Appendix 14: Further memorandum from the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(Original question numbers refer to Appendix
13.)
An update on progress in discussions on the European
Commission's proposal for a Council Regulation on trade in equipment
related to torture and capital punishment (original question 2)
Discussions of this Commission proposal at the
technical level have covered almost all of the text, except the
annexes. Ministers have not yet discussed the proposal.
Further details of the list of countries and organisations
to be the subject of "targeted demarches on export controls"
by the G8, once this list has been finalised (original question
22)
Four countries were subject to the demarches
on transshipment. France carried these out. They are:
United Arab Emirates; Malaysia;
Singapore;
Jordan.
In addition, the following international organisations
have been identified for outreach on the Kananaskis Principles:
European Union (General Affairs Council);
Organisation of the American States (OAS);
Association of the Caribbean States (ACS);
Caribbean Community;
Rio Group;
Andean Community; Mercosur;
System of integration in Central America (SICA);
African Union (AU);
Association of South East Asia Nations (ASEAN);
Pacific Islands Forum (PIF);
The Arab League;
Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC);
Community of Independent States (CIS);
Organisation for the Security and Co-operation
in Europe (OSCE).
The outreach to international organisations
has not yet taken place, but a draft demarche is under discussion
by the G8 Non-Proliferation Experts Group (NPEG).
An update on the JEWEL project (original question
39)
The Director of the Export Control Organisation
wrote separately to the Clerk to the Committees on 22 January
2004 with an update on the JEWEL review.
SECTION 2: CLARIFICATIONS
The answers to the relevant parliamentary questions
have been corrected twice. The Committee would appreciate clarification
on the following points. Has any Government minister promoted
sales of military equipment to Tanzania since 2000? Has any Government
minister promoted sales of military equipment to Hungary since
2000? (cf Hansard 29 Oct 2003: Column 2789) (original question
56)
The Government apologies for any confusion over
its previous responses. These errors resulted from there being
no central record of such meetings, and the quantity and variety
of potentially relevant information. Procedures are now in place
to prevent such a problem re-occurring.
We confirm that the Foreign Secretary visited
Budapest on 9-10 July 2002. Whilst there he discussed Gripen with
his Hungarian counterpart. There has been no other Ministerial
promotion of UK arms exports to Hungary since 2000.
No Minister has promoted military equipment
to Tanzania since 2000.
The Committee requested, but has not been provided
with, information identifying the reasons why specific export
licence applications were refused. Given the large rise in the
number of applications refused under criteria 3 and 5, the Committee
would be grateful if the 76 licence applications which were refused
on the basis of criterion 3 and the 15 applications which were
refused on the basis of criterion 5 could be identified. A simple
list of ELA numbers would be sufficient. (original question 30)
* * *
SECTION
3: FOLLOW-UP
QUESTIONS
The Committee would be grateful for further details
of the one prosecution mentioned: transcript (if available), identifying
court references, including the name of the judge and court, the
identity of the defendant (if disclosable), the nature and details
of the charges, the fine imposed, the type and quantity of goods
involved, and the destination of the goods. The Committee would
be grateful to know the number of cases since January 2002 that
have been referred to specialist investigators, and the type and
quantity of goods involved. The Committee would also appreciate
an indication of the quantity of small arms and light weapons
intended for export stopped by Customs and Excise since January
2002 (original question 40).
Prosecution case. At Preston Crown Court
on 9 June 2003 David Lee Nicklin of AM Castle & Co Ltd pleaded
guilty to an offence under section 68(l) of the Customs and Excise
Management Act 1979 of exporting a quantity of aluminium to Pakistan
without a licence. His Honour Judge Brown imposed a penalty of
£1,000 plus £1,000 costs.
Cases adopted by specialist investigators.
Thirteen new cases have been adopted by specialist investigators
during the period in question. Customs cannot comment on the detail
of these cases which are either ongoing or in the court system.
It is not their policy to comment on cases where no formal charges
have been brought as to do so could prejudice ongoing enquiries
or future criminal proceedings. In addition to these formally
adopted cases it should be noted that Customs' specialist investigators
work with other UK government departments to disrupt and prevent
procurement attempts and significant investigation resources are
deployed to this activity.
Small arms and light weapons. The cases
referred to in the original reply involved a total of 88 firearms,
17 firearms parts, 134,800 rounds of ammunition, 2 hand grenades,
l mortar, 1 mortar shell and 1 artillery shell projectile.
CHINA:
OIEL M1540410/00 seems to permit the export of
a variety of training and combat aircraft demonstration models
and mock-ups. What was the stated end use of the equipment? What
limitations, if any, were imposed on the demonstration of any
of these models to Chinese customers, given that the potential
sale of any of these aircraft would appear to be constrained by
the EU Arms Embargo on China?
It allowed temporary export of the goods for
exhibition purposes only.
An explanation of the rationale behind the following
refusals (original question 53)—together with the outcome
of any related appeals (with an explanation of any successful
appeals):
ISRAEL:
ELAs 23934 and 25723, especially given that these
appear to be for the re-export of equipment originally sent to
the UK for repair.
These applications were refused on the grounds
of criterion 2 and criterion 3. They were subsequently approved
on appeal in the light of documentary evidence that the goods
were for ultimate end use by a NATO country and that they would
not remain in Israel. It is established policy to consider goods
that are in the UK for repair in the same way as any application
for new equipment.
HMG RESPONSE TO
A VERBAL
REQUEST FROM
CLERK OF
THE COMMITTEE
FOR INFORMATION
ABOUT WHETHER
THE GOVERNMENT
INTENDS SUPPLYING
THE ROYAL
NEPALESE ARMY
WITH 2 AEROPLANES
The Maoist insurgency continues to have a devastating
effect on the people of Nepal. It poses a significant threat to
the stability of the region and could lead to Nepal becoming a
failed state. This Government is committed to supporting the Government
of Nepal, and working to end the suffering of the Nepalese people.
The Global Pool strategy for Nepal focuses on
three integrated strands; support to peacebuilding, improving
security and tackling the root causes of the conflict. Under an
agreed inter-departmental plan, we provide assistance in a number
of areas, from development to stabilisation of the security situation.
One of our strands of activity is to provide non-lethal support
to the Security Forces, including the Royal Nepalese Army (RNA),
in their efforts to combat Maoist aggression.
As part of this support the Government plans
to provide the RNA with *** two Short Take Off and Landing (STOL)
aircraft. These aircraft are small twin-engined Islander aircraft
with a normal carrying load of around 7 persons (including crew).
The aircraft *** are not combat aircraft and do not have a substantial
military lift capability. These aircraft are used by some police
forces in the UK ***. We would arrange for an agreement between
HMG and the RNA that the aircraft would be strictly limited to
a logistical, medical and humanitarian role.
The provision of the STOL aircraft is the next
step logical in our programme of *** assistance to the RNA. These
two aircraft *** would be timely assistance following the Maoist
resumption of hostilities.
***
The RNA human rights record still gives rise
to various concerns. We need to maintain pressure on the RNA to
improve their behaviour and investigate alleged abuses thoroughly.
We believe that the balance remains in favour of our continuing
our non-lethal security assistance plan through the Global Conflict
Prevention Pool as part of our strategy to influence RNA mentality
and effect behavioural change.
Once all the necessary details regarding the
intended gift, including the agreement with the Nepal Government,
are settled, we will, of course, go through the appropriate parliamentary
procedure to request approval to proceed with the gift.
February 2004
| 
