Official Report 1012KB pdf
The next item of business is a debate on motion S6M-16571, in the name of Lorna Slater, on Scottish Enterprise funding for arms companies. I invite members who wish to participate in the debate to press their request-to-speak buttons now or as soon as possible.
14:50
I was very proud to be part of the Scottish Government under First Minister Humza Yousaf when he spoke up so movingly on the plight of the Palestinian people, who were being subject to collective punishment for the brutal atrocities that were committed on 7 October. The suffering that they have endured at the hands of Israeli forces has been horrific. Ordinary citizens, half of them children, have been subject to bombardment for months and deprived of food, water, electricity and medical care in some of the worst war crimes of the 21st century.
Tens of thousands of people have been killed; schools, hospitals and homes have been bombed into rubble; lives have been cut devastatingly short; and more than 1 million people have been displaced. Now, in front of the world, the Trump Administration is calling for widespread ethnic cleansing. There are International Criminal Court arrest warrants out for the architects of the crisis and on-going investigations for breaches of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
The Scottish Government has rightly spoken strongly against the killing and against Donald Trump’s plan. The Scottish Government has been clear in its support for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza—something that was supported by the Parliament back in 2023. Yet, since the assault began, the Scottish Government has given more than £1 million to companies that have armed Israel and that have enabled that destruction.
We could debate the shameful role of the United Kingdom Government, which has approved those arms sales to Israel, and I expect that there would be a lot of unity among MSPs from across the chamber. Foreign policy is not devolved to Scotland. Scotland cannot control what the UK Government does on the world stage, but we can control where our public money goes and which companies and industries we choose to support.
The principle of our motion is very simple: if a company has profited from the sale of arms and weapons to countries that are complicit in war crimes and genocide, it should not receive public money from the Scottish Government. The Scottish Government has said that no public funding should be going to supply arms to Israel but, since 2019, at least £8 million in Scottish Enterprise grants has been awarded to 13 companies that are involved in arms dealing and manufacturing. A number of those businesses have directly supplied weapons and equipment to Israel during its assault on Gaza.
The Scottish Government must put its money where its mouth is and stand up for human rights. This morning, Oxfam and Amnesty International joined the calls for that funding to be stopped, with Oxfam describing the Government’s position as “morally incoherent”.
In 2019, the Scottish Greens secured a commitment from the Scottish Government that all Scottish public bodies would conduct human rights checks on companies, including arms companies, before funding them. In November 2023, The Ferret revealed that, despite Scottish Enterprise having conducted 199 human rights checks, not a single firm had failed, despite some having armed states that have been widely accused of war crimes, including Israel and Saudi Arabia.
Amnesty International has called the current human rights due diligence process “inadequate”, and it states that the process is
“failing to ensure that Scotland upholds its international obligations”.
If companies that are arming war crimes are not beyond the pale, who is? The Scottish Government might say that its hands are tied but, following the invasion of Ukraine, it rightly introduced measures against companies that trade with Russia. Why is Israel different?
When we invest public money in our economy, we have a responsibility to use it to shape the future that we want to see and invest in the kinds of organisations that share our vision for a fairer and greener future. It should go without saying that companies should not be profiting from human suffering or the war crimes that we have seen in the past 15 months. It is not honest for the Scottish Government to dismiss that by saying that the grants do not go directly towards weapons or munitions manufacturing. What is the moral distinction between funding the bomb and funding the bomb factory?
The Scottish Government is still choosing to give public money to companies that profit from the sales of arms and technologies that are currently being used by the Israel Defense Forces to commit human rights abuses in Gaza. BAE Systems, Raytheon and Leonardo have all received grants from Scottish Enterprise, and all three have been involved in arms sales to not only Israel but Saudi Arabia, which has used them to inflict a humanitarian crisis on the people of Yemen. In 2019, the Court of Appeal found those arms sales to have been granted illegally.
Many of the companies are reporting mega profits. BAE, which reported £3 billion-worth of profits last year alone, is profiting from human suffering. Our public money is increasing suffering and misery instead of building a fairer and better world, but it is not at all clear to me that mega corporations that rake in that kind of profit need public money at all. BAE, for example, is already the biggest arms company in Europe, and Raytheon is the second biggest in the world. Scottish public money would be better spent on supporting small businesses, co-operative businesses, social enterprises and rural businesses. Scotland’s small clean energy, nature restoration and organic food businesses could have made very good use of that money.
The Scottish Government has called clearly for an end to all United Kingdom arms sales to Israel, but Scottish public money is still being granted to companies that are complicit in the manufacturing of arms that are used by Israel. The Scottish Government must urgently overhaul the human rights due diligence process so that every penny of public money that is handed out by Scottish Enterprise goes towards making the world a better, fairer place in which human lives and human rights are respected.
Many of my colleagues in the chamber have backed calls for a ceasefire and condemned the destruction in Gaza. I hope that they will join me in saying that enough is enough and calling on the Scottish Government to end all public funding to companies that are complicit in the arms trade with Israel.
I move,
That the Parliament notes with concern that at least £8 million of Scottish Enterprise grants have been awarded to 13 companies involved in arms dealing and manufacturing since 2019, including £700,000 to Leonardo and £500,000 to Raytheon Systems; further notes that a number of these businesses have directly supplied weapons and equipment to Israel during its assault on Gaza; understands that, despite this, no company has failed the current Scottish Enterprise human rights due diligence checks; believes, therefore, that the current due diligence process at Scottish Enterprise is failing to ensure that Scotland upholds its international obligations, and calls on the Scottish Government to end all public funding to companies complicit in the arms trade with Israel.
As ever with these debates, we have next to no time in hand, so members will be expected to stick to their time allocations.
14:58
Given the backdrop to this important debate, it is important that we recognise that much that will be discussed today unites us all. The debate provides an appropriate opportunity for the Parliament to reiterate its unwavering support for the ceasefire in Gaza and to call for every effort to be made for it to be extended. The Parliament should be proud of the humanitarian assistance that the Scottish Government has provided to the people of Gaza—Lorna Slater referred to that—and it should join us in calling once again for the recognition of a Palestinian state and two-state solution.
