Commons committee sets out 'concerns' over arms exports to Israel
The International Development Committee sent an eight-page letter to Jonathan Reynolds and Foreign Secretary David Lammy over the decision to exempt components for F-35 fighter jets from suspended arms exports to Israel.
The committee raised fears that those weapons components could be used in attacks by Israel on aid workers and humanitarian infrastructure on Gaza.
Chair Sarah Champion, Labour MP for Rotherham, wrote: 'As the Committee identified in its report, there are a number of avenues for accountability in response to violations of IHL (international humanitarian law), including the suspension of arms export licences.
READ MORE: Patrick Harvie and Angus Robertson face-off over Israel divestment
'I remain concerned that there is a real risk that weapon components, manufactured in the UK, could be used in attacks, including those on aid workers or humanitarian infrastructure.'
The MP noted that Foreign Office minister Stephen Doughty previously claimed that stopping F-35 exports to Israel would require the 'entire programme' to be suspended as it is 'highly integrated'.
However, Champion insisted it was 'fundamental' that the UK Government adheres to international law.
'I am concerned by the decision to exempt F-35 components from the suspension of arms export licences, given your assessment that there are 'clear risks' of serious violations of IHL by Israel in Gaza,' she wrote.
The MP then noted the UK's obligations under the Genocide Convention, asking if ministers accepted that the duty to prevent genocide has been triggered.
She asked: 'If so, at what point was this duty triggered? If not, why not?'
Champion also noted the UK Government's obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) which states that it is 'strictly prohibited' for a state transferring arms where the transfer would 'violate its relevant international obligations under international agreements to which it is a Party'.
Exports are also banned if the arms 'would be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes,' Champion added.
The MP put several questions to ministers, including if it accepts exporting F-35 components is incompatible with its international legal obligations, and if it accepts Israel is using the components to commit war crimes.
Another question asks: 'What legal authority does the Government rely upon to support its position that a positive contribution to peace and security is to be balanced against a clear risk of the arms being used to commit serious violations of IHL/IHRL?'
READ MORE: YouGov poll predicts result in every Scottish seat – see the full map
Champion asked the ministers to reply by July 11.
The UK Government has been contacted for comment.
It comes as a legal challenge over the UK's arms exports to Israel is currently underway.
We told in January how the Labour Government refused to review Israel's access to F-35 parts exported from the UK despite evidence that the planes have been used to bomb 'safe zones' in Gaza.
In September 2024, Labour blocked around 30 of 350 UK arms export licences to Israel after accepting that there existed a 'clear risk that they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law'.
However, parts for F-35 fighter jets were specifically excluded – despite media confirmation that the jets had been used by Israel to bomb the Al-Mawasi humanitarian zone in Gaza in July 2024.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
19 minutes ago
- BBC News
PM 'agrees' benefit changes deal with Labour rebels
The government is expected to announce a deal shortly with Labour rebels on its planned benefits changes. Multiple sources tell the BBC existing claimants of the Personal Independence Payment (Pip) will continue to receive what they currently get, as will recipients of the health element of Universal Credit. It is also expected that the support to help people into employment will be fast forwarded so it happens concessions amount to a massive climbdown from the government, which was staring at the prospect of defeat if it failed to accommodate the demands of over 100 of its backbenchers. Sign up for our Politics Essential newsletter to keep up with the inner workings of Westminster and beyond.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Starmer caves in to rebels on benefits
Sir Keir Starmer has caved to welfare rebels by agreeing that existing disability claimants can keep their benefits. In a major concession, The Telegraph understands that the Prime Minister has agreed that nobody currently getting the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) will lose out. Instead, changes to who is eligible for the money, which is given to help people with the extra cost of disabilities, will only apply to new claimants. The change will cost the Treasury around £1.5 billion a year by the end of the decade, slashing the original savings from the welfare cuts plan by a third. The move puts further pressure on Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, to find more money in her autumn Budget, potentially through tax rises. Sir Keir was forced into the change to avoid what looked set to be the first defeat in the House of Commons of his premiership in a crunch vote on welfare on Tuesday. The changes to the overall package have been secured after the leaders of a rebellion, who had attracted backing from more than 120 Labour MPs, held talks with the senior government figures. Sir Keir was understood to have been personally involved. One leading rebel said 'major concessions' had been won. The source said: 'We wanted to unite around something better. We are getting there.' Uprising It is now expected that Labour MPs who led the uprising against the welfare cuts will recommend to fellow rebels that they accept the package and back down. It remains possible that some of the more hardline of the 127 Labour MPs who backed an amendment that would have killed off the welfare legislation could still hold out and vote against it, including members of the Socialist Campaign Group. But leading rebels who are more moderate believe that the new package is different enough to make sure that the legislation is passed with Labour votes on Tuesday. Under the original version of the Personal Independence Payment cut, some 800,000 of the 3.7 million current claimants would lose money. Now they are expected to keep it. The original welfare package, which included changes to Universal Credit, was meant to save the Treasury some £4.6 billion by 2029/30. Letting all current PIP claimants keep their benefits unaffected would see that drop to £3.1 billion, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a leading economic think tank - a reduction of £1.5 billion. The exact amount the updated package of changes will raise remains to be seen, given a number of different alterations to the plan are understood to have been agreed with rebels.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
