Examination of Witnesses (Questions 280-299)
DR KIM
HOWELLS MP, MR
TREVOR MOORE
AND MR
GRAHAM GLOVER
25 APRIL 2006
Q280 Richard Burden: Is British equipment
being used on that?
Dr Howells: I am sure there is
British equipment and we would look very, very carefully at such
equipment applications and we do look very carefully.
Chairman: We had better move on. Quentin.
Q281 Mr Davies: Dr Howells, can I
just express the view that, of course, where conditions have been
imposed for an export licence or assurances given, they must be
enforced, in this case the condition that we did impose or the
assurance that we did seek, that the APCs would not be deployed
in several Occupied Territories, was misconceived because one
can seriously imagine a situation in which a terrorist incident
occurs in the territories, or indeed an attack on Israel through
artillery or other means made from the territories, and the Israeli
defence forces have to respond defensively not offensively. If
their nearest troops are deployed in British-made APCs it would
be absurd if they could not use them for that purpose, to respond
to that incident defensively, to save the lives of people, Palestinians
or Israelis. I just want to put that thought to you.
Dr Howells: Yes, indeed, I accept
it and Mr Burden alluded to it when he put his question forward,
which was how on earth do we differentiate between an aggressive
use of a piece of machinery, a vehicle, or whatever, and a perfectly
understandable, defensive response. It is not easy, it is probably
the most difficult part of the world in which to make those decisions.
Q282 Mr Keetch: Can I move to something,
Minister, that is not a Land Rover or a piece of equipment for
building a wall, but is in fact a Beretta 92S semi-automatic pistol,
which probably only has one use. Are you aware of the report in
The Observer of 19 March 2005 that said that 20,318 of
these weapons—which, if I remember my Ian Fleming correctly,
was actually James Bond's original choice of weapon—were
flown via Stansted with a DTI licence to the Coalition Provisional
Authority and then were distributed to the Iraqi police. Iraqi
officers have subsequently said that these have been "passed
on to the friends of al-Zarqawi" insurgency organisation,
and both the British arms companies involved in this sale admit
that some of the weapons, possibly thousands of these weapons,
found their way into the hands of insurgents. Are these reports
correct? If so, what are we doing to ensure that the end use of
semi-automatic pistols exported by British companies into Iraq,
where there is a situation of, I am sure we would all agree, unfortunate
uncertainty, is correctly applied?
Dr Howells: We look very carefully
at anything that is exported to Iraq, as you might imagine, and
certainly we made a decision that the Iraqi police face very,
very difficult circumstances. I am old enough to remember, Mr
Keetch, the way in which the IRA got a lot of its arms in Northern
Ireland; they sometimes took them from our dead soldiers and policemen,
and that happens in difficult situations like this one. Yes, the
guns were certainly bought from the Italians, as far as I know—we
are looking at this one very carefully—they were exported
to Iraq for distribution to the police forces. The most difficult
problem would be if there are sectarian groups within that police
force that have got very direct and worrying links to insurgent
militias or to other people who basically are trying to kill our
troops, our development workers and other people out there, and
that is something we have to be extremely sensitive about, and
I believe that we were. I have no doubt that in some of the attacks
on police stations, some of the murders of policemen out there,
some of these weapons probably did get into the hands of enemies
of the Iraqi Government and enemies of ours.
Q283 Mr Keetch: It is a terrible
question to ask, Minister, but is there any evidence that any
of these weapons or other weapons supplied from Britain have actually
been used in attacks against British troops or British forces?
Dr Howells: We are certainly not
aware of that and we have looked very carefully at that.
Q284 Richard Younger-Ross: Dr Howells,
it is fairly well-known that not all the police are loyal to the
new government. We had an incident not that long ago where the
police handed over British soldiers to insurgents and had to be
rescued, we have statements from the chief of police in Basra
that he can still only rely on about half of his forces. Do you
not think that there is a duty to ensure that the end-use and
the final destination of these weapons is checked on a regular
basis, and that maybe your comment about extracting weapons from
dead bodies is slightly misleading when the most likely source
for supplying these weapons is actually via the soldiers within
the Iraqi police force?
