APPENDIX 6
Memorandum submitted by the Department
of Trade and Industry
CHINA
The Committees noted that at 2 (b) it is stated
that "to the best of DTI's knowledge no goods were actually
shipped" under OIEL M/543718/98. Does this mean that DTI
has been told that no goods were shipped or that it has no reason
to know either way?
The Committees should note that while the Export
Control Organisation (ECO) of the Department of Trade and Industry
(DTI) maintains records of licence applications, it does not compile
records of actual shipments made under the authority of any issued
licences. Some licences are only used in part, for example OIEL
may have a list of 10 permitted destinations but the exporter
may only use the licence to ship goods to five of those permitted
destinations. This may be because the expected deliveries to those
remaining destinations do not materialise.
Due to the exceptional circumstances surrounding
OIEL M/543718/98, (ie the fact that an administrative oversight
meant that China was not removed as a permitted destination until
April 2000), the DTI agreed on this occasion to contact the company
and ask them if they would exceptionally be prepared to volunteer
to the DTI the extent to which the licence was used for exports
to China, as requested by the Committees. The company agreed to
this and wrote to DTI stating that "to the best of their
knowledge no goods had been shipped to China under the OIEL between
June 1998 and April 2000".
DTI has no reason to doubt this statement. An
Open Individual Export Licence (OIEL) is specific to an individual
exporter and covers multiple shipments of specified goods to specified
destinations and/or, in some cases, specified consignees. A condition
of all OIELs is that the exporter is required to maintain paper
records to satisfy export controls are being complied with. The
exporter must obtain from each consignee an appropriate written
undertaking for each export before the export takes place, or
not later than one month after the date of exportation. Where
the exporter intends to make more than one exportation to the
same consignee in any period of one year, an annual written undertaking
may be obtained in fulfilment of this requirement.
Compliance Officers visit exporters to check
that they are using their licence correctly and that their paperwork
is in order. Officers make a sample check of the company's paperwork
detailing the shipment of goods.
ZIMBABWE
The Committees requested the identity of the holders
of existing OIELs for Hawk spares which were in force up to February
2000, as listed evidence to the Committees. HMG also undertook
to write to the Committees with details of the extent to which
Hawk spares were delivered under existing OIELs between June 1999
and February 2000
As noted to the Committees previously, while
the ECO maintains records of licence applications, it does not
compile records of actual shipments made under the authority of
any issued licences.
Again, due to the exceptional circumstances
surrounding the export of Hawk spares to Zimbabwe; the Prime Minister's
statement on 9 February in which he announced the commitment to
remove countries intervening in the DRC from the coverage of open
licences for any equipment which might be deployed in the DRC;
the Foreign Secretary's announcement on 3 May in which he said
that from that day Britain would refuse all new licence applications
for exports of arms and military equipment to Zimbabwe, to include
all licences for spare parts in connection with previous contracts,
such as the Hawk aircraft; and the announcement on 12 May stating
that following the review of extant licences, it had been decided
to revoke all extant SIELs and to remove Zimbabwe as a permitted
destination from all OIELs, the DTI agreed on this occasion to
contact the companies concerned and ask them if they would exceptionally
be prepared to volunteer to the DTI the extent to which their
respective licence had been used for exports to Zimbabwe, as requested
by the Committees.
Each company agreed and the information they
supplied is set out in the table below. The Committee should note
that this information identifies the companies and is therefore
supplied to the Committees in confidence.
Details of the holders of OIELs where Zimbabwe
was a permitted destination and covering the export of Hawk spares,
and the extent to which these licences were used between June
1999 and February 2000.
|
| OIEL No. | Company
| Extent to which the OIEL was used |
|
| M/543263/98 | ***
| "This OIEL has not been used at all for the supply of Hawk spares to Zimbabwe between June 1999 and February 2000".
|
| M/520926/98 | ***
| "A shipment was made on 8 July 1999. The shipment was for *** to the value of £2,000.
|
| M/544583/98 | ***
| "We confirm that we did not use our licence for the export of Hawk aircraft spares during the period June 1999 to February 2000".
|
|
PAKISTAN
The Committee noted that the details of licences 7382, 8689
and 9485 do not immediately suggest naval safety equipment, and
would be grateful for examination to see if they are in fact misplaced.
It has not been possible to identify immediately the licence
for "naval safety equipment" to which the DMA referred,
so we tried to provide the Committees with details of pending
applications for similar equipment.
The Export Control Organisation's (ECO) computer databases
were interrogated searching for the words "safety equipment",
and the details were provided at Annex I of the response to the
Committee dated 5 June. On reflection, the database should have
also been searched for the word "naval", which would
have adapted the search to encompass naval safety equipment and
not general safety equipment.
The ECO's computer databases have again been interrogated,
and the new search has identified 15 applications for a standard
individual export licence, and one application for an open individual
export licence as covering the export of naval equipment. The
details are set out in the table at Annex A. Again, it is not
clear which, if any, are specifically for naval safety equipment.
| 
