| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5 Nov 2009 : Column 317WH—continued
Our comments on arms exports to Israel and Sri Lanka were the part of the report that attracted the most media coverage. I am conscious that other colleagues wish to speak in the debate, and I know that they will want to touch on those matters. Suffice it to say that the basis of our concerns was that in certain circumstances, UK weapons might be exported to countries that use
them to the great detriment of the civilian population. This is a general issue, but Israel and Sri Lanka are two recent examples.
Making a decision about whether to grant an arms export licence involves guessing about the future. In fairness, the process is more rigorous than the word "guess" suggests, but it involves making an estimate about the end use of the arms which, as I have said, is the only thing that matters. We are becoming increasingly concerned with events such as those in Gaza, Sri Lanka and elsewhere. We must ask whether we are being sufficiently robust and doing everything possible to ensure that licences are not granted if there is a significant risk that civilians might be affected-in the two cases I mentioned, large numbers of civilians were involved.
In conclusion, the Government have made progress over the years and we have acknowledged that. Nevertheless, some real concerns remain, and I look forward to the Minister's response to the specific questions that I have raised. If he feels that he will not have time to answer any of those questions this afternoon, we would be happy to receive his replies in writing.
3.1 pm
Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con): It is always a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Committee on Arms Export Controls, the hon. Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry). He made an extremely pertinent contribution, and will be glad to know that he raised all the points that I was going to make. As always on such occasions, one is delighted to feed off the crumbs from the rich man's table.
I will start with one important matter that the hon. Gentleman did not touch on-the fact that in this Committee, which is responsible for scrutinising Government policy, we are dependent on obtaining timely sight of proposed secondary legislation, before that legislation comes into effect. As the House knows, a great deal of the legislative and policy framework for arms export controls lies in secondary legislation. Our concerns were made clear to the Government in paragraph 11 of our report:
"We therefore repeat our recommendation that, in future, the Government should ensure that interested parties have at least two months to comment on drafts of secondary legislation implementing the Government's conclusions on the outcome of its Review of Export Controls."
I am disappointed in the Government's response to that critically important point. They have given us no assurance that they will meet our requirements for being able to view the draft secondary legislation at least two months ahead of its implementation. In a very weak way, they merely responded:
"We will endeavour in future to give stakeholders as much time as is possible to provide views in the event of further changes to the controls."
I do not think that is good enough, and it does not enable the Committee to discharge its responsibilities.
The hon. Member for Kingswood referred to Ukraine. I shall not elaborate further on that issue, other than to say that it was a serious matter for the members of the four Select Committees, particularly the Foreign Affairs Committee. It is unfortunate if circumstances arise where a foreign country has a list of UK arms brokers who have been given licences, yet the UK post in that
country is unaware of the contents of the list. We have taken careful note of that matter in the Foreign Affairs Committee and the other Committees.
There is one further point that I want to pursue. We asked an important question of the Government when we obtained the list. We wanted to be satisfied that there had been no breach of UK legislation in terms of those exports from the Ukraine by UK brokers. Again, I am disappointed in the Government's reply. It is now six months after our visit, yet we still have no clear statement as to whether there has been a breach of UK export controls by those brokers. The Government say that they are investigating the matter but that the process is not yet complete. I would have expected the Government to come up with a clear answer to the Committee's important question on that matter.
I turn briefly to the issue of extraterritoriality, which the Chairman of the Committee dealt with extremely well. For years, the four Committees have been out in front in that policy area, with the Government coming rather ponderously behind. It seems to be a half-baked policy involving a situation where some items on the military list are subject to extraterritoriality, and some are not. Do we accept the principle that an individual arms broker or arms exporter should be able to get outside UK jurisdiction, make sales that would be criminal offences if made within the UK, and get away with those sales without committing a criminal offence in the UK? If that situation is not acceptable, it follows logically that it must be the same for all items on the military list. That is what the four Committees have been saying.
We are glad that the Government now have what we understand is an agreed proposal from the non-governmental organisations and the arms export companies. We noted that the Government were due to respond to those proposals by the end of October. We are now beyond that, and we look to the Government to produce their response to those proposals quickly.
There is an anomalous position on anti-vehicle land mines. I applaud the current Government for getting in front of most of the rest of the world as far as anti-personnel land mines are concerned-that is absolutely to their credit. However, having got in front on that issue, why do we lag behind on anti-vehicle land mines? I do not understand why the Government have difficulty in extending category B trade controls to this classification of weapons. The extension to category B is not only sought by the Committee, it is sought by NGOs and by the industry. Arms exporters have no difficulty with the extension of category B to anti-vehicle land mines. I am puzzled as to why the Government reply, rather lamely:
"The Government will look again at whether anti-vehicle land mines should be placed into Category B of the trade controls."
