Select Committee on Defence Minutes of Evidence


APPENDIX 8

Memorandum submitted by the Campaign Against Arms Trade

COMMENT ON THE SECOND ANNUAL REPORT ON STRATEGIC EXPORT CONTROLS

  1.  The Campaign Against Arms Trade notes that the second annual Report on Strategic Export Controls, covering 1998, has much the same format as the first, and that the Government will consider suggestions for changes in the light of the substantive report of the House of Commons Defence, Foreign affairs, International Development and Trade and Industry Select committees.

  2.  CAAT made a submission following the publication of the first Annual Report. The comments CAAT made in that submission, dated April 1999, are pertinent to the second Annual Report too. The points below are additional to the earlier submission. CAAT has not commented on individual countries this time, as to do so in an informed way would require much greater detail on the export licences than the Annual Reports, so far, provide.

  3.  CAAT is pleased to see that the 1998 Annual Report includes mention of major Government-to-Government transfers, and that slightly greater detail is given with respect to the equipment exported as shown in Table 9.

ROLE OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  4.  In its April 1999 submission, CAAT made the assumption that the Department for International Development would co-sponsor future Annual Reports along with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, and the Ministry of Defence. This has not happened and, in the introduction, it is said that DflD's "efforts are focussed on examining export licence application concerning poor countries and therefore the secretary of State for International Development is not a co-signatory to this Report as licences for these countries only account for a relatively small proportion of the overall licensing process."

  5.  However, the Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, told a joint meeting of the four Select committees, held on 3 November 1999, that it was his understanding that the Department of Trade and Industry produced a list of applications which was then circulated to the DflD, the FCO and the MoD, and it is open to any of the departments to request sight of any of the applications on the list. He believed that DflD had seen 1,700 licence applications in 1998, some 20 per cent of the total.

  6.  The International Development Committee, in its report on "Conflict Prevention and Post-Conflict Reconstruction", dated 28 July 1999, said that it was "unacceptable" that the Secretary of State for International Development had not signed the first Annual Report. The Committee believed that to "exclude DflD is to suggest that its voice and the development perspective on conflict are somehow marginal or secondary".

  7.  DflD, in its Response to the Report dated 21 October 1999, put the percentage of licence applications seen by it at 15 per cent. The Secretary of State, Clare Short, commented that she did not, therefore, consider it appropriate that she should co-sign the Report.

  8.  CAAT would urge DflD and the Government to think again. Many of the most controversial export licence applications will have been amongst those scrutinised by DflD. Furthermore, neither the FCO and MoD examine all the applications, and yet their Secretaries of State sign the Annual Reports. CAAT believes that DflD must have a full and equal voice on export licensing along with the other three departments, and that this should be demonstrated by having all four Secretaries of State sign the Annual Report.

DIFFERENT FIGURES IN DIFFERENT PUBLICATIONS

  9.  CAAT thinks the Annual Reports should be reliable reference works on military export licensing, bringing together information that may be held by different parts of Government. It is important that data given is consistent with that published elsewhere, and that explanations are given for any apparent discrepancies.

  10.  For example, there is a difference in monetary value of military exports shown in the Ministry of Defence's "UK Defence Statistics 1999", table 1.13, and the Annual Reports. The former gives the following figures:

    1997—identified deliveries equal £4,598 million, estimates of additional aerospace equipment equal £2,087 million making a total of £6,685 million;

    1998—identified deliveries equal £3,527 million, estimates of additional aerospace equipment not available.

  The equivalent figures in the Annual Reports are:

    1997—£3,359.59 million (Table 8);

    1998—£1,968.29 million (Table 9).

  11.  There is a discrepancy with regard to Saudi Arabia between the UK entry in the UN Arms Register, quoted as the source, and Table 9 in the Annual Report. The former says that 12 Tornado IDS aircraft were exported in 1998, the Annual Report says 18. The figures with respect to Air to Ground Missiles are 56 and 100 respectively.

  12.  The answer to a parliamentary question showed that, for 1998, the number of SIELS granted in respect of Indonesia in the categories ML2, ML7, ML10 and ML11 were 2, 0, 16 and 9 respectively whereas the Annual Report gives the figures as 4, 1, 15 and 10. Such differences do not encourage confidence when considering the information in the Annual Report. (Hansard, 9.2.99)

SIELS AND OIELS

  13.  There is an increased use of Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) as compared with Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs). From 2 May to 31 December 1997, 156 OIELs were issued, or amended, whilst for the calendar year 1998 the figure was 566. The numbers of SIELs were 6,418 and 9,869 respectively. If the 1997 figures are extrapolated to a year, there is a small rise of 2.5 per cent in SIELs between then and 1998, but a massive increase of 141.9 per cent in OIELs.

  14.  SIELs may be used for one or more shipments to the same consignee at the same destination, subject to the overall quantities and values specified. OIELs allow the licensee to make multiple shipments of a range of goods to several destinations, normally without specifying particular consignees. According to the DTI, open licences "are now used wherever it is possible and reduce the burden of export controls on many exporters and reduce the cost of administration." (www.dti.gov.uk/export.control)

  15.  The format of the Annual Reports could be seen as implying that OIELs are given in respect of less sensitive goods or destinations than SIELs, but OIELs have been granted in respect of each Military List category, and even for such controversial destinations as Indonesia and Turkey. It would seem from this, and the DTI's comment, above, that the difference is more one of administrative convenience. CAAT believes that the OIELs should be listed together with the SIELs in the country-by-country section.

  16.  In additional to the reduced Government control on military exports occasioned by the increased use of OIELs, there are implications for transparency. The Government would no longer be in a position to give the quantities of various goods licensed for export, as CAAT and others have been urging it to do. CAAT believes that strict export controls and transparency should always take precedence over reducing administrative costs, and hopes that the implications of the substantial increase in the use of OIELs will be considered by the Select Committee.

THE COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY

  17.  CAAT feels that Tables 2A and 2B fall far short of the legibility standards implied in the Government's commitment to transparency with regards to military exports. In future, if the information does not easily fit on a page, tables should be split.

  18.  CAAT has received many telephone calls asking where the Annual Reports might be obtained, since they are unavailable from the Stationery Office and can be found only with difficulty on the FCO's website, where they are listed under the date of publication. It is suggested that, in future, the Annual Reports are published by the Stationery Office, and better links given on the website.

December 1999


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 2000
Prepared 11 February 2000