Our debate comes in the week when we mark the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This is a time to remember those who have sadly lost their lives as a result of Russian aggression and, as the First Minister said earlier this week, a time to reaffirm that Scotland stands as part of a united front that supports Ukraine’s independence and seeks to secure peace and deter any future Russian aggression.
I absolutely agree with the minister’s words on Ukraine. On 3 March 2022, the Scottish Government sent a clear instruction not just to arms companies but to all businesses in Scotland to stop trading with Russia, and it asked them to show solidarity with Ukraine. Given that no equivalent instruction has been sent in relation to Israel, can the minister explain why the Scottish Government apparently thinks that Israel’s assault on Gaza is less severe or significant than Russia’s assault on Ukraine?
I ask Ross Greer to be patient for a little bit, because I am about to come to the point about consistency in the way in which we approach due diligence on human rights issues.
The atrocities on 7 October 2023 and the subsequent unspeakable events in Gaza with the loss of so many lives, as well as the war in Ukraine, are tragedies on an unimaginable scale. We must be united in our efforts to condemn the aggressors and support those who strive for peace. Those events also act as a reminder of how fragile peace can be, of the uncertainties in our world and of the continuing threat to the precious democratic freedoms that we hold so dear.
The Government has consistently called for an end to all arms sales to Israel from UK companies, including Scottish ones. We do not believe that public funding should go towards supplying arms to Israel. We should reaffirm and reinforce that position today.
If Iran is still able to arm and to produce arms for export, surely it is unfair to stop Israel defending itself.
I can give you the time back for the intervention, minister.
I have already outlined the backdrop against which the debate is taking place and said that we should unite on many key principles, which I hope John Mason will support.
Although it is currently the responsibility of the UK Government to issue licences for arms exports, we should be clear and united in our calls for the UK Government to use its powers to stop arms exports to Israel and to protect the lives of those who have suffered so much.
As the Scottish Government’s amendment states, the focus should be on extending the ceasefire, securing the release of the remaining hostages and ensuring that humanitarian aid reaches the people of Gaza. It also outlines support for a two-state solution and calls on the UK Government to officially recognise the state of Palestine in order to break the political impasse that has condemned Israelis and Palestinians to successive cycles of violence.
The Green motion does not address the wider backdrop against which this debate is taking place. The Government believes that such issues should be aired and voted on today, but I appreciate that the Greens have been consistent in their support for a recognised Palestinian state, too.
I am aware of the concerns that have been expressed about the support that Scottish Enterprise provides to companies that are involved in the defence sector in Scotland. Scottish Enterprise operates a human rights due diligence process when it awards any funding, including funding to companies in the defence sector. It does not provide funding for the manufacture of weapons or munitions, in line with the Government’s long-standing policy. We have fulfilled the commitment, to which Lorna Slater referred, that was given back in 2019.
The due diligence process is designed to ensure that public funds are not directed to companies that engage in activities that contravene international law or human rights standards. The checks involve an assessment of each company’s operations, with cross-referencing against a number of independent resources. Any awarding of grants follows careful scrutiny and assurances that the companies in question meet the required ethical standards and have passed the due diligence checks.
The Scottish Government funding that is given to many of the companies that are being discussed in the context of this debate is largely directed towards the diversification away from core defence activities. We must also acknowledge that Scotland benefits from being home to highly skilled industries that contribute to national and international security at the same time. However, I appreciate the concerns that have been raised and the calls for Scottish Enterprise to review its human rights due diligence checks to ensure that it takes into account a product’s end use, so we will support the Labour Party’s amendment to ensure that the due diligence process is always as robust as it can be.
Our amendment speaks to the values that the Government holds. As I said, it calls for peace in Gaza, for humanitarian aid to be provided and for a lasting two-state solution. It urges the UK Government to suspend arms exports to Israel and it sends a clear and unequivocal message that the Parliament does not believe that any public funding should go towards the supply of arms to Israel.
I move amendment S6M-16571.3, to leave out from first “notes” to end and insert:
“reiterates its unwavering support for the ceasefire in Gaza, for the calls for all efforts to be made to ensure an extension of the ceasefire, for humanitarian aid to reach people in Gaza, and for the remaining hostages to be released; recognises and supports the humanitarian assistance that the Scottish Government has provided to the people of Gaza; calls for recognition of a Palestinian state and a two-state solution; recognises that Scottish Enterprise does not provide funding for the manufacture of weapons or munitions; notes that Scottish Enterprise operates a human rights due diligence process in the awarding of any funding; recognises that responsibility for issuing licences for the export of arms is reserved to the UK Government; calls for the suspension of arms exports to Israel, and does not believe that any public funding should be going to supply arms to Israel.”
15:04
I echo Richard Lochhead’s comments about welcoming a peace solution, if it holds, in the middle east.
Sometimes, motions—including the one today—force members to pick sides, so let me tell the Greens whose side the Scottish Conservatives are on. We are on the side of the young engineering apprentices who work in a legitimate industry that is a vital part of Scotland’s economy, and on the side of the aerospace and defence industries, which are investing in creating the skilled engineering jobs that are needed to develop new defence technologies.
We are not on the side of the Greens, who used a protest outside Parliament to intimidate young apprentices as they attempted to attend an outreach event to promote the importance of development of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics skills in the Scottish economy.
Will the member give way?
I do not have time.
The Scottish Greens say that they defend the planet, but we must sometimes ask which planet they are defending. Today’s motion begs that question, again.
We all know that international actors can be unpredictable, which is why Scotland, as part of the UK, must remain at the cutting edge of aerospace and defence manufacturing. Whether it is in renewables, defence or the automotive industry, the future of this world is engineered, and it is entirely legitimate to use our engineering capabilities to deliver what is needed to defend ourselves and our allies from the malignancy of nations such as Russia, or the evil of terrorist forces such as Hamas.
The Green MSPs wear badges saying that they stand with Ukraine, including on equipping it. However, what is President Zelenskyy asking for when he travels the world? Ukraine cannot defend itself with warm words alone: rather, it is asking the UK for the military equipment that is made by the very manufacturers that the Green Party is protesting against. Ukraine needs cutting-edge military capabilities: that is, weapons and munitions—Scottish-engineered ones, I hope. Green MSPs need to get into the real world or—I warn them—they will be living in a far more dangerous one.