Dr Howells: I was in Basra a few
weeks ago myself and I spoke to the commander of police there,
who is a very honourable man and is burdened with a great many
difficulties, not the least of which is that he does not believe
that he needs half the policemen that he has got. He has got them
there, they have been appointed as part of a job creation scheme,
and he is very worried that there are corrupt policemen and there
are certainly people I met down there who are convinced that the
greatest problem in that area is of criminality. There are gangs,
death squads, there is a lot of smuggling going on and at one
point he told me that 25% of murders in the area are probably
committed by men wearing police uniforms. We are not sure if they
are policemen or whatever, but we look very carefully at this
and we try to assess the impact of any licensed distribution of
weapons like this one and we try to learn from it. I would have
to turn the question around and say do we arm some policemen and
not other policemen, how do we tell? As we try to build capacity,
try to build a good police force, help build a good force with
others working in that area we have to make a judgment on who
should be armed and who should not be armed, we try to do that
and we have tried to do it in this instance.
Q285 Mr Keetch: On a slightly different
but associated subject, Dr Howells, you said that you were in
Basra, and members of this Committee have been there also recently.
You would have been protected, as we were, not by British troops
but by members of private security companies.
Dr Howells: No, I was protected
by British troops.
Q286 Mr Keetch: As a Minister of
the Crown I am very glad you were.
Dr Howells: I was very glad too,
I might say.
Q287 Mr Keetch: Some of us were protected
by private security companies; are they allowed to take any weapon
they choose into Iraq and what controls are given on them for
the use and control of their weapons when they go into Iraq?
Dr Howells: We receive all applications
from private security companies and any other agencies operating
there, and anything that comes to this Government, to DTI in the
first instance, for an application for a licence to export any
weapon has to be assessed on the same basis as any other export
that is going to Iraq. We are very, very careful.
Q288 Richard Younger-Ross: What controls
are put on fairly common building materials like laser lights
used to open and close lift doors, but which can also be used
to trigger roadside bombs?
Dr Howells: We are very much aware
of Hezbollah bomb technology which has got down there—we
are not sure how it has got down there, but I am sure you have
got views on this and I have got views on it. We understand very
well the potency of infrared, remote detonation devices that have
killed some of our troops down there and we are very, very careful
about the way in which any technology like that is sold and distributed
in the southern Iraq area or anywhere else in Iraq.
Q289 Mike Gapes: Can I take you a
little bit further south to Saudi Arabia? In an earlier answer
that you gave to Lindsay Hoyle you said that the Government fully
subscribed to criterion 2 in the EU code on arms exports which
requires respect for human rights in the country of foreign destination.
As you are aware, as a Foreign Office minister, the annual human
rights report of your own department is rather critical of human
rights in Saudi Arabia, to put it mildly, and it talks about continued
violations of human rights in a number of states. How therefore
can you justify arms exports to Saudi Arabia?
Dr Howells: Every export licence
application is certainly considered against criterion 2 on a case
by case basis, we pay particularly close attention to criterion
2 for Saudi Arabia, and we would certainly recommend refusal if
there was concern or a clear risk that the equipment might be
used contrary to the conditions of criterion 2. There have been
small but we think very significant improvements in the human
rights situation in Saudi Arabia, and decisions on export licences
are certainly always made on a case by case basis in the light
of an up to date assessment of the way in which the specific equipment
would be used by the specific end user.
Q290 Mike Gapes: You refer to "small
improvements"; would it be accurate to say that our Government
is prepared to ease the application of criterion 2 where there
are small improvements, even though there are still abuses of
human rights?
Dr Howells: It would be strictly
on a case by case basis, we would have to look at it very specifically.
There is no general rule of thumb or anything of that sort.
Q291 Mike Gapes: Would that be because
you want to take account of our strategic interests?
Dr Howells: Certainly we sell
a lot of equipment to the Saudis, but that would not nudge aside
our prime consideration which is criterion 2.
Mr Moore: You will be aware, I
am sure, that we have the criteria and then we have the other
factors which are in the list and appear after the criteria. The
criteria come first and then we look at the other factors.
Q292 Mike Gapes: Can I just be specific
then? The annual human rights report refers to violations including
"restricting freedoms of expression and press, assembly,
association, religion and movement". The Quarterly Report
April to June 2005 lists the following as being exported to Saudi
Arabia: armoured all wheel drive vehicles, assault rifles, components
for assault rifles, components for body armour, components for
general purpose machine guns, general purpose machine guns, general
purpose machine guns maintenance equipment, gun silencers, smoke
hand grenades, and the July to September Report 2005 talks about
tear gas and riot control agents. Would you agree that all of
those could be used, either directly or indirectly, to perpetrate
human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia?
