Examination of Witness (Questions 1-19)
IAN PEARSON
MP, MR JOHN
DODDRELL AND
MS JAYNE
CARPENTER
21 JANUARY 2009
Q1 Chairman: Good morning and welcome.
May I start with a question on where the Government has reached
in its consideration of extra-territorial controls. As you know,
we very much welcome the Government's decision to extend extra-territorial
controls to cover small arms, MANPADS, cluster munitions but our
main concern, as we have repeatedly stated, has been to bring
within legal control activities which, if they had taken place
in the UK without a licence, would be criminal activities; that
is that all items on the Military List effectively should be brought
within extra-territorial controls. We are aware that there have
been discussions between the NGOs and the industry stakeholders.
My first question therefore is: what has the progress been in
relation to those discussions?
Ian Pearson: The first thing I
would like to say is that I think there have been a number of
significant successes in general terms over the past year or so.
We have introduced significant changes to controls in high risk
areas where stakeholders have been calling for change for some
time: new controls on sting sticks that were introduced in April,
the introduction of a new three-category trade control structure
with stronger controls on cluster munitions, small arms and MANPADS,
which you have just referred to, which were announced in October
2008, stronger trade controls on light weapons. I think the review
that has been undertaken, which undoubtedly we will get into as
well, is one of a number of achievements over the last 12 months.
With regard to the specific question that you raise on extra-territorial
controls, as you know, controls are already in place on a wide
range of goods, as I have indicated and as you are very well aware.
In April 2009, those will be extended further to cover light weapons—again
a not insignificant development. You rightly point out the fact
that stakeholders are currently working to produce a joint proposal
in relation to any further extension. I have to say that further
measures need to be based on evidence of risk; they need to be
proportionate and workable; and target activities of real concern
in an effective way. We are not at the stage yet where there has
been a consensus in terms of taking these matters forward. We
still want to continue to work with stakeholders to come up with
proposals for any further extensions which we believe are workable.
Q2 Chairman: Some have said that
you have sub-contracted this job to the NGOs and the defence industry.
We have made the very simple case, and year by year you have given
us a bit more, so as the years have gone over you have extended
extra-territorial controls. The Government has extra-territorial
controls in other areas of public policy. Do you not think that
the Government ought to be leading on this rather than leaving
it to the NGOs and the industry stakeholders to come up with a
solution?
Ian Pearson: I believe we have
a shared responsibility. There is a process underway, as you are
aware, that started well before I was appointed Economic and Business
Minister. In the time that I have had to look at it, it really
fits quite well with my view about how policy is best made. I
happen to believe that we ought to be doing more of what you might
call co-production of policy, working with outside groups, trying
to build a consensus on the best way forward. My understanding
is that is exactly the sort of process that we are trying to follow
in this case. I think that that co-production method is a good
one and we ought to look to see if there is consensus about how
we take things forward. Ultimately, of course, if there is not
going to be any agreement, then it will be up to Government to
make a decision as an arbiter of where the balance of advantage
lies.
Q3 Chairman: Finally on this, as
you are aware, it took years for this Committee and others to
persuade the Government to include small arms and light weapons
in the category of equipment that is subject—
Ian Pearson: Yes, and we have
responded.
Q4 Chairman: Minister, you have.
I am delighted, as I said at the very beginning, and I always
want to praise where praise is due. Do you not think that at the
end of the day the logic of this is that all the groups on the
Military List should be within your new Category B in the export
control order?
Ian Pearson: I do not necessarily
accept that that is the logic because I think you need to look
at whether that would impose a disproportionate burden on industry.
As I say, we need to look at evidence of risk; we need to look
at proportionality; we need to look at what is workable as well.
I think the co-production method that I am talking about, getting
stakeholders to discuss this, is the best way if consensus can
be reached. If consensus cannot be reached, then, as I have said,
it will be for the Government to form a view.
Chairman: Thank you very much. It was
worth a try.