Will the member take an intervention?
I do not have time.
The Greens will be living in a world in which we would see more Russian aggression on former satellite states and more unwarranted attacks on freedom and life, such as those that Israel experienced at the hands of Hamas.
When the Greens say that they stand with Ukraine, it means nothing unless they end their dogmatic and depressing campaign against the legitimate defence industry that is operating in Scotland today. If their issue is with how the hardware and technology could be used overseas, they should take their case to the UK export control joint unit, not to the young Scottish men and women who seek to forge engineering careers. I warn them that protests at careers fairs and outside Scottish factories of Leonardo UK or Raytheon UK mean only that the jobs that they support might go overseas to countries that do not have such tight export controls as we have.
The Scottish defence sector does not just ensure that the world is a safer place—it also contributes to our economic security and stability. The aerospace, defence, security and space sectors employ 35,000 people in Scotland, account for £3.2 billion to the economy, and deliver 1,500 much-needed apprenticeships. However, the signals that are being sent to the industry are far from positive or progressive.
I ask this question of ministers: who decreed that Scottish Enterprise will provide funding only to help firms to diversify towards non-military applications for their technology? Why will it not specifically support defence skills and jobs that could then be used in other areas?
We cannot afford to lose that sector. We must therefore work with the industry to ensure that the Scottish Government supports further and higher education and skills that could sustain the sector now and into the future. Scotland could, and should, be proud of its aerospace and defence industries and the many people who work in them.
It is sad that the Green Party has seen fit to introduce such a malign form of political debate into the Parliament.
I move amendment S6M-16571.1, to leave out from “with concern” to end and insert:
“that Scotland is home to a wide range of defence, aerospace and security companies that collectively play a vital role in supporting the UK in its endeavours to assist in its international duties to maintain peace, including via its membership of NATO; understands that the defence, aerospace and security sectors support more than 30,000 jobs, including 1,500 apprentices, and contribute £3.2 billion to Scotland’s economy; welcomes Scottish Enterprise funding that supports these vital sectors and the jobs and investment that they provide; reiterates Israel’s right to defend itself, and acknowledges that policy decisions regarding the arms trade are reserved to the UK Parliament.”
I call Daniel Johnson to speak to and move amendment S6M-16571.2.
15:08
This is an important debate, but we need to approach it with maturity. In all honesty, I agree with things that have been said already by all sides, so it is important that I step through all that.
I very much welcome Richard Lochhead’s approach to the debate, which must be about principles. I will set out mine. The debate must be about Gaza. I do not think that we can look at what has happened in Gaza and in any way condone or support it, at this point. I say that as someone who was clear, after the atrocities of 7 October, that Israel had the right to defend itself. However, what has happened in Gaza is truly horrific, so I do not think that we can be seen to be using our public money to support it.
However, unfortunately—this is where Craig Hoy is right—we cannot separate those issues and those of the defence sector from the real and present danger that we face in this country. We live in unparalleled and unprecedented times.
Will Daniel Johnson take an intervention?
I am afraid that I do not have time. I need to make some progress.
We have to understand what that will take. Keith Brown made some of the points very well yesterday in the budget debate. However, we also need to recognise that there is a wider economic impact from such companies, which we cannot ignore and from which we get benefits. I will therefore step through the motion and each of the amendments.
I very much welcome the Greens’ giving us the important opportunity for a full and frank debate. I also completely agree with them on the seriousness of the situation that we face in Gaza. Some people may argue that the matter is not for the Parliament and that the export control mechanisms are all that should be looked at. That is not good enough: we cannot say that our politics should just stop at the border. We need to ensure and be confident that the money that we spend is in line with the values that we espouse. The Greens are right to bring up those questions, and that is reflected in our amendment.
Likewise, the Scottish Government is correct to outline the processes that are in place. I very much welcome the Scottish Government’s emphasis on the two-state solution, because it is, above all else, vital that we look at how we can bring that back. Ultimately, that is the only way that we can have peace and stability in the middle east.
However, we also need to look at what has been supported. I have spent much time at Babcock at Rosyth and BAE Systems in Scotstoun. The investment in the skills academy at Scotstoun is about providing skills for the people who will build the warships that will keep our sea lanes—and this country—safe. Those skills will have effects beyond that, too.
We have to support the activity and investments of Scottish Enterprise and the other enterprise agencies: we cannot ignore them—albeit that they are difficult.
My issue with the Conservative amendment is that it would completely remove Gaza from consideration. That cannot be right. However, the Conservatives are absolutely correct in that, given that the US has made it very clear that we cannot rely on its resources to defend this country, and given that we have Ukraine—war in Europe—on our doorstep and might well be asked to put boots on the ground in order to protect the peace, we have to have the industries and the capability to build the ships that we need, the radar for the aircraft that will keep our skies safe, and communications equipment so that troops on the ground who might well be asked to keep peace in Ukraine can do so with the equipment and resources that they will need. That is what the defence sector in Scotland provides.
I move amendment S6M-16571.2, to insert at end:
“; acknowledges that across the UK, arms export licences have been suspended for items with a clear risk that they may be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law; calls on Scottish Enterprise to review its human rights due diligence checks to ensure that they take account of where products’ end use is, and that they fully comply with legal obligations under the Export Control Act 2002 and international law, and recognises the contribution of the defence sector in Scotland and the role that Scotland-based businesses have played in defending democracy and freedom.”
15:12
I am grateful to Lorna Slater for making time for this important debate. It brings me up against an aspect of my life that I do not often talk about in the chamber—my Quakerism. I have spent a great deal of my adult life campaigning against aspects and aims of the arms trade. That said, the full-scale invasion of Ukraine added to my thinking on the matter layers of complexity with which I am still grappling, because I believe that, in order for peace to be sustained throughout the world—including that region, in particular—we need to arm Ukraine. It is a nuanced issue for me, and I will unpack some of it later.
