| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
26 Mar 2009 : Column 170WH—continued
Ian Pearson:
In replying directly to my hon. Friend, I reiterate what I said earlier. It would not increase our powers in the real world to deal with the problem. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to enforce
it outside the UK’s legal jurisdiction. It would also be onerous to operate. I share my hon. Friend’s objective; I do not want to see exports going to places that they should not. At the moment, as I said, the licensing application process includes getting an undertaking from the end user that the goods will be used for the purposes stated; and various safeguards are built in. If an exporter has been found to have been involved in exporting to an embargoed destination, that will be taken into account when considering future licensing applications.
Lembit Öpik: I support what was said by the hon. Member for Kingswood, the Committee Chairman. We already have a model for that, the one used by the United States. The US is a free capitalist market, yet the US believes that it can be enforced. Surely, the sanction is that if the clause is violated, it will cause obstacles to further trade. That, in itself, should be a deterrent for major customers—usually nations—regarding violating the clause. Why does the Minister believe that the UK cannot benefit from a provision that is thought by the US to be effective?
Ian Pearson: I have explained why I think it would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce that outside the UK’s jurisdiction, and I have nothing further to add. However, when licences have been issued but information subsequently comes to light of an undesirable re-export, we have the power to revoke the licence under secondary legislation. The impact of doing so would obviously be limited if the goods had already been re-exported, but we would be able to factor that information into subsequent licensing decisions.
I turn to some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling, as well as to picking up on points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood and others. The right hon. Gentleman raised the question of components. He spoke specifically about F-16s, Apache helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles. When we are talking about components that potentially have a dual use, there can be a risk of diversion. In some clear cases, such as those involving head-up displays, which he mentioned, components have been incorporated into systems in a way that causes extreme concern.
I cannot, as the right hon. Gentleman asked, undertake today to review our policy, but I shall give the matter some consideration and report back to the Committee on whether, based on our evidence, a case could be made for reviewing our procedures.
Roger Berry: The Minister acknowledged that, in recent years, licences had been granted for the export of head-up display units in the full knowledge that Israel would be the ultimate end user. In the light of what has happened in the middle east in recent years, does he believe that the policy should be subject to scrutiny, or only the process?
Ian Pearson: In response to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling, I said that I would consider the case for a review of the policy on the export of components. We will respond to the Committee when we are in a position to do so.
Sir John Stanley: Will the Minister confirm whether the Committee could, if it so wished, put into the public domain the entire text of his letter on 19 February?
Ian Pearson: I cannot confirm that now, but I shall ensure that the right hon. Gentleman receives an answer at some point. As he will appreciate, I receive advice on what material should be restricted, and although it is appropriate to continue this discussion, it would not be right to give that permission without seeking further legal advice.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned China’s human rights record. I would like to stress that, on every appropriate occasion, the UK Government raise with China its human rights record. Its various human rights failings are well recognised and reported on through the media, and the annual human rights reports issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office indicate continuing concerns about human rights practices in China, while recognising that progress has been made. He also mentioned capital punishment, although I do not think that he was suggesting that the UK was exporting to China equipment that might assist it to carry out executions. He will be aware that the UK takes a clear view against capital punishment, as we make extremely clear in all international forums.
Sir John Stanley: I asked the Minister whether he would conduct a very carefully considered review of whether this substantial trade with China, as shown in EU figures, is fully compliant with the terms of the EU combined criteria. For example, is he satisfied that every item that has received a licence from his Department is compliant with criterion 2(a)? That states:
“Member States shall...deny an export licence if there is a clear risk that the military technology or equipment to be exported might be used for internal repression”.
He might wish to write to the Committee about that as well.
Ian Pearson: The Government rigorously assess all licence applications for exports to China and other countries, and we have no reason to believe that any of our decisions have been wrong, so no case could be made for a review.
Many hon. Members have rightly taken a strong and close interest in defence exports to Israel, which is entirely understandable, given what happened in Gaza recently. I can only repeat what ministerial colleagues have said many times before: the licensing criteria must be the basis of all our decisions. If issuing a licence would be inconsistent with those criteria, the licence will be refused. That policy has remained constant over many years—it has not changed because it has not needed to. However, the circumstances to which the risk assessments are applied do change. As the Committee knows, the circumstances at the time of the application are taken fully into account when decisions are made.
Not all licences granted for exports to Israel are for equipment that will remain there. Many involve equipment for incorporation into larger equipment and onward export to a third country. Also, many are for dual use rather than military items. Overseas posts have standing instructions to report any misuse of UK-supplied equipment, and should any relevant information come
to light, whether through the media, non-governmental organisations or intelligence reports, it will be taken into account when assessing future licences. Those issues might also be raised with the authorities in the country in question. Hon. Members will be aware that the FCO will shortly make a statement, and on 4 March, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell), appeared before the Committee. What he said then remains our position.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: With respect to the Minister, his remarks have been slightly inconsistent. He said that a re-export clause was impossible, because it could not be legally enforced or policed. How, therefore, does he expect to police a licence allowing the export to Israel of, for example, motors for unmanned aerial vehicles to be re-exported to a third country?
Ian Pearson: The hon. Gentleman takes us back to end-use monitoring, as opposed to assessments during the licensing application process. Guarantees of use will be given, and I see no inconsistency here. Re-exporting is potentially a very difficult issue. Mention was made of Indian re-exports to Burma. Those are of grave concern, and those concerns are factored into licensing decisions. However, the re-export to end-use destinations such as the United States of components supplied to Israel, as happens quite a lot, would not necessarily cause the Government heightened concern.
Sir John Stanley: May I respond to what the Minister said to me about a review of policy towards Israel? He spoke as if the policy is set in stone and does not take into account events—particularly recent events. Does he not agree that it is incumbent on him and his colleagues to look at recent events and consider whether the uses that have been made by Israel of military equipment are still compliant with EU criteria? Again, I refer him to criterion 2 (c), which says that member states shall
“deny an export licence if there is a clear risk that the military technology or equipment to be exported might be used in the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law.”
Does the Minister not agree, therefore, that when he or the Secretary of State makes the promised statement, it will be incumbent on the Government to set out whether or not they consider that the use of military force in Gaza recently has or has not been in violation of criterion 2 (c)?
Ian Pearson: Absolutely; I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that decisions on licensing must take account of current and recent events, and that is exactly what they do. The licensing criteria and policy itself have not changed, and do not need to change. None the less, it should be looked at in the light of current events. Any future licensing applications for exports of goods and components to Israel will have to bear in mind the recent events that have tragically taken place in that country.
At the risk of being controversial, I should like to respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood about the moral equivalence of an arms embargo on both Hamas and Israel. One is a terrorist organisation and the other is a democracy. It is
right that we should apply different criteria to terrorist organisations and democratic countries. That is not to say that we do not have concerns about the use of military goods exports. Clearly, we do, and we take it into account as part of the licensing criteria. I do not accept the rationale of my hon. Friend’s argument, but if he wants to explain it again to me, I will happily give way to him.
Roger Berry: There are occasions when democracies are in conflict, and arms embargoes are applied. The Government’s position is that Israel is in unlawful occupation of the Palestine territories. Moreover, there are countless views of the Government on the wall and so on.
If the Government called, as they did, for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, and if they called, as they rightly did, for efforts to stop arms going into Gaza that could have ended up in the hands of Hamas, why on earth did they not, at the same time, call for an arms embargo on Israel, which has weaponry that far exceeds anything that Hamas could ever dream of? Why use such double standards? This is a conflict that the Government say should cease, being fought in a territory that the Government say is illegally occupied by the state of Israel.
Sir Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. I am allowing rather lengthy interventions because we are not pressed for time. However, I ask hon. Members to make their interventions succinct and brief.
Ian Pearson: I do not accept that the Government have double standards. We are correctly applying both international law and the licensing criteria under the regime that we are discussing at the moment.
Let me turn now to compliance with open licences, which was raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold. I should like to reassure both him and others that the Government take such a matter extremely seriously, as they do any breaches of the controls or the licence conditions. We have regular audit checks to ensure that companies are complying with the terms of their open licences. In 2008, the Export Control Organisation undertook 15 per cent. more audits than in 2007 following an increase in resources in the compliance unit. In 2009, the number will increase still further as the new officers are now fully trained and handling their own portfolio of companies.
I know that the Committees have expressed concerns before, and to address those the ECO has put in place additional measures to increase compliance levels of open general licence users. From June 2008 to the end of February 2009, 38 warning letters were issued to companies that had failed fully to meet the terms and conditions of the open licences. Until recently, all the companies had been found to be compliant at a revisit. However, earlier this month, the ECO suspended for a period of three months a company’s use of open licences following repeated non-compliance with the terms of the licences that it used. That indicates the robust approach that the Government are taking.
Hon. Members also raised the issue of transport controls on category B goods. Such goods are of heightened concern, but they are also traded legitimately. Therefore, the arranging of transport will always be controlled,
but the provision of transport will be controlled in specific circumstances. Only a much-reduced range of supporting services will be controlled, which was of particular concern to the hon. Member for Cotswold.
Finally, let me respond to the point, on which many hon. Members have pressed, about how we can spread best practice and improve standards internationally. Hon. Members have been very appreciative of the fact that we have good and strong standards in the UK. They rightly asked us whether there is more that we can do in this area, but there is a recognition from the Committees that standards in the UK are higher than in many other countries.
The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform supports the FCO in international outreach work, and undertakes international outreach activities as part of a joined-up government effort to promote
good export licensing practice in other countries, including those that have recently joined the European Union. We also host inward visits to cover specific aspects of export controls.
In 2008, officials were involved in 12 inward visits and participated in 11 outreach activities overseas. ECO officials were also invited to deliver presentations at a number of overseas international conferences and seminars. I could give many examples, but I want to close by illustrating the importance that the Government attach to the export licensing regime in the United Kingdom. We want high standards not just for the UK, but for the EU through the consolidated criteria that are followed by all member states, and we will continue to promote the highest standards internationally.
4.59 pm
| Index | Home Page |