Q5 Malcolm Bruce: I am sure all of
us will welcome the fact that we have a ceasefire in Gaza and
hope to God that that will continue without provocation or response
to it from either side. There has been a lot of concern about
the conduct and the proportionality of the Israelis forces on
what they have and have not done. There are specific points. In
the past we have been concerned about the equipment in the cockpits
of the F-16s. We had evidence in 2006 from the British Embassy
that confirmed that F-16s, to which we had supplied equipment,
had been used in incursions to Lebanon and Gaza, which would appear
to be in breach of the stated policy. In the conflict that has
just finished, the Hermes system which we applied has also been
reported to have been used in ways which may or may not contravene
international agreements and our own policy. The specific question
is: what is being done to assess whether or not the policy has
been broken by Israel in terms of our supply, although I would
have to say, Minister, I think there is a very strong view of
public opinion that the easiest way to resolve this is to stop
supplying Israel with anything that could conceivably be used
in this way.
Ian Pearson: Firstly, I share
your view, and I think it is a very widespread view as well, about
the sense of relief that Israel has withdrawn. We hope that negotiations
continue and will bring a long and lasting settlement. The first
thing that I want to say in response is that, as I am sure you
are aware, Israel has for a long time been a very complex and
difficult country to deal with from an export licensing perspective.
As a government, we have always acknowledged that Israel has a
right to defend itself, but at the same time we have been very
mindful of concerns about human rights and in particular also
regional stability. Our policy on Israel has not changed. All
applications are assessed, as the Committee is aware, in the light
of all the available information. We will not issue a licence
where we have human rights or other concerns under the consolidated
criteria. That has been an established policy for us as a government.
The extent to which licence applications are refused or approved,
which is determined by the circumstances at the time of the application,
will of course change over time. That obviously brings particular
difficulties. With regards to the recent action by Israel in Gaza,
I am advised that it is not yet completely clear which equipment
has been used. Since the introduction of the criteria in 2000,
we have issued licences against risks of goods being used aggressively
in military operations. Where we have identified a clear risk,
we have refused to issue a licence. As you would expect, we will
want to take into account the recent conflict when making future
licensing decisions and the conduct of the Israeli defence force
in our assessment of licensing applications in the future. As
part of that process as well we will want to examine exactly what
had happened with previous licensing decisions and whether equipment
has been used contrary to the consolidated criteria.
Q6 Malcolm Bruce: That was my follow-up
point. I will finish with this question. If the British Embassy
confirmed that F-16s were used in Gaza in 2006, it seems highly
probable in a much more sustained and larger incursion they will
be used again. What I am asking is: proactively what are we doing
to investigate that? We have also seen a situation where in 2002,
84 licences to Israel were refused; this had fallen to 13 in 2004.
The figures show that exports in value have gone up this year.
We were told when we protested in the past and others protested
by Jack Straw was that the importance of the exports and the UK's
trade relationship with the US outweighed concerns against the
consolidated criteria. I am putting to you, Minister, that the
British public would not find that a very satisfactory justification
if we find that these weapons that we have equipped have been
deployed in Gaza in this most recent conflict.
Ian Pearson: Firstly, I do not
want to go into detail about the way in which we obtain information
about how military equipment may or may not have been used, but
there are obvious ways in which we can ascertain that information.
With regard to licence applications, as the Committee will be
aware, the UK has refused a number of licence applications to
Israel over the years. On the figures, in 2002 we refused 84 standard
individual licences and since then the annual figures have fluctuated
between 9 and 26. Israel regularly features in three destinations
with the highest numbers of refusals. I think the figure for last
year is that 13 SIELs were refused. We will always look at these
things on a case-by-case basis, based on the consolidated criteria.