However, I absolutely agree with the spirit of the Green Party’s motion on what is happening in Gaza. What the people of Gaza have endured over the past 16 months is unimaginable. Homes have been destroyed, communities have been shattered and loved ones have been lost.
When, last month, the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas finally emerged and was announced, it represented a huge moment of hope after many months of darkness and despair for the entire region. It meant that the work of flooding Gaza with the aid that it had desperately needed and been deprived of for months could begin in earnest. I reiterate my party’s support for that ceasefire, which is so vital to the wellbeing of the Palestinian people. We want the ceasefire to continue and all hostages to be released.
As we have heard today, it has been troubling in recent weeks to hear Donald Trump’s unhinged calls for the Palestinian people to be relocated entirely out of Gaza and for that land to become the so-called riviera of the middle east. It goes without saying that those plans are not only ludicrous but would cause chaos in an already unstable region, and would amount to a flagrant violation of international law.
Instead, we need to redouble our efforts to build a lasting peace, regardless of how remote that possibility feels right now. That begins with the recognition of a Palestinian state that is based on 1967 boundaries and a two-state solution, which is the only way to deliver the dignity and security that both Israelis and Palestinians deserve.
I turn to arms exports. As early as April last year, Liberal Democrats called for the UK Government to suspend supply of arms exports to Israel. For many years now, Liberal Democrats have called for tougher controls on the export of armaments to ensure that they are not used for potential human rights breaches and atrocities. We support the introduction of a presumption of denial for all Governments that are listed in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office—FCDO—human rights and democracy reports as human rights priorities. As such, we accordingly believe that arms exports to Israel should be halted.
In respect of Scottish Enterprise funding, we need to ensure that the current human rights due diligence checks are as robust as possible. It is worth remembering the origins of the checks that this chamber now insists on. A cross-Government human rights due diligence test was introduced only after my party helped to uncover what went on behind a deal that Nicola Sturgeon personally signed with China Railway No 3 Engineering Group during a meeting at Bute house. No due diligence whatsoever was done. It was discovered that CR3 had been blacklisted by the Norwegian state pension fund for gross corruption, and was found by Amnesty International to have connections to human rights abuses.
Will Alex Cole-Hamilton take an intervention?
Do I have time in hand, Presiding Officer?
No—there is no time in hand.
I am afraid that I cannot take an intervention, on this occasion.
Scottish Liberal Democrats helped to force the introduction of new rules. However, in 2022, they then uncovered that at least 49 public bodies in Scotland were still unaware of the Scottish human rights tests, following those deals. That is a very strange and outrageous place to be, and the bodies included Crown Estate Scotland, which has just run the massive ScotWind auction. We therefore have concerns about how robust the due diligence checks are, in practice.
However, we must also recognise that defence is a reserved matter. It is for the UK Government to set the rules on arms exports, and to ensure that the system is robust and that we are meeting our international obligations. It would be inappropriate and ineffective to create a backdoor system to arms regulation in Scotland.
Mr Cole-Hamilton, you need to conclude.
Although I understand that that is not the aim of the Greens’ motion, I fear that it would be the outcome.
15:17
Politics is about the particular, and it is right that, in this motion, we are calling for something specific, tangible and measurable, and entirely achievable. There is no excuse for not answering that call. However, political integrity is also about the broader picture, the deeper truths and the longer pages of history.
The anguish of Palestine did not begin in October 2023. It was not then that people were first ripped from their land or first had their homes bulldozed, their trees uprooted, their pathways blocked, their writers disappeared and their children killed with swift or slow violence. By that measure of history, we, in the global north, have failed. Yes, some of us have failed worse than others; we can weigh the complicity of Washington, Westminster, Brussels and Berlin. However, knowing what we know and seeing what we see—and we do see it, unless we choose to turn away—why do the words for what is done, apartheid and genocide, stick so timidly in our throats? When international law is broken so brutally and blatantly, and when our constituents protest, without violence, at the pain of Palestine and for peace, food and lives, why do our police, prosecutors and courts single them out for such exemplary punishment?
We cannot blame the public this time. Labour and the Democrats both know that. Thousands of voters chose independent MPs because this mattered more to them than anything else. Donald Trump was elected because Democratic voters stayed at home, and the issue that kept them there more than any other was Gaza.
Twenty years ago, Desmond Tutu and Jimmy Carter were both talking about Palestine and Israel. They were not afraid to speak of what they saw, to recognise its reality and to call it by its name. In 2006, Carter said of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem:
“There, apartheid exists in its more despicable forms, that Palestinians are deprived of basic human rights.”
Tutu recognised that it is not enough to have the right sentiments. We need to take the right actions, too, and that means boycott, divestment and sanctions. In 2014, he said:
“Those who continue to do business with Israel, who contribute to a sense of ‘normalcy’ in Israeli society, are doing the people of Israel and Palestine a disservice. They are contributing to the perpetuation of a profoundly unjust status quo.”
Now, that status quo is even more unjust. The death of a child is a grief that we can know about and understand; it is one that we have probably shared or seen. We have held our arms out to the broken and wept for their loss, but tens upon tens of thousands? Can our minds and hearts stretch that far? Is it the very scale of the agony that makes us turn away? Perhaps it is.
Perhaps we could just follow one family—or what used to be a family, now just a woman and her husband—walking back through Gaza after the ceasefire. They are not going home. They have no home left to go to. They are not looking for its remains in the rest of the rubble. They are only looking, in the bleak annihilation, for the bodies of their two children.
That is why people stand in burning rage or silent vigil in city squares across the world. That is why they march or climb or paint or speak upon whatever platform they can find until they are silenced. That is why we are here this afternoon. We are here for accountability, for integrity, for justice and for peace.
We are here for Palestine.
15:21
I thank the Green Party for bringing this important debate to the chamber. Let me say from the outset that I support its calls to end all arms sales to Israel and agree that not a penny of public funding should be going to arms companies, including those in Scotland, that supply weapons or munitions to Israel.