‘Never Here' Keir's lack of face-time whips up biggest rebellion of his career
MPs and their staff gathered on the House of Commons terrace on Thursday, brought together by cheap drinks, a splendid view of the Thames and a desire to shake off the drama of the week in Westminster. Sir Keir Starmer, facing the biggest rebellion of his premiership, was nowhere to be seen. 'You don't see him on the terrace,' a minister said, reflecting a frustration among Labour MPs that so-called 'face time' with the Prime Minister has been seriously lacking since his election win last July. 'A lot of the MPs elected last year don't know him, they haven't met him, and they don't have a pre-existing relationship with him,' they said. 'That means they don't really have loyalty to him. He and his allies haven't reached out to build those relationships.' Downing Street's obvious shortcomings in 'party management' were laid bare this week, when more than 120 Labour MPs signed an amendment that would kill off Sir Keir's welfare reforms. Sources said No 10 staff were taken aback by the scale of the revolt, which threatens to force a government defeat on Tuesday. It would be an embarrassing and troubling moment for Sir Keir, who has a majority of 156 seats and believed, until recently, that he did not need to spend time in Parliament hobnobbing with his colleagues. Data show that he has voted just seven times in Parliament since last July – missing a vital opportunity to spend time in the division lobbies, talking to Labour MPs and hearing their concerns. In their first year in office, the previous four Tory prime ministers each voted at least 22 times. Sir Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, Sir Keir's Labour predecessors, voted 13 times and 41 times in their first year, respectively. This week's welfare rebels say they are just as angry about the lack of care from Downing Street as they are about the Government's policy – to reduce the number of people who can claim disability and sickness benefits. The frustration with Sir Keir's lack of engagement is making the rebellion even worse. 'He's a fundamentally unsociable person,' said one MP who plans to vote against the Government's bill next week. 'It wouldn't take a lot, even just a text now and then, to know that he cared.' Defenders of Sir Keir say he has had an extraordinarily hectic first year in government, managing a long list of foreign trips that have seen him dubbed 'never here Keir'. Those visits have paid dividends in the form of three trade deals, a leadership role in the 'coalition of the willing' and a friendship with Donald Trump. But critics in the party say that Sir Keir must remember that his position in No10 is based on support among Labour MPs, not foreign leaders. 'It's been noticed and there's a lot of resentment in the party towards Keir, in that people don't feel seen, loved and heard,' said one Labour MP. Veterans of party management in the Commons say that the prime minister's personal touch is crucial in maintaining a happy party – and winning votes. Bob Blackman, the chairman of the Conservative Party's 1922 Committee of backbench MPs, said that the most important thing is for the prime minister to be available to backbenchers when they vote. 'Starmer has only voted seven times in the last year,' he said. 'When you're in the lobbies, you get the chance to say, 'Can I have a quick word, PM?', and you catch up. 'That's one of the ways that the PM can glad-hand people and let them let off some steam. 'If you're not in the Commons and the tearoom making yourself visible and available to backbenchers, then they feel estranged from the PM and get terribly frustrated.' Mr Blackman served as the committee's executive secretary from 2012 to 2024, overseeing dozens of rebellions against Theresa May, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss from Tory MPs. He said that when the anger was rising among MPs, he would advise the chief whip that 'the PM needs to go into the tearoom after PMQs and have a bite to eat and a cup of tea'. 'That's quite important in the whole scheme of things, and to my knowledge Starmer doesn't do that at all,' he said. Among Labour MPs, some of the blame has been placed on Claire Reynolds, Sir Keir's political secretary, who is in charge of maintaining good relations with backbenchers. They point out that some Labour MPs have never even met the prime minister – a sign that she has not been doing her job properly. Neil Duncan-Jordan, one of the Labour backbenchers to have signalled their opposition to the Government's benefit cuts, was asked by BBC Radio 5 Live's Matt Chorley if he had ever had any contact with Sir Keir. 'Never had a conversation with him' 'No,' he said. 'I think there's a handful of us. Obviously I've been in the chamber when he's been in, answering questions and so on and so forth, but I've never actually had a conversation with him.' Sir Anthony Seldon, the political historian, said a hands-off approach to Parliament was becoming an increasingly common phenomenon among British prime ministers. 'The trend is for prime ministers to do it less and less, and it is because the job has become more demanding, because Parliament is no longer the theatre that it was,' he said. He said the modern prime minister's time is taken up with 'overseas duties and dealing with the media', making Parliament more 'marginal' to Downing Street. But he warned: 'At the end of the day, prime ministers don't fall because they lose the support of The Telegraph or the BBC, or GB News. They fall because they lose support of Parliament.' One notable exception to that rule is Sir Keir's political hero, Sir Tony, who stood down after 10 years in power to make way for Mr Brown. Sir Tony also had little interest in attending parliamentary debates and votes, and told MPs that at the end of his last Prime Minister's Questions in June 2007. 'I have never pretended to be a great House of Commons man, but I pay the House the greatest compliment I can by saying that, from first to last, I never stopped fearing it,' he said.
