Further memorandum from the Department
of Trade and Industry
Thank you for your recent letter following up
the issues raised at the Westminster Hall Debate on Strategic
Export Controls, held on Thursday 22 February 2007. The response
below covers the areas where Jim Fitzpatrick MP, Parliamentary
Under Secretary of State for Employment Relations and Postal Services
agreed to respond.
This response is structured so to provide at
points 1-5 below, a short summary of the main issues raised by
the relevant Committee Member under each key theme and the Government's
response.
1. REFUSED EXPORT
CONTROL LICENCES
TO ISRAEL
Sir John Stanley asked the Government to provide
the Committee with examples of equipment for which it has refused
to grant export licences to Israel.
DTI's Export Control Organisation ("ECO")
provides the Committee with information relating to refusals,
including those for Israel, on a quarterly basis, along with information
on incorporation. This is passed to the Committee via the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office on a CD.
For ease of reference, I have created a separate
spreadsheet at Annex A [not printed], which provides specific
details of Israel export licence refusals to end September 2006.
Please note that any refusals that occurred between October and
December 2006 will be detailed in the Quarterly report for October
to December 2006, which is due to be published at the end of March
2007.
2. CLUSTER MUNITIONS
Sir John Stanley MP asked a number of questions
regarding cluster munitions. As the Minister made clear during
the debate, cluster munitions are primarily the responsibility
of the Ministry of Defence; DTI involvement would be in the context
of export control related matters. The following input has therefore
been provided by Ministry of Defence colleagues.
Sir John asked firstly whether, since responding
to a Parliamentary Question on cluster munitions on 31 January
2005, there had been any change in the Government's knowledge
of UK companies manufacturing cluster munitions for export; and
if the Government is presently aware of any UK companies that
are actually manufacturing cluster munitions, whether components
or complete items, for export.
The position has not changed since the answer
given on 31 January 2005. The Ministry of Defence is not aware
of any UK company manufacturing cluster munitions for export since
1998.
Sir John also asked whether the Government
still considered it appropriate to provide financial support through
contracts to the Israeli cluster bomb manufacturing industry.
Further to the answer given by Adam Ingram on
17 November 2003 (Official Report, Col 497W), the contract to
which that answer refers had been awarded by MOD to BAE Systems
and was completed in 2004. Israeli Military Industries (IMI) acted
as a sub-contractor to the main contract. Since 2004 IMI has on
occasion, when requested, provided to MOD expert advice only,
during routine maintenance checks of remaining stocks.
Finally, Sir John asked why it would take
until 2015 to withdraw dumb cluster bombs from the British Armed
Forces inventory and, in light of incidents in Lebanon, whether
the Government would consider accelerating this phasing out.
The Ministry of Defence is currently considering
this question and will respond directly to you shortly.
3. CRITERION
8 METHODOLOGY
Dr Roger Berry MP, Chair of the Committee,
requested details of the methodology for applying Criterion 8,
the reasons for the disparity between the UK and France in the
number of refusals using Criterion 8 and whether the UK had approved
any exports that were previously denied by France on Criterion
8 grounds.
Details of the methodology for applying Criterion
8 were passed to the Committee in confidence by Gareth Thomas
MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development,
at the Committee's evidence session on 1 March 2007. Mr Thomas
also advised the Committee that further information would be provided
in writing by the Department for International Development. Mr
Thomas also explained at the evidence session that the reason
for the disparity between the UK and French use of Criterion 8
was a "difference between the ways in which Criterion 8 is
interpreted in some countries." Further information about
this will be provided in writing by DFID to the Committee in confidence.
The DTI is currently preparing a response to
a letter from Dr Roger Berry MP, Chair of the Committee, dated
7 February 2007, in which the issue of the disparity is raised
and information relating to French refusals and any UK undercuts
is requested. The DTI and DFID will be working closely together
to ensure that the response provides as much detail as possible.
4. ARMS TRADE
TREATY
Tobias Ellwood MP asked the Minister a number
of questions relating to the international arms trade treaty,
including the potential for UK export controls to act as a model
for an arms trade treaty; the Government's reaction to those States
that refuse to sign any treaty; what discussions the Government
has had with other key States and how concerns on the China embargo
will manifest themselves as negotiations proceed.
In responding to these issues, we have received
advice from the FCO.
The Government is committed to securing a legally
binding treaty on the trade in all conventional arms. As we have
made clear before, we want a treaty that will make a real difference
and stop arms being sold which will be used by human rights abusers
or fuel conflict. To make sure a treaty is properly implemented
we envisage it including an effective mechanism for enforcement
and monitoring.
This is an ambitious project and there is a
long way to go, but in December 2006 153 countries voted for the
UN process that is now just starting to get underway. This is
a good start. But to have the impact we are looking for a treaty
will have to be global, and will in particular need to include
all of the major arms producers. That is why we are working to
build support generally, and why we are actively working to encourage
those major manufacturers who did not vote for the start of a
UN process, including the US, Russia and China, to engage positively
as discussions move forward.
The China arms embargo was also raised in the
context of an Arms Trade Treaty. There is no read-across between
the embargo and encouraging China to engage positively on the
ATT initiative. A cross-Whitehall team are proposing to travel
to China in the near future to have formal discussions with Chinese
Government officials to explain the case for the ATT, and encourage
them to engage.
5. DEBATE IN
PARLIAMENT ON
THE RESULT
OF THE
REVIEW OF
EXPORT CONTROLS
Tobias Ellwood MP asked whether the result
of the forthcoming review of UK export controls could be debated
on the Floor of the House rather than in Committee in order that
more Members would be able to participate.
As the Minister made clear, this suggestion
will be communicated through the usual channels and we will advise
the Committee of the outcome as soon as we are able to do so.
I hope that the responses above have covered
the points raised by the Committee at the debate. Should you have
any other concerns or questions, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
March 2007
| 