Some have suggested that we are at the beginning of a new world order. I suggest that it more closely resembles disorder than order. We are living at a time when one of our closest allies—which was on the same side as us in world war 2—was, on Monday this week, in the United Nations, on the side of dictators in Russia, North Korea and Belarus. It seems that, whether you choose to invade Ukraine or kill 18,000 children in Gaza, you can now do so with impunity. In the absence of any rules-based order, anarchy will ensue. I suggest that anarchy and chaos in a world with more than 12,000 nuclear warheads poses a real existential threat to humanity.
For those who still believe in a rules-based order—as I suspect all of us in the chamber do—now is the time to ensure that we are, at a minimum, complying with international law and supporting its equal application across the world. That is only one reason why I support calls to halt all arms sales to Israel.
Let me remind members that Israel is a nation that is currently headed by a man who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes including using starvation as a method of warfare. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is also wanted for crimes against humanity including murder, persecution and other inhumane acts. How can we possibly claim to be a bastion of democracy and a standard bearer of international law and human rights when we are supplying weapons to the man who the highest court in the world has demanded face trial for war crimes? We must choose accountability, not complicity.
I just touched on what I think is the legal case for why we should end arms sales to Israel. Let me end my contribution by mentioning the moral case. The Conservative amendment mentions Israel’s right to self-defence but nothing about the Palestinians’ right to self-defence. There is no right to self-defence for those such as my wife’s 95-year-old grandmother, who was kicked out of her house in 1948 alongside more than 700,000 other Palestinians. Their homes were given away by the British and their land occupied by Israel. There is no right to self-defence for those who have lived under armed occupation for decades and who continue to see the eradication of their land and the erasure of their culture and their identity as a people.
Is there anyone who sincerely believes that Israel’s retaliation to those horrific attacks on 7 October 2023 has been proportionate in its self-defence? Was Israel defending itself from five-year-old Hind Rajab when it massacred her with 335 bullets? Was Israel defending itself from two-year-old Laila al-Khatib when an Israeli sniper shot and killed her while she was eating dessert with her grandparents? Was Israel defending itself from four-day-old twins Ayssel and Asser when killing them in an air strike while their father was registering their births?
That is not self-defence—it is slaughter, and our arms companies, our Governments and our nations must play no part in it.
15:25
One of the things that I most regret in a debate that I suppose it is perfectly reasonable that we should have is that, despite the affection and respect that I have for Humza Yousaf, we inevitably find ourselves in different positions on the issue when we would probably, as we have in the past, prefer to work together to find solutions.
I do not know whether it is necessary, but perhaps I should, since some people write to me on these matters, declare that one of my sons married into the Jewish community in the autumn of last year. That has absolutely no bearing on my thinking on these issues, although that has been suggested to me by a number of people. As everybody here knows, I grew up with the Jewish community. I have met many people who have family and friends in Israel, and I understand the need for the state of Israel. I also believe that it remains the case that there are more Muslims in Israel than there are Jews in the whole of the European continent put together—I wonder why that is. It is because we exterminated them all.
I find the motion to be miserable, but I applaud Richard Lochhead’s amendment. I am sorry that the final line of his amendment means that I cannot support it, but I think that it seeks to bring a measure of reason to what is a very difficult discussion on a subject that, at times, it is impossible to be reasonable about.
I remain a critical friend of the state of Israel. I have previously said in the chamber that it is possible, at times, to not support or associate oneself with the actions of the state of Israel while, at the same time, recognising and demanding that it should have the right to defend itself. If we are looking for a long-term solution in some of the actions of recent weeks, we should note that not even the Nazis paraded the coffins of children around while cheering on the dead bodies that they were passing around the street. The de-Hamasification of Gaza will ultimately be the only route to a more lasting peace, but that debate is possibly beyond the one that we are having today—it is, to quote Lorna Slater, perhaps a “morally incoherent” debate.
Will the member give way?
Perhaps, in a moment.
The reality, of course, is that the number of arms that this country is involved in directly supplying to Israel is minuscule, yet Mr Greer, on a megaphone, encouraged people to shout,
“Jackson Carlaw, you can’t hide, you’re committing genocide”
at me and a whole lot of 16-year-old apprentices who were here on 21 February last year to attend a reception celebrating their contribution as apprentices. To be jostled, spat at and personally accused of committing genocide was absolutely reprehensible, and I do not see how any of that assists in any way in the argument before us.
The fundamental concern, ultimately, is that people chant
“From the river to the sea”,
which is the policy of Iran. The policy of Iran is to eliminate the state of Israel. If we were to deny Israel the arms to defend itself, which others can argue about in different contexts and in a different way, we would, frankly, risk encouraging Iran—which is, after all, currently on the retreat with the defeat of Hezbollah in Lebanon and elsewhere—in the view that it can move against the state of Israel and potentially proliferate an even greater conflict and an even greater war. For that reason, to me, it remains fundamental that Israel be allowed to defend itself.
I will finish with the words of Lorna Slater at First Minister’s question time last week, because I think that they are apposite. She said:
“Disinformation is playing an increasingly dangerous role in our communities and our global politics. Promoting lies and misinformation at home and abroad can have serious consequences for all our communities ... Does the First Minister agree that political leaders everywhere must stand up to disinformation?”—[Official Report, 20 February 2025; c 16.]
If only.
15:30
I welcome the motion from the Greens and will vote for it if we are given the opportunity to do so later today. I also welcome the indication from the Scottish Government that it will support the Scottish Labour amendment
“to review ... due diligence checks”.
It is fitting that we are debating the funding of companies that supply arms and munitions that are used in human rights abuses in Gaza. The Parliament has previously voted for a ceasefire, and I hope that, today, a clear message will be sent in support of international law, and that it is unacceptable that Government agencies should give financial support to companies that supply arms that risk being used as part of multiple and repeated contraventions of international law, which have been, and are, taking place in Gaza and the West Bank.
With regard to the specific companies to which the motion refers, we know that Leonardo manufactured 30 Aermacchi M-345 aircraft for the Israeli Air Force, and that Raytheon supplies smart bombs for the IDF—weapons that are among the most lethal targeting technologies to have been used on Gaza’s so-called safe zones. We know that those companies are among a string of US arms firms that have seen dramatic jumps in their stock prices from the onset of the war. Indeed, executives of those firms have described the past 14 months as a business opportunity.
Not a single company has failed any of the 199 human rights checks that Scottish Enterprise has conducted since 2021, nor indeed any of the 178 checks that were conducted between 2019 and 2020. That includes companies, for example, that the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights has named for potential complicity in unlawful air strikes in Yemen.
The test that the UK Government applies in relation to arms export licences is whether the use of a component is likely to lead to the abuse of human rights or to be used in a way that is in breach of international law. We know that the targeting of civilians and of facilities such as hospitals, the bombardment of Gaza, the illegal settlements in the West Bank, the use of white phosphorus and the blockade of essential supplies are among the breaches of international law that have taken place in Gaza and the West Bank.
According to responses to freedom of information requests from Amnesty International, in the due diligence process that Scottish Enterprise carries out, the level of checks that it performs on a company is measured only against
“the level of financial support it receives, rather than the company’s involvement with or links to human rights abuses.”
That due diligence process seems to go against the United Nations guiding principles on business and human rights and neglects consideration of the end use of components, which is the central issue. I listened with interest to Richard Lochhead’s contribution in that regard.
I very much hope that, as a result of the debate and the focus that it has brought to the issue, the Government will ensure that there is a full review of the due diligence processes that are used by Scottish Enterprise. The Parliament must be clear in the message that we send that we will honour international law and that we stand in support of human rights and with the people of Palestine.
15:34
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, although it is a shame that we do not have more time this afternoon to spend on this important topic, which is arguably the most important topic of our time.
As other members have done, I condemn the Israeli Government’s actions and military operations since 7 October 2023, and indeed a lot of what it did in the region before then.
The attacks on 7 October 2023 were, of course, brutal and horrific, but the devastating, horrifically immoral and unethical, and totally disproportionate military response by the Israeli Government and the IDF will scar this time in history for many decades to come. That response has had a devastating impact on the people of Palestine. According to the UN, 45,000 Palestinians have been killed in that time. That is the equivalent of half my constituents. Mention has been made of the fact that the numbers involved are hard to relate to. We are talking about the equivalent of half the people in one of our constituencies, and tens of thousands more have been injured.
All those events are subject to legal consideration. I pay tribute to the Scottish head of legal for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, who has been documenting the situation throughout the current period. As was articulated by my colleague Humza Yousaf, who is sitting in front of me and who has shown tremendous leadership on the issue not just domestically but internationally, we must hope that we see a time when international law is upheld. International law—along with humanity, negotiation and mediation—is the only mechanism through which a resolution can be achieved to the most challenging issue not only of the 20th and 21st centuries, but of times past.
The ceasefire is welcome in providing a breathing space, but President Trump’s proposals are—it is hard to put this into words—unconscionable. In the 21st century, we have a President of the United States who is proposing ethnic cleansing. How can we even contemplate that? It creates such a sense of hopelessness.
However, we have seen on the streets of Scotland the solidarity that there is with those who are suffering. I pay tribute to all my constituents who have shown solidarity with those who have been affected. I also pay tribute to all those in my party and the Scottish Government, and across the political spectrum, who have been calling for a ceasefire since the period of conflict began and who have condemned the disproportionate actions and the immorality of Hamas and the IDF.
It has been clarified that the funding that is provided by Scottish Enterprise does not go towards the manufacture of munitions, but I understand why there is a focus on making sure that Scottish Enterprise stringently abides by that position.
Will the member take an intervention?
The member is about to conclude.
As the MSP for the area where the Leonardo facility is located, I will continue to engage with the company to make sure that, in future, it has no direct engagement with the IDF, which is engaging in abhorrent acts to our fellow human beings elsewhere in the world.
We move to closing speeches.
15:38
I have been moved by the thoughtful contributions by members on all sides of the chamber. I, too, pay tribute to all the people who have been needlessly killed in the tragedy of war, which intensified in Israel and Palestine after the horrific pogrom of 7 October 2023, and in the brutal and disproportionate campaign of retaliation against the Palestinian people that amounts to collective punishment. It was welcome that the British Government suspended the processing of arms export licences to Israel in September last year.
It is also important that, at all levels of government, we uphold our international obligations. Prior to my election to Parliament, I worked as an account manager at Scottish Enterprise, and I agree that Scottish Enterprise should carry out appropriate due diligence checks so that we can be sure that state aid is not used to facilitate defence sales to states that are suspected of committing war crimes. The process should be reviewed to minimise the risk that products that are manufactured in and exported from Scotland might be used in breaches of the law of armed conflict.
We should also consider the products that the UK Ministry of Defence and UK defence contractors import from Israel. We should look to reduce those imports in favour of strengthening our domestic industrial base.
The motion that is before us fails to acknowledge the importance of the aerospace, defence, maritime and security industries in Scotland. They support highly skilled, well-paid and unionised advanced manufacturing jobs and they have a central role in our national defence and the collective defence of the NATO alliance. All the state aid that is in question today has supported projects that do just that.
The state-of-the-art applied shipbuilding academy at Scotstoun in Glasgow, for example, received a grant of £360,000 from Scottish Enterprise. That new facility will allow apprentices to gain hands-on experience with mock-up ships, as well as giving them access to cutting-edge STEM innovation labs. The shipbuilding academy is intended not only to be an asset of BAE Systems—a company that I worked for—but to be a facility that will be open to the entire shipbuilding industry in Scotland and to its wider supply chain. It will guarantee a thriving shipbuilding industry in this country for years to come.
Crucially, the applied shipbuilding academy will bolster national capabilities and support the continued growth of the largest manufacturing industry in Glasgow and in the west of Scotland, which supports more than 3,200 jobs. The shipyards in Govan and Scotstoun in Glasgow have operated since 1864 and 1906 respectively. In that time, they have never exported any naval ships to the state of Israel. Green members should be careful not to demonise shipyard workers in an industry that is synonymous with Glasgow and critical to our national security. As the member for Eastwood mentioned, the abuse of apprentice shipbuilding workers outside the Parliament last year was shameful.
Before Christmas, I visited Govan shipyard—I note that it is in the constituency of the Rt Hon member for Glasgow Pollok—for the steel-cutting ceremony of HMS Sheffield. I encourage members to visit the Glasgow shipyards and see the work that they are undertaking for the Royal Navy. That work is critical to our national security in an increasingly volatile geopolitical environment.
As the Prime Minister said yesterday,
“European countries must do more for their own defence”
in the face of increasing aggression from Russia and other expansionist regimes, which have scant regard for national sovereignty or international rules of co-operation to preserve peace. Now, 35 years on from the end of the cold war, is the time not to weaken our defence industry—the logical end point of the Green motion—but to strengthen our defence capabilities and industrial base. Although the Scottish Government should ensure that there is no link between Scottish Enterprise grant funding and defence exports to Israel and other states that are suspected of war crimes, Scottish Enterprise should absolutely be playing its part in bolstering our aerospace, defence, maritime and security industries, which support thousands of jobs and underpin our sovereign defence capability.
15:42
Two events in the past week say more about the conflict in the middle east than any speech or motion today does. The first was the sickening sight that was paraded on our television screens of the tiny black coffins of Kfir and Ariel Bibas, who were nine months old and four years old when they were kidnapped and murdered by Hamas. Their lifeless bodies were paraded around the streets by gun-toting masked men. How very brave of them. How very brave of those men, brandishing their guns and covering their faces—they were too afraid to show the world what a monster really looks like. The deaths of Kfir and Ariel, along with that of their mother, Shiri, added to the number of 1,200 Israelis killed on or after 7 October 2023.
They say that the smallest coffins are the heaviest—how true. The coffins are even smaller and heavier yet in Gaza. In the past seven days alone, six babies have died from the conditions that they found themselves in. Night-time temperatures are plummeting in Palestine, and the tiny hearts of those babies gave up. That is no surprise, as they are living in tents and the healthcare system has collapsed. They are added to the grim total of 50,000 killed in Gaza.
What do those people have in common? They are children, they are innocent, they did not elect Netanyahu and they did not join Hamas, but they are all dead. Today’s debate might be an economic one, but nowhere in the motion is any of that horror acknowledged. There is no call for peace. There is no acceptance of the horrors of 7 October. Fundamentally—but unsurprisingly—there is no mention of Israel’s very right to exist at all. One has to question that.
I have made myself clear in the past, but if I was not clear enough, I will do so again. I am neither pro-Israel nor pro-Palestine, as many would hope me to be. I am pro-both. The reason for that is that I am pro-peace. I believe that we are all human. No one chooses to be kidnapped from their homes, just as no one chooses to have their child shot by a sniper.
The fact that successive UK Governments—Conservative and then Labour—support Israel’s right to defend its very existence, to the tune of less than 1 per cent of Israel’s entire defence imports, is something that is up for valid debate, whatever our views on that. Let us be honest—the United Kingdom shares some responsibility in this whole sorry saga, which stretches way back to before the Balfour declaration. Whether we like it or not, the defence industry exists, not just in Scotland or the UK but across Europe and the world. It is a £100 billion industry in the UK.
What does the Green Party want to do about it? What is it suggesting? Is it the mass expulsion of all those companies—Leonardo, BAE, Babcock, Raytheon and Thales? Does the Green Party want to simply shut down the arms industry? If that is the case—if that is its ideological view—that is fine. However, if that is the case, as has been mentioned, how do we arm Ukraine? How do we arm our partners?
We cannot have selective morality when it comes to the arms industry and pick and choose the political campaigns that we do or do not support. We must be honest with people on that.
I will make this final point. Let us be honest with one another—the motion is deep rooted in the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement; the masks slipped early on in some of the contributions that we heard. The motion says, “let us not do business with Israel on arms,” but what it wants to say is, “let us not do business with Israel at all.” Let us not pretend otherwise. [Interruption.] I do not know why you are applauding, Ross Greer, because it is that sort of movement that led to the situation in 1930s Germany and the Holocaust, and you should be ashamed of it.
Members.
I close by asking members to put their hand up if they are uncomfortable with what has happened and with the actions of the IDF in the past year and a half. I will be the first to put my hand up. However, I also ask members to be honest with the world and to put their hand up if they question Israel’s very right to exist.
15:47
I will begin by acknowledging the concerns that have been raised during the debate. The issues before us—the role of public funding and the gravity of what has happened in Gaza—are important and I take them very seriously.
I recognise the deep emotional and ethical considerations that have been expressed today, and I thank members from across the chamber for contributing so powerfully to the conversation. Very few of us in here can even begin to imagine the depths of the horrors that we have touched on this afternoon.
The events of 7 October 2023 and the situation that has occurred in Gaza since then are devastating. Far too many innocent men, women and children have lost their lives. Images are imprinted on my mind of small, lifeless bodies—in many cases, the same size as or smaller than my toddler—that have been recovered from rubble, each of them precious. They are just as precious as the small, lifeless bodies of the Bibas family toddlers, who were returned to their families in black coffins. I was struck by something that Humza Yousaf said recently, which captures it better than anything else that I have seen. He said:
“Every child in this world—Israeli, Palestinian, or any other nationality—deserves to grow up loved, safe, and happy. There can never be any justification for kidnapping or killing children.”
Ben Macpherson and Maggie Chapman talked about the impossibility of grappling with the sheer numbers who have been killed. I visualise my daughter and imagine the pain of her death thousands of times over.
It is those children, both Israeli and Palestinian, who are the reason why Scotland stands firm in our commitment to peace and human rights. We have consistently called for a ceasefire, humanitarian aid to reach the people of Gaza and recognition of a two-state solution—the route to lasting peace in the region. That is why the amendment lodged by the Scottish Government reiterates our support for a ceasefire and humanitarian aid, while also recognising our position that we do not believe that public funding should be spent on the manufacture of weapons or munitions.
Despite that, I understand and recognise the questions that have been posed about the process that Scottish Enterprise operates in relation to human rights due diligence in awarding any funding. That is why we support the line in the motion that calls on us to review and ensure that the most robust checks are in place with regard to products’ end use. I understand Lorna Slater’s position that we have a responsibility to use all our public funding in line with our values and in line with international law.
Although the fact has been covered already that the export and sale of arms are reserved matters, the limitations of Scotland’s devolved powers do not prevent us from being vocal and active in calling for an end to arms sales that contribute to the killing and suffering of civilians.
I urge members to support our amendment, which reflects our unwavering commitment to a two-state solution for lasting peace in the middle east and to no public funding for the supply of arms to Israel.
Humza Yousaf talked about a new world order—or, rather, disorder, as it is. It poses a stark choice for us as a Government and for each of us as parliamentarians. We are accountable for our actions. The choices that we make will lead to either peace or greater disorder.
For the sake of the children, I call on us all to stand side by side in their defence.
15:51
In January 2024, six-year-old Hind Rajab and six members of her family were fleeing Gaza city. Their car was bombed by Israeli soldiers. That initial bombing killed her uncle, her aunt and three of her cousins. Hind and one cousin survived. They called the Red Crescent for help while they were still under attack. The Israelis then murdered the surviving cousin, leaving Hind, a six-year-old, trapped in a car for hours on the phone to the Red Crescent, surrounded by the dead bodies of her family members. She and the paramedics who were sent to rescue her were then murdered by Israeli soldiers, who attempted to cover that up. Their crimes were not covered up; they were reported on widely and have been proven beyond dispute.
Hind Rajab was one of tens of thousands of people who have been murdered by the soldiers of apartheid Israel.
The Green motion today is simple. Companies that are arming a country that is clearly and proudly committing war crimes and crimes against humanity should not receive a penny of Scottish public money. That is not a new proposal. I met the minister to discuss actions in that area last year, I have raised it at First Minister’s question time, as have other Scottish Green MSPs, and I exchanged letters with Humza Yousaf about it during his time as First Minister.
It is an area in which the Scottish Government can take action. The vast majority of what we are discussing is reserved, but how the Scottish Government and its agencies spend their money is for them to decide on. The Scottish Government would not fund companies that produce pornography, for example, so those kinds of policy decisions can clearly be made.
The Government must understand why, from the outside, it looks more than just a bit hypocritical to have such similar rhetoric when it comes to the crimes that Israel and Russia have committed but for its actions in regard to those countries to be so different. There is an unequivocal call on businesses to cease trade with Russia, but there is not even a call against or a ban on public procurement or grants for the companies that the United Nations has identified as being complicit in Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine.
The policy distinction that the Scottish Government is trying to draw between the funding of the manufacture of weapons and munitions and the funding of other activities by those companies is a semantic one. There is no moral distinction between funding the manufacture of bombs and funding a bigger bomb factory, as the Scottish Government did when it funded the expansion of Chemring’s Scottish facility.
I admit that I am struggling with the Labour amendment, because there is so much in it that I agree with and welcome and that I am glad that Labour has brought to this debate. However, I struggle in particular with the first line about the UK Government’s suspension of arms export licences to Israel, because, in reality, only 30 of around 350 of those export licences have been suspended.
I also struggle with the amendment because the leader of the Labour Party—the UK’s Prime Minister—explicitly endorsed Israeli war crimes against Palestine. He endorsed the cutting off of water and electricity and the collective punishment of Palestinians. He will not even recognise the state of Palestine.
However, I welcome Labour’s proposal to review the system of human rights checks, which no arms dealer has failed since their introduction. I am glad that Katy Clark put on record the reality of what companies such as Leonardo and Raytheon, which have facilities in Scotland, manufacture and what that equipment and those weapons do to Palestinians, Yemenis and Kurds in Turkey.
The Conservatives have given what we would expect—a robust defence of arms dealers, regardless of what they do and who they do it to—but I cannot help but feel that they would not have done that if we were talking about Russia, and if we had swapped out references to Israel for Russia or the references to Palestine for Ukraine. That brings us back to the hypocrisy.
I certainly will not take any lessons from the Conservatives about standing in solidarity with Ukraine, given that Lorna Slater and I have been sanctioned by the Kremlin—indeed, that happened on the same day that Craig Hoy accused us of having sympathy with Russia.
Will Ross Greer give way?
No, thank you—Mr Hoy had his opportunity.
I respect Jackson Carlaw and the contribution that he has made a number of times in this Parliament, but what I really struggle with today is that he left me with the impression that he thinks that the past 15 months were a price worth paying for Israel’s existence, because there was not a shred of empathy for Palestinians in his speech—not a shred of it—which I find to be absolutely tragic in these circumstances.
Jamie Greene asked us what our end goal is in this debate. Our end goal is for not a penny of Scottish public money to go to arms dealers who are funding a genocide and equipping countries that are committing genocide. It is that simple. We simply want international law to be adhered to.
That takes us back to the difference between rhetoric and action, which is where my frustration lies with the Scottish Government’s actions. The Scottish National Party’s MPs at Westminster have raised many of the most critical questions of both the previous and the current UK Governments, such as the fact that the latter has suspended less than 10 per cent of arms export licences to Israel. However, at the same time, the Scottish Government met Israel’s ambassador—it would not have met Russia’s ambassador—it will not ban companies that the UN has identified as complicit in an illegal occupation from receiving grants or contracts in Scotland and it continues to give public money to arms dealers.
Any human rights check that Raytheon can pass is not worth the paper on which it is written. I cannot understand the position that a number of members have taken today. They say that they do not believe that we should be funding companies that could be involved in a breach of international law. How much more evidence do we need, colleagues, that those companies are involved in breaches of international law? The state of Israel could not have made more explicit what it is doing, and we know who equips it. It is Raytheon. It is Leonardo. It is BAE Systems. It is all the others.
Today is our opportunity to show that solidarity means action, not just words. To stand in solidarity with the people of Palestine and with the victims of any genocide anywhere in the world, we must cut off the supply of public money to the arms dealers who are fuelling these horrific crimes.
That concludes the debate on Scottish Enterprise funding for arms companies. There will be a short pause before we move on to the next item of business to allow for a changeover of front-bench teams, should they wish to do so.
Air ais
Portfolio Question TimeAir adhart
Rail Fares