Further memorandum from the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office
SECTION A: SPECIFIC
LICENSING DECISIONS
(QUARTER 1 (2007)
The Committees need to see sufficient information
about the Government's licensing decisions to come to a reasonable
understanding of why the Government has granted or refused a licence
in any particular case. This should include an intelligible description
of the goods, an indication of their value, the identity of the
end user, and the stated end use of the goods.
1. The Committees would be grateful
for more information on the following licences issued during the
third quarter (January to March) of 2007:
* * *
(n) Libya: SIELs for armoured personnel carriers
and water cannons; more specifically how the Government was satisfied
that these exports would not breach Criterion 2;
The Government was satisfied that these exports
would not breach Criterion 2
The Government placed a proviso on the licence
that the goods were to remain in the control of the exporter until
the end-user, the Libyan Police, had successfully completed, and
been assessed against, appropriate training on the use of this
equipment and best practice in public order situations.
One aspect of the training was the `underpinning
theories and models related to Human Rights and the proportionality
of response'.
Independent assessors from the UK MoD Police
and the Humberside Police evaluated this training.
HMG considered the level of risk that the
goods would have been used contrary to Criterion 2 to have been
mitigated to an acceptable level by the training and evaluation.
* * *
SECTION B: QUESTIONS
APPLYING TO
SEVERAL LICENSING
DECISIONS (QUARTER
1 (2007)
* * *
3. Kenya: the total value of the
SIELs is £8.5 million; did DFID carry out an evaluation for
the purposes of Criterion 8 before any licence was granted; if
it did, could the Committee have a copy?
Licences are referred to DFID by BERR for
an assessment against Criterion 8 when the destination is on a
list of countries where sustainable development is most likely
to be an issue, and where the value of the licence is above a
certain value threshold determined on a country by country basis.
The committee highlighted SIELs issued for exports to Kenya totalling
£8.5 million. Only one exceeded the value threshold and was
sent to DFID for an assessment. The licence was for the provision
of spare parts for secure communications for Government and Peace
keeping forces. We judged that no further evaluation was required
and approved the application.
4. Solomon Islands: the SIELs have
a value of £2 million; did DFID carry out an evaluation for
the purposes of Criterion 8, if it did, could the Committee have
a copy?
Licences are referred to DFID by BERR for
an assessment against Criterion 8 when the destination is on a
list of countries where sustainable development is most likely
to be an issue, and where the value of the licence is above a
certain value threshold determined on a country by country basis.
The committee highlighted SIELs issued for exports to the Solomon
Islands with a value of £2 million. Only one licence was
sent to DFID for an assessment against Criterion 8. As the end
user was a private company DFID did not carry out a Criterion
8 evaluation and the licence application was approved.
5. Where an application relates to an item
covered by EC REG 1236/2005 (The EU "Capital Punishment and
Torture" Regulation) it would be of assistance to have a
note explaining how such applications are assessed and on what
basis licences are granted.
Export licence applications for equipment
listed in EC REG 1236/2005 are assessed as follows:
— Annex II of this regulation
describes goods that have "no practical use other than for
the purposes of capital punishment, torture and other cruel, inhuman
or degrading treatment or punishment". EC REG 1236/2005 bans
the export of goods listed in this annex, with an exception made
for such goods where they are solely intended for public display
in a museum. All other applications for export licences for goods
listed on Annex II are caught by this prohibition and would therefore
be refused under Criterion 1 (respect for the UK's international
commitments).
— Annex III of the EC "Torture"
Regulation describes equipment that "could be used for the
purpose of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment". Some of these goods, including stun guns,
leg-irons and gang-chains, were banned from export or transhipment
from the UK by then-Foreign Secretary Robin Cook on 28 July 1997.
An export licence for these goods would be refused under Criterion
1. Any application received for the export of other Annex III-listed
equipment would be assessed against the Consolidated Criteria
as with any other application. An export licence would only be
granted where HMG was satisfied that the proposed export was not
to be used in breach of any of the criteria, with particular attention
given to Criterion 2, "The respect of human rights and fundamental
freedoms in the country of final destination". Applications
for the export of such equipment would also be assessed in each
case by the FCO's Human Rights, Democracy and Good Governance
team.
6. * * *
SECTION D: OITCL
RELATING TO
2006 AND 2007
7. According to the 2006 Annual Report an
OITCL was issued in 2006 for trade between a large number of destinations
(Angola, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile,
Colombia, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Finland, France, French Guyana,
Germany, Greece, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Italy, Ivory
Coast, South Korea, Malaysia, Martinique, Mexico, Mozambique,
Namibia, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines,
Poland, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Russia, Senegal, South Africa,
Spain, Surinam, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, United States
of America, Uruguay, Venezuela), covering components for equipment
ranging from submarines to heavy machine guns. Can you confirm
whether or not it was reported in outline in 2006?
This information was inadvertently included
in the Annual Report for 2006. The application was received in
late 2006 and completed in February 2007.
8. A similarly wide OITCL was reported in
first quarter 2007; can the Government confirm what equipment
it covers?
* * *
9. In both cases, the OITCLs list of destinations
includes one country under UN embargo, Ivory Coast. Did these
OITCLs specify consignees and end-users, and what steps were taken
to ensure that these fell within the exemptions of the arms embargoes
imposed by UN Security Council Resolution 1572 (2004) and EC Common
Position 2004/852/CFSP? What sort of trading entity were the 2006
OITCL and the Q1 2007 OITCLs granted to? What sort of consignee
and end-users were the 2006 OITCL and the Q1 2007 OITCLs granted
to?
The licence was granted to the UK office
of an overseas government, and the end-user is the navy of that
government.
We are unable to provide further details
of this case, as the information is commercially confidential.
October 2007
|