There is a point that I want to make that not all of the licences
granted for Israel involve exports which will remain there because
Israel does actually systems integrate and incorporates a number
of British exported goods into larger equipment for onward export
to third countries. You will be aware of Israel's role in that
way. We will of course continue to monitor the situation in Israel
extremely closely. I agree with him in his views about the British
people and how people in Britain see this. This is an area where
we need to proceed extremely cautiously. If we have information
from any source that UK equipment is being misused, then this
has to be factored into future decisions when it comes to making
licence assessments, and indeed will I think probably undoubtedly
be raised with the Israeli Government as well.
Q7 Chairman: The question about the
F-16 issue was raised. With respect, I think we need to have an
answer. Everyone knows that F-16s amongst other weapons of conflict
were used in Gaza. We know that in 2002 the Government shifted
its policy specifically to allow head-up display units to be exported
to the United States to be put in F-16s that could then be exported
to Israel. The question that Malcolm is raising is: is there not
some sort of conflict between our knowing that is what is going
on and the state of government policy that arms exports to Israel
only take place when there is no significant risk they will be
used in the Occupied Territories? Is there not a fundamental conflict
between those two policies?
Ian Pearson: I understand that
the decision on head-up display units was taken some time ago.
This is a piece of equipment that is put into the F-16 fighter
plane. My understanding is that the decisions were taken on that
at the time by Ministers looking at the consolidated criteria.
I have no doubt that this was a finely-balanced decision at that
time.
Q8 Chairman: With respect, the Foreign
Secretary at the time said very specifically that the reason was
our economic relationship, our defence industry relationship,
with the United States. That was the reason given for changing
the policy. It does not sound particularly finely-balanced to
me. My question was to the Government, and maybe I am not going
to get a further answer, and that is no criticism of you, Minister:
is there not a fundamental conflict within the stated policy that
is supposedly applied in ordinary circumstances, namely that licences
are not granted if there is a significant risk that the equipment
will be used in the Occupied Territories or aggressively, whereas
in the F-16 case we do knowingly export head-up display units
for F-16s to be used in Gaza. That is Government policy.
Ian Pearson: I do not accept that
there is a fundamental conflict in policy. I do repeat that Israel
is a complex country and a difficult one to deal with. Our policy
has always been that Israel has a right to defend itself, but
we have also always been very mindful about concerns on human
rights and regional stability, and we have been particularly concerned
with human rights, given the recent conflict in Gaza. These are
difficult decisions, as I am sure the Committee is very well aware.
Q9 John Battle: On a point of fact,
because I think the focus is on Israel, we need to keep that focus
and that means we need to do more particular work. There are calls
on the Order Paper in the Early Day Motions listing all the types
of weapons sold to Israel. The particular question is: in the
whole of 2007 there were 7.5 million recorded exports to Israel,
but in the first three months of 2008 there were 19 million, a
massive increase. You may reply to me that the evidence shows
that this was for radio communications; that may have been radio
communications for use on naval vessels. The whole of that complex
system was applied for late in 2007; it was granted early in 2008,
so it went through at rapid speed. I would be prepared to put
together an argument to say that the military terms in the present
conflict would not have been possible without the back-up of that
extremely complicated, sensitive equipment that keeps the whole
communications systems operational from offshore to cover the
whole of a small area. We could put together an argument to say
that we created the conditions for conflict by those sales; in
other words, unless we are checking much more rigorously and keeping
a much closer account of what is going on, we are just making
future conflict more possible, not less.
Ian Pearson: I am not sure that
I accept the arguments that you put there, John. I think that
dramatises the situation. I repeat the fact that we look at any
potential export licences to Israel extremely carefully and extremely
thoroughly. A great deal of mention has been made of head-up display
units. As I think the Committee is aware, no licence applications
have been granted for them since 2002. I think that that needs
to be borne in mind by the Committee. We will continue to assess
the situation when it comes to future licensing decisions. We
will want to factor in how the previous export licences for equipment
have actually been used in practice. I can assure the Committee
that that will be part and parcel of the rigorous assessment process
that we will continue to make on these matters. I think the Committee
is aware of the basic process about how decisions are reached
on this.
Q10 Chairman: Before I forget it,
you are saying that no licence has been granted for the export
of head-up display units since 2002?
Ian Pearson: Yes, that is my understanding.
Q11 Chairman: Have any been applied
for and rejected? Perhaps you could drop us a note on that. That
is a relevant question. It is an important point.
Ian Pearson: We would be happy
to drop you a note on that.
Q12 Richard Burden: Could I establish
on this issue whether or not the trade relationship with the US
outweighs the consolidated criteria. You say, Minister, that you
do not think there is necessarily a conflict between the UK's
trade relationship with the US and the consolidated criteria.
It was very specific in 2002. The foreign Secretary then said
that the trade relationship outweighed the consolidated criteria.
My first question is this. In the light of what has been happening
over the last three weeks and arguably for longer than that, which
comes first now? Do the consolidated criteria come first or does
the trade relationship with the US come first?
Ian Pearson: I am not going to
contradict the Foreign Secretary and what the Foreign Secretary
said. Richard, you will be very aware of how supply chains work
from the fact that you are an expert in the automotive industry
and you understand how there are integrated supply chains in the
aircraft industry as well. I think we need to bear in mind some
of that in terms of the practicalities. Government will continue
to assess applications on a case-by case basis against the consolidated
criteria.
Q13 Richard Burden: Will they be
the pre-eminent consideration? That is a matter of policy. They
are either going to be the pre-eminent consideration or they are
not.
Ian Pearson: Yes, they are. May
I read out what the then Foreign Secretary actually said in July
2002? "The Government will continue to assess such applications
on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated criteria, while
at the same time having regard to, inter alia, the following
factors: (a) the export control policies and effectiveness of
the export control system of the incorporating country; (b) the
importance of the UK's defence and security relationship with
the incorporating country;"—and that is the point I
think the Committee are making—"(c) the materiality
and significance of the UK-origin goods in relation to the goods
into which they are to be incorporated, and in relation to any
end-use of the finished products which might give rise to concern;
(d) the ease with which the UK-origin goods, or significant parts
of them, could be removed from the goods into which they are to
be incorporated; and (e) the standing of the entity to which the
goods are to be exported." The then Foreign Secretary was
very clear that the overriding concern would be that the Government
would continue to assess such applications on a case-by-case basis.
He gave a number of different criteria. I think it is very clear
from what he said that the consolidated criteria are important.
Q14 Mr Crausby: I hear what the Minister
says about a case-by-case basis and I completely accept, as many
do, that Israel has the right to defend itself. I think the real
issue is this. Is not killing hundreds of children outside its
borders just a bit beyond defending itself? Can we not get back
to the issue that when we look at that point of hundreds of dead
children in Gaza as a result of Israel's actions, we have to think
a little bit beyond a case-by-case basis. It is all right being
dragged off into the detail of this. It seems to me that the question
really should be: should we not have a new, fresh and overall
look in the circumstances that we have just experienced? It seems
to me that in a conflict of this extent they are pretty well bound
to have used almost everything that we have sent to them.
Ian Pearson: I think we are all
horrified about the loss of lives and in particular of innocent
children in Gaza during the recent conflict that has taken place.
That sense of outrage has been expressed clearly in the House
and you will have heard the statement made by the Foreign Secretary
only very recently on these matters. Of course, given these incredibly
distressing recent events, we will need to re-assess the situation
when it comes to any future licensing applications for the export
of goods to Israel. You would expect us to do that; that is exactly
what we will do. We will want to factor in all the information
we have available about how possibly previous equipment has been
used. As I say, we do not yet have a clear picture of that, but
we will certainly want to factor that sort of information into
any future export licensing decision.