I also want to look at the important issue of controls over weapons in transit. The Foreign Affairs Committee is familiar with that issue, and it was a significant feature of our inquiry into arms exports to Sierra Leone. We asked the Government a very specific question: how often had they seized goods in transit under the powers that existed then? I have read their reply carefully, but as far as I can see, they have totally ducked our very specific question; perhaps the Minister can tell us why they have been silent.
On the register of arms brokers, I fully endorse what the hon. Member for Kingswood said. Again, it is rather strange that the Government are unable to meet the Committees' recommendations. Ministers have effectively conceded the case for an international register of UK arms brokers. In paragraph 48 of our report, we quote the then Minister of State at the former Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, the right hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), who told us that his Department was
"not opposed to the idea of a register of arms brokers in principle".
In their response to our report, the Government make the same point, so we all agree in principle, but Ministers do not seem to want to jump the fence. The Government response includes comments such as
"The Government will be happy to look at this issue again once we have assessed the effectiveness of other initiatives...It is right that the Government takes the time to properly assess the effect of these new initiatives"
and so on. Given that the Government have accepted that a register would be desirable, why is it taking so long to agree that one as a matter of policy?
I simply do not understand the problem that is being erected on the grounds that a register would apparently impose a burden on legitimate businesses. If there was a register of approved UK brokers, it would actually lessen that burden because brokers making successive applications would not have to have them dealt with from scratch every time that they submitted them, because those brokers would be on the approved register. That would actually reduce the burden on legitimate businesses, rather than increase it, as the Government have suggested.
I am in no doubt that re-export clauses are very desirable, and if I were in the Minister's shoes, I would seize such a policy with both hands. Under the present system, a Minister takes a risk in relying on the fact that officials have got the risk assessment right and that a particular item will not be re-exported. If that judgment is wrong-and anybody can make a wrong judgment-it is the Minister who has to face the music. If there is a re-export clause in the contract, however, they can reasonably tell the House, "I've done everything I possibly can to prevent re-export. I put a re-export clause in the contract. Now I can litigate against the company in question." When he is in his bath, the Minister might like to reflect on which policy would suit him best.
On end-use undertakings, I found the Government's response incredibly laid-back in one respect. In the course of our inquiry, the Committees exposed a fundamental factual error in internal Ministry of Defence guidance. In response to paragraph 73 of our report, the Government said that the original internal Ministry of Defence guidance
"inadvertently included advice to Project Teams which suggested that end-user undertakings were not required between EU Member States."
If internally incorrect guidance is going around a Department that deals with licensing exports from this country, I should have thought that the first thing that people would want to do would be to correct that guidance at a rate of knots. In their reply, however, the Government simply say that they will make an amendment
"pending the updating of the entire section on international business",
which will no doubt take several months, if not longer. Perhaps the Minister can explain why the Government are so relaxed and laid-back about correcting this serious error, which is running around in internal Ministry of Defence guidance.
I have one last point on controls, although the Minister will be relieved to hear that I am now coming to a "sunlit uplands" section of my speech, in which I can say that we are on all fours with the Government. On dual use, the Committees recommended that the Government carry out independent research into how effective the controls are. As we all know, this is a serious issue, which brings us to potential chemical and biological nasties, so it is important that we have some independent assessment of how effective our controls are. The Government accepted our recommendation and commissioned a study, which they told us was carried out earlier this year, but the Committees are anxious to see the results. I do not know why the Government have simply responded by saying:
"The results of this study will be reported to the Committees and made public in due course."
Why does it have to be "in due course"? This important study was carried out earlier this year, and one would have hoped that the results could have been made available to the Committees immediately.
Mr. Hancock: The right hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that one of the phrases that continuously comes up in the response is, "We will look at it again." Perhaps the phrase "in due course" takes us a little nearer to getting something done than does the phrase "We will look at it again." We might be getting closer to the event.
Sir John Stanley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are on all fours with the Government on this issue, in so far as we asked for an independent study to be carried out, our recommendation was accepted and the study was carried out. Rather tantalisingly, however, and for reasons best known to them, the Government will release the study only "in due course", whatever that means. Perhaps the Minister will cheer us all up by saying that the study will be in the Vote Office by the end of the debate-I say that as a hint to the civil servants sitting behind him.
On the arms trade treaty, the hugely important and wonderful news is that the new American Administration have carried out a 180° U-turn on the previous Administration's policy. For my money, the single worst vote that the American Administration have cast since the foundation of the United Nations was the lone vote that the last Bush Administration cast against the rest of the world on the arms trade treaty. Happily, that is now merely history, and as the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), said, we were enormously encouraged by the total change of atmosphere and policy direction when we were in Washington last week. We had an extremely valuable meeting with Mrs. Ellen Tauscher, who is the new Under-Secretary responsible for arms control in the State Department.
