Speeches by Maynard.

“Going back to public sector involvement in the economy, the Government aim to increase public sector investment by more than £100 billion between 2024-25 and 2029-30. I have a grid in front of me that is about the policy impacts on real GDP as a result of that. By 2029-30, it actually has minus 0.1%, which is pretty ho…”

“I appreciate that. Redesigning courses makes lots of sense, but there is that idea about localisation and trying to split out and give some explicit flexibility; let us say a 20/80 split or whatever it might be. Is that something that you think is a good way to head? Does that make sense?”

“I will follow up with that question. Sarah, what do you think about that Dutch scenario?”

“I understand it.”

“Given what is going on, would it not be prudent and sensible to insist on that?”

“Why would you not ask for export proof from Israel, so that if it says that it will export these things, it can demonstrate that?”

“So we just take it on good faith?”

“So there is no burden of proof on Israel to demonstrate that it has done what it said it would do and export it?”

“What burden of proof is on the Government of Israel to demonstrate that they are re-exporting those products, as opposed to using them in Gaza?”

“Sorry, Sir Chris is the Minister of State at the Department for Business and Trade. I would quite like him to answer because he is responsible.”

“Sir Chris, to recap, the strategic export licensing criteria are the means by which the Government ensure that their arms exports are in compliance with the UK’s international obligations. At the evidence session with this Committee last December, Ministers told us that the SELC—strategic export licensing criteria—were…”

“Which gives us some leverage.”

“Let me finish, please. We do have that lever, and we are choosing not to use it because of the contractual obligations. I think many of us on the Committee would say, “Is there not a case here—a very strong case—to be saying, ‘That is not allowed any more; we will do that’ and to play hardball to try to find a sensible…”

“Luke, those are the mechanics, and we get all that, but there are 60,000 people dead. The contracts are very important—I get that—but we do have some leverage, which is that we can stop allowing those parts to be exported if we choose, as a country, because we have these things called strategic export licence criteria—”

“Really?”

“That comes down to determination, doesn’t it?”

“I am just talking about the UK, US and Israel; I am not talking about the rest. We could come to our own agreement, saying that the UK Government will not allow these parts to be exported—our parts, made in the UK—never mind what goes on with other countries.”

“That is how it looks.”

“Sir Chris, do you think there is a sensible, relatively simple middle way through to solving the F-35 carve-out, if we had enough gumption to stand up to the US? It could look something like this. F-35 parts continue to be sold to Israel for defensive purposes only, and not for use in Gaza or other questionable theatre…”

“I go back to wilful ignorance. To that point, we have planes going over there and can see bombs being dropped. We can join those dots, and we are choosing not to.”