Dr Howells: Yes, of course they
could all be used, but we have to make a judgment on whether they
will be used. I can also say to you, Mr Gapes, that Saudi Arabia
has been very concerned since the invasion of its neighbour, Kuwait,
by Iraq and they sought to improve the capability and capacity
of their own armed forces and they have a perfect right to do
that. We would judge each of these export licences on a case by
case basis.
Q293 Mike Gapes: How many export
licences have you refused to Saudi Arabia recently?
Dr Howells: I do not know. We
will find those figures for you.
Q294 Mike Gapes: Will you let us
have them in writing?
Dr Howells: Yes.
Q295 Chairman: Is it not right, regarding
Mr Moore's comment that of course the Government looks not only
at criterion 2 but at the other criteria, the Government's critics
would simply say we all know perfectly well why Saudi Arabia is
a major recipient of UK arms exports, despite the human rights
record, and it is that there are massive business opportunities
there for UK defence manufacturers and that strategically Saudi
is seen to be "on our side". Is not the nub of the matter
that the human rights aspects can be quietly ignored in those
circumstances?
Dr Howells: No, we certainly do
not ignore human rights aspects and we press the Saudis as we
press anybody else to try to advance human rights in that country,
and we will continue to do so.
Q296 Robert Key: Minister, sadly
I was not able to make it to Geneva on 23 March of this year to
listen to your speech, but it was a very good speech, if I may
say so. You said in the course of that speech that an arms trade
treaty should cover all conventional arms, not just small arms,
and you said it could be based on a listing system; this might
be a completely new piece of work or it might be based on something
that has already happened. Could you just flesh out a little what
you envisage the process being now that you have signed up to
this?
Dr Howells: In a sense it comes
back to Sir John Stanley's first question about what kinds of
weapons are the ones causing the most harm, for example, at any
time, and I have been a little worried and I know the Secretary
of State has, that in the SALW[1]
negotiations there has been a limit, if you like, on the size
of arms and the kinds of arms which really should not be there.
We have to look right across the whole portfolio of arms that
are used because there are some pieces of equipment that seem
to be outside of that study at the moment and we think they ought
to be in there, so we are very much in favour of a much more general
approach to this.
Q297 Robert Key: This is really because
the arms trade treaty is not about ending the arms trade, it is
about responsible use of the trade in arms.
Dr Howells: Precisely, and we
are also committed, of course, to securing a UN-based process
on that. We think that that approach offers more chance of success
than previous approaches because it is not telling countries that
they cannot buy arms and it is not telling countries that they
cannot sell arms, it is looking for a much more responsible use
of those and an assessment of the ways in which they are likely
to be used.
Q298 Robert Key: What is the attitude
of the United States to this?
Dr Howells: The United States,
to be very candid, are very worried that we will not get very
far with this. In a sense it is a kind of council of despair;
if we do not try we do not know and in my discussions with the
Americans they are very keen that there ought to be an arms trade
treaty which can bite, which can begin to modify this situation,
but we have to convince them that they ought to be spending time,
effort and energy on this programme.
Q299 Robert Key: On 6 May the campaign
for an arms trade treaty of course is having a high street nationwide
day of action. A lot of people will be surprised that somebody
like me will be supporting that, on the basis, as you point out,
of responsible arms trade. Is it in your experience true that
a responsible arms trade is actually beneficial for the peacekeeping
operations, for example, of the British? The British are up against
a lot of small arms or, for that matter, weapons that have been
supplied irresponsibly and that is dangerous for our forces.
Dr Howells: I could not agree
with you more that the more legitimate we can make that trade
and recognise and regulate it, the more the UN realises that it
can do something about this, then the more it will be to the benefit
of everyone. By the way, Mr Key, it was ironic really that on
the day that I delivered this speech in Geneva the NGOs active
in and around Pontypridd were condemning me for not being with
them in their protest on that day—somebody had not checked.
1 <ep<nh Small Arms and Light Weapons. Back
| 
