Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140
- 159)
WEDNESDAY 12 JANUARY 2005
12 JANUARY 2005 RT
HON JACK
STRAW MP, MR
EDWARD OAKDEN
CMG AND DR
DAVID LANDSMAN
Q140 Mike Gapes: Are we going for
the highest common factor or the lowest common denominator here?
Dr Landsman: There is an ongoing
discussion within the EU at working level on the way the Code
is implemented, so there is discussion between the officials who
make the recommendations to the Ministers in each country on an
ongoing basis. That is something which has an incremental effect
over time regardless of the specific changes that you make to
the Code of Conduct itself.
Q141 Mike Gapes: You talked about
transparency and presumably that involves the sharing of information
between different EU states. One issue that has come up is where
one government might deny a licence but then another government
grants it without knowing that the other state has denied it.
Do you think we need to have much more notification of denials
and more information given to other states about the basis on
which applications have been dealt with?
Mr Straw: Whenever I get an application
to deal with I am told whether there has been a denial by another
state.
Q142 Mike Gapes: Are you always aware
of that?
Mr Straw: I cannot prove a negative.
Could there have been a denial of which we were not made aware?
How on earth could I tell? I am always made aware of the denials
of which the office is aware. I have not seen any evidence that
other countries are holding back denials from us, if that is what
you mean.
Q143 Mike Gapes: What about if the
Government decides to have a transfer directly on weaponry to
another state which is outside the licensing system, do you know
about that?
Mr Straw: I do not see how we
could.
Q144 Mike Gapes: How much exchange
of information is there really between the EU states about what
is going on?
Dr Landsman: We have a system
for checking that transfers are government-to-government transfers
gifting or whatever it might be are consistent with the criterion.
The F680 process is used for that in our case.
Q145 Mike Gapes: We produce quarterly
reports and we give very much the best information, but not all
states have the same level of reporting as we do.
Mr Straw: One of the elements
of the new revised Code is an obligation on Member States to produce
an annual report and we want to get more transparency and then
we will learn much more about the patterns of licensing and decision-making
on other Member States. At the moment the only consistent information
we have is about their denials. If I may say so, Chairman, you
have asked me to be brief. I think I may have explained this point
on a number of occasions.
Q146 Chairman: Could I ask about
equipment that I do not see listed in the EU Code, ie equipment
that could be used primarily for torture. When the Government
introduced a very welcome ban on exports of torture equipment
in 1997 the then Foreign Secretary said that there would be attempts
to encourage other EU Member States to have a similar ban. Where
are we on that point?
Mr Straw: We certainly enforce
the ban.
Q147 Chairman: The Government made
a claim in 1997 to encourage other EU Member States. Is this part
of the discussion on the EU Code?
Dr Landsman: The EU Torture Regulation
specifically covering this point should be adopted later this
year. So the work has been taken forward.
Q148 Chairman: So there is a similar
list of equipments such as that that the Government has published.
So it will be a common policy throughout the EU?
Dr Landsman: Yes.
Q149 Tony Baldry: Secretary of State,
the working group reviewing Criterion 8 was due to finish its
work last month. Has it finished? What has been the outcome? Are
you concerned that, in relation to Criterion 8, because the threshold
set is for serious risk of undermining sustainable development,
by setting the threshold so high it will become meaningless?
Mr Straw: I do not think so. These
countries are entitled to have defence forces. Indeed often it
is precisely because they are in areas of instability they need
them. It would be impossible for them to operate without defence
forces. I think that the current criteria and the way it is worded
are satisfactory, but there is this working group on its implementation.
Q150 Tony Baldry: Has it finished
its work?
Mr Straw: It will do so shortly.
Q151 Tony Baldry: It is always a
good line to take, shortly!
Mr Straw: In the Luxembourg presidency.
Q152 Chairman: Is there a similar
review of Criterion 2 on human rights because Criterion 2 will
be interpreted in very different ways by those controlling arms
exports? Has there been any discussion of trying to clarify when
Criterion 2 kicks in?
Mr Straw: There has not been up
to now. There is no reason why there should not be in the future.
Q153 Chairman: Given that the UK
is going to become the presidency of the EU in the second half
of this year, would that not be an opportunity to try to flesh
out Criterion 2?
Mr Straw: I am happy to think
about that, Chairman. It depends on the resources available that
we have to pursue it and whether we can get a consensus to start
looking at it, but I am happy to think about it.
Q154 Mr Hamilton: Foreign Secretary,
can I move back to the question of extra-territoriality because
I think that is something that exercises many of my colleagues
on this Committee and many of the people we have interviewed from
the NGOs. In light of the allegation that UK companies were brokering
the export of arms to Sudan, are you confident that current legislation
on extra-territorial trafficking and the brokering of arms by
UK nationals is adequate? Do you intend to strengthen that legislation?
Mr Straw: There is a big issue
about extra-territorial jurisdiction and it has caused a lot of
problems for perfectly legitimate exporters (not of arms) from
the UK to third countries where a ban on trade with those third
countries has been put in place by the United States administration
and the US has adopted an extra-territorial jurisdiction not just
over their nationals but over third country nationals. There are
a number of examples of this which have caused real problems for
British business. If all countries start to claim extra-territorial
jurisdiction over third country nationals you have got some really
serious difficulties in terms of international order. People do
not seem to be aware of this. It is not a simple issue, extra-territorial
jurisdiction. Our policy is that extra-territorial jurisdiction
should be applied only to the most sensitive transfers and obviously
the export of torture equipment is banned as are exports to embargoed
destinations, save in exceptional circumstance, according to the
terms of the embargo and it is therefore appropriate to impose
strict controls on brokering torture equipment and to embargoed
destinations to prevent UK people overseas who may circumvent
the UK ban. We also should apply it to other groups which are
not necessarily banned from export from the UK which are extremely
sensitive, ie intangible transfers and technical assistance related
to WMD and also to trade in long range missiles. It is an issue
which is complicated.
Q155 Mr Hamilton: Last month, as
you will know, we interviewed a number of representatives of non-governmental
organisations. They suggested that in some cases UK nationals
may have relocated their operations to avoid regulation under
the Export Control Act. Have you got any evidence that this is
happening?
Mr Straw: I personally have seen
no evidence of this. I do not know whether officials have.
Mr Oakden: I do not have details.
It is clearly a possibility that we would need to have taken into
account.
Q156 Mr Hamilton: Is it possible
to let us know more in writing if you have got any more information?[5]
Mr Straw: Yes.
Q157 Mr Hamilton: I want to ask one
final question relating to a company called Aviant Air. I understand
that this company has admitted to being involved in flying arms
and other defence logistics for the governments of both Zimbabwe
and the DRC and yet they were pictured in television pictures
in December being contracted by the UK Government to deliver humanitarian
aid to the victims of the tsunami disaster. I wonder if you have
got any comment on that at all.
Mr Straw: I have no comment on
that, Mr Hamilton. This is the first I have heard about it. If
you want to send me more details because obviously you have more
details, I will give you an appropriate reply.[6]
Mr Hamilton: I would be pleased to do
that.
Q158 Mr Evans: You may remember that
when the industry came before us last as part of our report we
included some of their allegations about the fact that we are
stricter than some of our other EU counterparts and then in the
Government's response the Government hit back at industry and
said "piffle". They gave us some extra evidence when
they came to see us and they have written to us since to say the
allegations that they made were absolutely true and they have
got evidence that it seems as if the French and the Dutch are
supplying arms that could be interpreted as dual use when companies
in this country have been denied. Do you have anything to say
in response to that?
Mr Straw: We certainly did not
say either to you or to the industry "get lost". We
would not dream of doing so. I have a very high regard for the
defence industry and what it does. They happen to know that. We
would not dream of saying "get lost" either to the industry
or to this Committee.
Q159 Chairman: I think Nigel was
paraphrasing.
Mr Straw: I am just making this
point. We did not say that. Neither could that inference be drawn
from our response. We did say this as the answer to some of their
concerns. I am always happy to look at detailed evidence which
the industry has got about the regulatory burden on the UK industry
in comparison with other European countries. This Committee has
a very important responsibility in terms of the regulatory burden
that is imposed because we have this much more transparent system
than other countries. That requires a much higher degree of record
keeping, of accuracy and ministerial involvement than applies
in other countries. So it does not lie in the mouth of this Committee
to start criticising the Government for the fact that if there
is an additional regulatory burden, it is there unless you, the
Committee, are going to seek to play your part in lightening that
burden. I tell you very seriously, when you decide to put in hundreds
of detailed questions you need to be aware of the staff time that
is going to be involved. At one time last year about a month's
work was contained in one letter from this Committee and although
I will always seek to answer questions from the Committee and
we did there, you have to make your own judgements. It does not
lie in your mouth to complain about the fact that there have been
hold ups in applications because we all know what the Germans
and the French are doing, which is to spend so much time answering
these questions. Big questions, yes; smaller questions, no. I
am in favour of and I have got a good record in lifting regulatory
burdens.
5 Ev 85 Back
6
Ev 90 Back
| 
