Scottish Government turning 'blind eye' to supply chain of arms used in Gaza, says Amnesty International

Amnesty International has accused the Scottish Government of turning “a blind eye” to the risk of being part of the supply chain of arms which could be used in the war in Gaza.

The human rights charity is calling for a full review of how due diligence is conducted on arms companies receiving grants from Scottish Enterprise, the national economic development agency.

Amnesty believes that Scottish Enterprise’s current procedures may not be fit for purpose after it was revealed that no arms company has ever failed a human rights check.

A Freedom of Information request revealed that major arms companies, including BAE Systems, Boeing, Thales Group and Leonardo UK, received £2.5m of Scottish public money over the last year.

In a letter to deputy first minister Kate Forbes, Amnesty raised their concerns about the “credibility and effectiveness” of the due diligence process.

Neil Cowan, Amnesty International UK’s Scotland director, said: “It’s time the Scottish Government acknowledged that it has international obligations in relation to its funding for arms companies and took steps to examine whether they are being met.

“Businesses funded by the Scottish government have been linked to countries accused of human rights violations in Gaza and Yemen; however, year after year, some of the world’s biggest arms manufacturers are routinely waived through due diligence checks.

“Recent rulings from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in relation to Israel have warned all states that they must act to prevent genocide and should serve as a wake-up call to Scottish ministers that they have a duty to ensure thorough human rights due diligence processes are in place.

“We need to see a full review of how public funding is being used by arms companies and why due diligence checks are failing to flag clear human rights concerns.”

The Scottish Government state that the funding provided is not used for the manufacture of munitions and it is used to help firms diversify their “activities and technologies”.

They also believe the safeguards in place are “appropriate” and that all arms sales to Israel must cease.

A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “The Scottish Government and its enterprise and skills agencies do not provide funding for the manufacture of munitions.

“Support for defence sector companies is focused on helping firms to diversify their activities and technologies, ensuring Scotland continues to benefit from significant economic returns and thousands of jobs in the sector.

“Our enterprise agencies have appropriate safeguards in place to ensure that any funding provided is used only for the specific purpose intended. Human rights due diligence checks are central to that process.

“Export licensing is reserved to the UK Government. The Scottish Government believes all arms sales to Israel must stop.”

A spokesperson for Scottish Enterprise added: “As the national and international economic development agency for Scotland, supporting long-term economic growth and creating high-value jobs is at the heart of everything we do.

“Our support is consistent with Scottish and UK Government policies, which is why our Human Rights Due Diligence checks are fully compliant with Scottish Government guidance.

“We take our role in fulfilling human rights due diligence checks for the companies we work with seriously. We update our procedures as guidance evolves, for example an updated Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights’ database of companies active in the Occupied Palestinian Territory was recently added to the list of independent resources that we use to perform our checks.

“We make it clear to companies, through legally binding contracts, that our funding and support can only be used to deliver agreed projects in Scotland. None of the projects we support involve the manufacture of munitions or weaponry.

“Taking all of this together, we strongly refute any suggestion that our human rights checks do not adequately meet the published guidance in relation to our role and remit.”