On the arms trade treaty, too, I commend the Government, because they have been right out in front of pretty well every other country. As they go forward,
however, there will inevitably be a tension between maximising support for the eventual treaty and minimising the watering down that will have to take place to get the treaty agreed by the largest possible number of states. At present, we are in the foothills at the start of the negotiations, and all that I would say to the Minister is that although I am sure that the Government and all our expert people in the various Departments will do their utmost to achieve the maximum support, let us please have the minimum possible watering down.
I want now to discuss one or two countries, starting with China. I am delighted that the Government are taking a firm line on maintaining the arms export embargo on China. China's human rights record remains appalling. It is not every day of the week that I rush to applaud the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, but I am delighted to do so on this occasion and heartily agree with his recent statement:
"I think it's reasonable for us in Europe, if we are going to make a move on the arms embargo, that we see clear steps forward in individual and political rights and freedom of expression in China, which sparked our concern in the first place."
Well said, Secretary of State: I could not agree more strongly.
My only minor quibble with the Government's policy on arms exports to China arises with the coverage given to the Chinese expedition to the recent arms trade fair in London this September, which was billed as the largest defence fair in the world. More than 40 countries were represented there, with 1,300 exhibitors selling everything from machine guns, bullets and tanks to medical equipment. I noted that, at the invitation of UK Trade and Investment, there was a Chinese delegation, comprising nine members of the military, at that four-day event. The UKTI spokesman, whom I should not dream of naming, because he is a civil servant, and I should not want to cause him any embarrassment-he was only doing his job for the Government-said of the delegation that they would not be meeting any of the major defence contractors and would focus instead on humanitarian and disaster relief equipment. The spectacle of those nine carefully hand-picked top military people in the Chinese delegation wandering around the arms fair for four days, carefully averting their eyes from anything among the 1,300 exhibits other than humanitarian and disaster relief equipment, stretched my credulity somewhat. Leaving that aside, the policy is excellent.
I am very glad that we are taking strong steps to impose an arms embargo on the dismal new military regime that has sadly now installed itself in Guinea, under army Captain Camara. I have one question for the Minister. As he knows, there was a peaceful demonstration in Conakry, in which some 150 peaceful demonstrators were killed, and dozens of women were gang raped by the so-called presidential guard. I read Amnesty International's report, which said that armoured personnel carriers manufactured by a South African subsidiary of Alvis, a British company, but now a subsidiary of BAE systems, were involved in that terrible humanitarian crime. I should be grateful to know whether the Minister confirms that that equipment was present there.
I want to deal quickly with Israel and Iran. I welcome the recent written statement by the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, in which she used the provisions of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 to stop UK financial services contacts with the Iranian bank Mellat and the Islamic
Republic of Iran Shipping Lines. As she said, that was done because both those entities have been involved in transporting goods for Iran's ballistic missiles and nuclear programmes. That Government initiative is excellent and absolutely justified, but taking the initiative in arms control is no good if we take it entirely by ourselves: what steps are the Government taking to make certain that similar measures will be taken by the other EU member states, the United States-if it has not done so already-and other possible major users of ships, such as the Japanese and Koreans, who might make ships available to Iran for the shipments? That is something we do not want them to do.
I welcome the revocation by the Government of five export licences for the Israeli navy Saar 4.5 corvettes. The grounds for doing so were set out in the letter of 22 July from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis), to the Chairman of the Committees on Arms Exports Controls. He explained that if it had been known that they were to be used for coastal bombardment purposes, those licences would not have been granted under criteria 2 or 3. Before I make my policy point to the Minister, it is worth explaining criteria 2 and 3, as stated by the Foreign Secretary in his written statement of 21 April. Criterion 2 states that
"we will not issue an export licence where there is a clear risk that the export might be used for internal repression"
"we will not issue licences for exports which would provoke or prolong armed conflicts or aggravate existing tensions or conflicts in the country of final destination".-[Official Report, 21 April 2009; Vol. 491, c. 8W.]
The Minister of State's letter of 22 July to the Chairman of the four Committees states that there are in fact a total of 182 licences for Israel. The Government have revoked five, so presumably there are 177 outstanding. My question to the Minister is whether he and the Government are satisfied that each and every one of the remaining 177 licences is valid and in compliance with both criteria 2 and 3 under the EU agreed consolidated criteria.
Jeremy Corbyn: In considering arms sales to Israel, did any of the Committees consider the question of nuclear technology, which has been exported to Israel for many years, from countries that are signatories to the non-proliferation treaty and are therefore bound by it not to export technology to non-signatory states?
Sir John Stanley: I do not think that we have considered that specific issue in the four Committees, because we are charged with addressing policy on exports from the UK, and the British Government's policy, but the hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid point, and it is incumbent on all signatories of the NPT to comply with its provisions in all respects. I am sure that any evidence he has to the contrary will be put before the forthcoming NPT review conference.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |