Examination of Witnesses (Questions 260-279)
RT HON
MARGARET BECKETT
MP, MR PAUL
ARKWRIGHT AND
MS MARIOT
LESLIE
15 MARCH 2007
Q260 Peter Luff: I do not want to
sound pejorative but you are saying: "Trust us, we can do
this on a case-by-case basis", but it is difficult for us
to know whether or not the criteria have been applied in a consistent
manner. It is a dilemma.
Margaret Beckett: Well, you know
what those criteria are; we report to the Committee on a fairly
regular basis; there is a good deal of transparency; and there
is scope for the Committee to explore some of these things if
it is felt that is not the case.
Mr Arkwright: Every export licence
application we receive is sent to the Foreign Office's Human Rights
Group, as I think you are aware. They are responsible for consistent
application of the human rights criteria in each of the cases,
so we do have a team responsible for applying that criterion and
looking very carefully at it across the board in each of these
cases, and that is one way we try to ensure consistency.[1]
Q261 Chairman: One of the countries highlighted
in your annual report is Uzbekistan. Following the Andijan massacre
the EU did then impose an arms embargo and the premise of that
must have been it is not the actual equipment, it is not whether
it is a military vehicle or whether it is an electro shock baton
for torturing but that this is a regime whose human rights record
is such that we do not feel safe in selling any military equipment
to their armed forces or their security services or whatever,
so I had always thought that the end-use, as in the people using
the kit, was as important a part of the considerations as whether
it was a vehicle or a stun gun or a baton, and I am confused if
I have misunderstood for so many years.
Margaret Beckett: I am not sure
that I was in post when that decision was taken, but two points
strike me. First, there are points where people decide that there
are some countries, as with Burma and Zimbabwe, where you just
do not engage. Secondly, I think I am right in saying that there
was a concern that some material which had been legitimately exported
to Uzbekistan in the past might have been used during these events.
Q262 Chairman: The issue was about
flat pack Land Rovers being exported to Turkey and Turkey then
converting them into military vehicles and exporting them to Uzbekistan.
This Committee raised the issue at the time and were reminded
that obviously a civilian export in a flat pack to Turkey was
not subject to UK arms export controls, but I thought we had the
assurance that if there had been a direct military export to Uzbekistan
in those circumstances it was extremely unlikely, if not impossible,
that a licence would have been granted.
Margaret Beckett: Absolutely.
Q263 Chairman: My point then is that
it was the end user, not the nature of the piece of equipment
that was the cause for concern. We export military Land Rovers—no
problem. The concern was it was going to Uzbekistan which, according
to the Foreign Office and to everybody else, has a human rights
record that needs to be questioned. So it is the end-user, the
country of end-use, that does matter, which brings me back to
Peter's point, which is why he was raising it, I think.
Peter Luff: Exactly.
Margaret Beckett: Yes. There is
a limit to how effective one can be in this respect. You are correct,
of course, it does go back to the whole issue of dual use which
is so difficult, and we do try—probably more rigorously
than most other governments, if I can say so without being critical
of them—to be rigorous in our controls about material that
can be misused. But let's be quite blunt about it; if you want
to, you can go on a bike and massacre somebody with a Kalashnikov
or something, you do not have to have a British exported Land
Rover. There is a limit to how far one can take some of it. But
when we make the judgments we make about issuing an export licence
we do try to envisage all of these worse case scenarios, and if
it were the case that any of us were so preoccupied as to forget
some of these human rights issues I can assure you the relevant
section in the Foreign Office would make sure we did not.
Q264 Robert Key: And that assessment
would be done in post, presumably?
Margaret Beckett: In part.
Q265 Robert Key: And what role would
defence attachés play in that assessment?
Margaret Beckett: Well, it depends
really on whether we are now talking about dual-use or specifically
military equipment. I would have thought under present circumstances
not necessarily all that much. It is a general political assessment
in a case like Uzbekistan.
Q266 Richard Burden: On a similar
theme could I perhaps explore a little bit about the role of the
Human Rights, Democracy and Good Governance Group and the role
they play in the assessment of licences?
Margaret Beckett: This is the
group Paul was talking to you about? It all goes to them first.
Q267 Richard Burden: If there is
a licence application for export to a country where the UK has
concerns about human rights abuses, would that automatically go
to that Group?
Margaret Beckett: They all automatically
go to that Group, I think—
Mr Arkwright: Exactly, yes.[2]
Margaret Beckett: —because
almost anywhere can suddenly become a cause for concern and because,
not to put too fine a point on it, I have always assumed they
have their finger on these human rights issues—for obvious
reasons in that this is their bread and butter—in a way
that not everybody else has to that same degree. So they would
be likely to be more sensitive to some whiff of something changing.
Mr Arkwright: The post is very
closely involved in the human rights aspects as well, so any export
licence application will be sent to the post and they will be
asked, alongside the Human Rights Group, to consider the human
rights aspects of any particular application and answer any questions
that we may have centrally in London.
Q268 Richard Burden: When in a Parliamentary
Answer about the work of the Group it was noted that there were
7,381 standard individual export licence applications referred
to the Foreign Office in 2005, and in that answer it was saying
that where there are specific human rights concerns that arise
ministerial decisions are sought for finely balanced cases, do
you have any idea about roughly how many are referred to ministers?
Margaret Beckett: I do not have
the figures for 2005. I have the figures for 2006.
Q269 Richard Burden: That is rather
better.
Margaret Beckett: In 2006 there
were 54 submissions that went to ministers and, of those 54, 47
of them were on the basis of human rights concerns.
Q270 Mr Borrow: Article 296 of the
Treaty of Amsterdam makes it clear that issues around security
and defence are very much for Member States and not within the
competence of the European Union, but the Commission has estimated
that it costs defence companies in the EU on internal trading
somewhere in the region of 3 billion euros a year and have been
looking at ways of seeking to streamline intra Union exports.
What is the UK Government's position? Are we on "Let's stick
strictly to the letter of the terms of Article 296", or do
we take the sympathetic approach?
Margaret Beckett: We are cautious
about this sort of area but I would make two points. One is that
at the moment the Commission is mulling over something like a
three-stage process, and we have been engaged in discussions with
them to try to shape it in the direction we would hope for. Secondly,
they have not made any formal proposals yet; I think we think
they might by the end of the year. Anyway, they are working on
some proposals and have not put them forward yet, but the Commission
already has the power to regulate public procurement, so while
we are keeping an eye and are conscious of the issue you raise
and the question about competences, given what we understand informally
of the nature of what the Commission is envisaging we do not think
it will encroach on existing Member State competences.
Q271 Mr Borrow: Outside the EU part
of this, the Letter of Intent Group—which is the UK, France,
German, Italy, Spain, Sweden, the six largest defence manufacturing
states within the EU—have been working for some time to
seek to reduce barriers to intra trade between those six countries.
Why do you think there has been very little progress in doing
anything concrete?
Margaret Beckett: I think it is
just that it does take time. As I understand it, industry has
for some reason, and it is not quite clear to me why, not been
keen on using the procedures that are in place and so what we
have we begun to do, particularly lately, is to try to see whether
there are obstacles or barriers that can be removed that will
encourage the industry to use these procedures or something very
like them, and I believe we are working on some pilot projects
to try to work with the industry to try to move this forward,
and I think also there is a working group looking at some aspects
of it at Brussels so people are trying to move it forward.
Q272 Chairman: Foreign Secretary,
could we turn to the issue of extraterritorial controls, an issue
that, as you know, the Committee has exercised its collective
mind about for some time. In a recent interview on 14 February
the Secretary of State for International Development said: "[that
the] forthcoming review of the Export Control Act would examine
whether UK controls on international arms brokers, who act as
go-betweens in weapons deals, should be extended". Do you
want to see controls on traffickers and brokers extended?
Margaret Beckett: Certainly, we
recognise that this is a very difficult area but also it is an
area of considerable concern and one which a lot of people have
looked at and felt ought to be opted. As far as we are concerned,
basically we would say that it is something we would like to see
re-examined in the review process, it does seem very much to fit
into that overall process of review and re-consideration. I will
not disguise from the Committee that I think it does present particular
difficulties, but we are willing to look at it again in the course
of that review.
Q273 Chairman: Good. There are extraterritorial
controls at present in relation to long-range missiles to embargoed
destinations, torture groups and so on and yet, as many people
point out, the weapons of mass destruction today are the small
arms, are they not? It is the small arms and light weapons which
are killing most people in the conflicts that we are all familiar
with so consideration, at least active sympathetic consideration,
of extending extraterritoriality to those would be part of the
review as the Government would see it?
Margaret Beckett: Not only do
we anticipate it as part of the review, but we held a workshop
not long ago with the industry and NGOs and it was explicitly
discussed at that workshop as a means of feeding into the review,
so I can assure the Committee that the concerns are not going
to be ignored.
Q274 Chairman: I hate to miss any
further elaboration on this!
Ms Leslie: I was observing that
in the much longer term, of course, the Arms Trade Treaty would
also help in this area.
Chairman: Yes, but the Committee
does not want to wait quite that long, if at all possible.
Q275 Sir John Stanley: Foreign Secretary,
you referred in reply to the Chairman to difficulties unspecified.
I wonder whether these difficulties are more perhaps in the bureaucratic
mind than in reality and to try to test this one out, I asked
the Library to provide me with a complete list of the legislation
already on the statute book regarding offences which, when they
are committed overseas by a UK person, would be offences in the
UK and can result in criminal prosecution in the UK of the person
concerned. The list which the Library has provided me with—if
this helps your officials it has arrived from Archibald's Criminal
Proceeding Evidence and Practice 2007—actually to my surprise
is as long as your arm. It covers a total of 24 separate pieces
of legislation already on the statute book under which offences
can be prosecuted in the UK under criminal proceedings when they
are committed overseas. Given the fact that the Government has
already conceded the principle of extraterritoriality in relation—regrettably
only—to instruments of torture, however defined, and long-range
missiles in excess of 300 kilometres with everything else excluded
in between, which is where all the trafficking takes place, given
the fact the principles have been already been conceded, given
the fact that there are 24 separate pieces of legislation already
on the statute book in which extraterritoriality applies, I hope,
Foreign Secretary, you could assure us that the difficulties you
foresee are of a minimal nature. I hope that in policy terms also
ministers will drive ahead and accept the unanimous recommendation
of these four select committees, that extraterritoriality should
be applied to all types of weapons when they are trafficked and
brokered overseas.
Margaret Beckett: If I may make
three points to you, Sir John. First of all, I am never entirely
sure among those who should be governing rather than those who
are, whether it is the House of Commons Library or London taxi
drivers, who have pride of place, but certainly the Library is
always brilliant at finding easy answers to knotty problems which,
sadly, governments do not always feel able to implement. Secondly,
without having read what sounds like a comprehensive list I know
you are very well aware, and I think the Committee will be well
aware, that it is one thing to put something into legislation
and it is another thing for it to be effective. One of the sad
responsibilities which we place on our bureaucrats is to advise
us—of course, you can put something into legislation, but
will it have the effect you desire—and to counsel as to
whether or not that is always the case. That is why I do not think
it is just a matter of the bureaucratic mind finding difficulty,
I think it is because one of the responsibilities with which we
charge our bureaucrats is giving us practical advice about how
effective things might be. The third point I would make to you
is that you do make an important point and we will, indeed, look
at it in the review but one of the bodies whose views and responsibilities
are particularly pertinent is, in fact, Revenue and Customs and
it is they too who would have to be involved and consulted.
Chairman: There are clearly issues
of enforcement with all of these items. I think this may well
appear in the appendix on extraterritoriality, I would be very
surprised if it does not. I think there are enforcement issues.
Judy Mallaber: If I could make
a point. When we discussed this previously, one of the examples
that was given was that we do not say that we will not have extraterritoriality
in legislation saying that child abusers should not be prosecuted
if they engage in child abuse in other countries because we are
not sure that we are going to be able to implement it very easily,
it does not affect whether we reach legislation.
Chairman: I will take that as
a comment. Sir John has a final question on this.
Q276 Sir John Stanley: Foreign Secretary,
I do hope that you will not dismiss the House of Commons Library.
The House of Commons Library has simply prepared as an issue of
fact the 24 items of legislation where extraterritoriality applies
and I hope you may wish to consult that list. You will see, for
example, included on it are issues like the safety of Channel
Tunnel trains, bribery and corruption, but we are talking here
about massive life and death issues about weapons running overseas
into, say, areas of conflict where thousands or tens of thousands,
or more, people can lose their lives. This is a life and death
issue and I hope the Government will reflect as to whether it
is acceptable that UK persons should be able to carry out these
activities overseas completely immune to prosecution under UK
criminal law when those offences most certainly would face a criminal
prosecution if committed in the UK. I hope ministers will reflect
on that.
Margaret Beckett: I do not take
it lightly and, indeed, I intended to cast no aspersion whatever
on the House of Commons Library, which is an excellent body of
people and whose work is always invaluable to all Members of Parliament.
I believe I sought to make a light reference to the speed and
skill to which they can find the answer to any question.
Q277 Linda Gilroy: What impact has
the recent shooting down of a satellite by a missile by China
got on strategic exports to China? Does it strengthen the hand
of those who want to maintain the arms embargo?
Margaret Beckett: As far as I
am aware, it has not been explicitly discussed in quite those
terms because, of course, we are maintaining the arms embargo
and so it is not an issue that has come up in the context of should
we do anything other than maintain it but, in a more general approach
to your question, I think it has raised a lot of concerns in many
quarters, and the UK is researching those.
Q278 Linda Gilroy: The UK position
on that has been stronger than EU partners, do you think it has
altered their perspective at all?
Margaret Beckett: Well, as I say,
it has not been discussed in those terms. I think it will have
had an effect on everyone because it is a clear demonstration
of a capacity which has a lot of implications.
Q279 Linda Gilroy: There was an answer
to a written parliamentary question on 22 January, the Minister
for Trade and Investment said, "The Foreign Secretary, ministers
and officials held regular discussions with the Chinese Government
on a wide range of international issues including the arms trade".
What have been the results of that dialogue and what, for instance,
are the prospects of engaging them in the Arms Trade Treaty?
Margaret Beckett: I think China
was one of the countries who abstained from the Arms Trade Treaty.
I suppose one could say, being realistic, that the major arms
producers and traders on balance are probably the ones who have
abstained and, as I say, China was one. We do continue to engage
them in discussion and conversation and to attempt to convince
them that this is, in fact, the right path to tread and we are
not unhopeful of making some progress, although, of course, it
will take time.
1 Note by witness: The Foreign and Commonwealth
Office would like to clarify this point. In responding to the
Committee's question about how many licences are sent to HRDGG,
it regrets the impression may have been given that every licence
received in the Foreign Office is sent to HRDGG. In fact, only
those licences where there is a concern on the grounds of Criterion
2 are sent to HRDGG. In 2006, this was the case in a total of
631 licences. Back
2
See footnote 1, page 28 Back
| 
