unacceptable' to get news – any news – from these kinds of sources by ostracising people who read them. His orders are clear, but the challenge is obvious. More than two million people read the Mail every day. Convincing readers to abandon the paper will take more than pointing out instances of dubious coverage, especially those who likely now believe that the very lines they have been reading are true. While he does not encourage boycotting the BBC (it is 'not yet completely useless') Berners-Lee warns viewers should engage with the public broadcaster with a 'large pinch of salt'. Channel 4, in his view, is better. Though Berners-Lee wears his political biases openly (his dislike of the Conservative Party is obvious), his criticism is not limited to the right. We discussed the government's decision to allow a third runway at Heathrow, spearheaded by Rachel Reeves in her plan for growth. 'Reeves has been saying some things that are either not well informed or are really badly informed,' he said. 'In which case, you have to question the competence of her and her advisers.' He pointed to the pushing of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) as a way of making air travel more environmentally friendly. 'You don't have to spend very long with somebody who properly understands Sustainable Aviation Fuel to understand it's not sustainable at all,' he said. One method of creating SAF, he explained, is by using waste cooking oil and 'there's nowhere near enough of that to make even the faintest dent in our aviation fuel needs'. Berners-Lee said this is simply another example of greenwashing to secure political gain, fulfilling the government's coveted growth mission at great cost to the environment. Where does Berners-Lee see his place in all of this? Dismantling the climate scepticism that has taken hold in the political-media class will take a lot of time and effort. He doesn't want to be 'stuck going around year after year just trying to shout more loudly about how much trouble we're in,' he told me. Understanding where it stems from is vital and 'that's what the book is about'. The lack of progress on climate change 'doesn't have poor judgement at its root,' he told me. 'It has flat-out deceit.' [See also: Inside No 10's new dysfunction] Related
The Herald Scotland
27 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
What happened with Scottish Government WhatsApp messages?
Here's what you need to know. What happened with government WhatsApp messages? WhatsApp messages pertaining to government business are discoverable via Freedom of Information. This was something that the Scottish Government was aware of during the Covid pandemic. Read More: The UK Covid inquiry heard evidence that Professor Jason Leitch, the national clinical director during the period, had reminded ministers of the fact and told them: "WhatsApp deletion is a pre-bed ritual". Ken Thomson, who was director general for strategy and external affairs under Ms Sturgeon, was found to have written in a civil servant WhatsApp group: 'Just to remind you (seriously) this is discoverable under FOI. Know where the 'clear chat' button is.' He added: 'Plausible deniability are my middle names. Now clear it again.' Did ministers delete them? They did. In August 2021, then First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said all communications made during the Covid pandemic would be made available to the public inquiry including "emails, WhatsApps, private emails". She admitted at the inquiry last year she had deleted the messages, as had her deputy John Swinney. Her successor, Humza Yousaf, later issued an apology and said there was "no excuse" for the communications having been erased. Boris Johnson, who was the UK Prime Minister at the time, also faced criticism after around 5,000 messages went missing. (Image: PA) What would the proposed law change do? The current Freedom of Information (Scotland) act came into force in 2005. The proposed bill would change the act to introduce penalties for the destruction of material that could be subject to public scrutiny. If done deliberately or recklessly, even before a request is made, deletion would be a criminal offence. IT would also remove a power from the First Minister - which has never been used - which allows him or her to override FOI rulings made by the Scottish Information Commissioner. What has been said? Ms Clark said: "It is completely unacceptable for politicians and officials to wipe WhatsApps, texts and other messages about the work of government and public bodies. "Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney still have very serious questions to answer about the disappearance of all of their WhatsApp messages about the SNP's handling of the Covid-19 pandemic. 'Their explanations about the unavailability of these messages is simply not good enough given the lives lost and the catastrophic decision to admit infected patients into care homes at the height of the outbreak. "Nicola Sturgeon, in particular, has offered up remarkably similar excuses to Boris Johnson when failing to provide WhatsApp messages from her phone to the Covid public inquiry. " David Hamilton, the Scottish Information Commissioner, welcomed the Bill and said it was time to modernise FOI for the digital age. 'In the 20 years since it was introduced, FOI has had a big impact, with more than 1.4 million requests made to Scotland's public bodies,' he said. 'After 20 years though, it is undoubtedly time for a refresh — not least because there have been massive changes in both the way we access information and the way public bodies deliver their services.' The Scottish Government said: "Scotland has the most open and far-reaching Freedom of Information legislation in the UK. As this Member's Bill has now been introduced, it will be scrutinised by Parliament and we will consider its detail.'