Q15 Sir John Stanley: Minister, you
said earlier that in your view there has been no change of government
policy towards arms for Israel. I must put it to you that that
is factually, over a timescale at least going back to the previous
Government, simply incorrect. The policy that was followed, made
up by the previous Conservative government, and I have first-hand
ministerial experience of implementing it, followed by the previous
Labour government before that as well, was that arms exports were
not made to areas of conflict or potential conflict. That was
the policy and it was very carefully adhered to. I put it to you
that that policy has changed profoundly, as has been brought out
in the questioning so far. It has been changed to allow arms sales
to be made to Israel and, contrary to the impression that you
might have left with some members of the Committee and possibly
to the wider public that head-up display is some sort of minor
piece of kit, the head-up display on an F-16 is the key piece
of targeting electronics. The F-16 is the key ground attack aircraft
used by the Israeli Air Force. I put it to you, Minister, that
it is in my view an absolute certainty, though if you wish to
deny it that would be most interesting, that British head-up displays
were in place in the F-16s that have recently been bombing Gaza
and been responsible for the death of over 1300 innocent civilians.
Do you deny that British equipment was used in those F-16s?
Ian Pearson: We do not have a
complete picture about whether British equipment was used. As
far as head-up displays is concerned, my information is that no
licence applications have been approved since 2002 for that. Israel
does have a right to defend itself, but we do have very great
concerns when it comes to human rights issues and also the stability
of the region. We have a settled policy when it comes to the consolidated
criteria and how we judge on a very rigorous case-by-case basis
whether to grant or not export licence applications. Israel is
one of the countries where we have most cause for concern and
where we refuse a significant number of licence applications.
Obviously decisions are taken over a number of years and in some
cases licence applications are granted. They will be granted because
at that time, following a thorough assessment at an official level
and, if there is any disagreement, by ministerial agreement, it
is appropriate to do so, given the consolidated criteria and all
the concerns that are built into the criteria, of which the Committee
are fully aware.
Q16 Sir John Stanley: Minister, I
put it to you that the issue of the Government not licensing any
more F-16 head-up display units since 2002 is irrelevant to the
point I am making. The point I am making is that as a result of
the change of policy which the Government made, announced by the
then Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, under which head-up displays
were licensed, those displays will have been exported to Israel;
they will have been installed in the Israeli Air Force's F-16s.
I ask you, Minister, when you have completed your assessment,
if you will provide confirmation to this Committee that the F-16s
that were in use over Gaza over the last three weeks that have
been responsible for the deaths of 1300 plus innocent Palestinians
did incorporate within them British head-up displays?
Ian Pearson: I am happy to see
what further information I can make available to the Committee
about the use of head-up displays. As I repeat, my advice is that
at the moment it is not completely clear what equipment has been
used. Clearly, there will be further information available in
due course as we and other governments look at these matters.
I will happily endeavour to make information available to the
Committee. Can I just say, Mr Berry, that this is very clearly
an incredibly difficult situation. Certainly the UK Government
never wanted to see the action that has taken place in Gaza. We
have been resolute in condemning that action and calling for an
immediate ceasefire. We will continue to work and do what we can
to promote peace and stability in that part of the region.
Q17 Sir John Stanley: Finally, Minister,
if it does transpire—and in my own view it is a well nigh
certainty—that British head-up displays were in use in the
F-16s that have been responsible for the civilian deaths in Gaza,
if that transpires to be correct and I believe absolutely certainly
that will be shown to be correct, is the Government willing to
revert to the previous policy in this area in particular in Israel
and the Occupied Territories of no British arms sales into this
area?
Ian Pearson: I think the hon.
Gentleman with respect is trying to paint a different picture
to what happened under previous administrations to that which
I understand to be the case. I do not want to go there and make
this party political; it is far too serious for that. What I do
want to say to the Committee is that we will want to factor in
all relevant information when it comes to making future decisions
about export licences of equipment that could be used in Israel.
Q18 Mike Gapes: I have two specific
questions. Firstly, I received an email from a Dr Wilson in Lichfield,
Staffordshire, who says that people in the Lichfield area, concerned
about the situation in Gaza, had read in the national press that
UAV engines produced in a factory in Shenstone were being used
in the drone aircraft deployed over Gaza in the course of bombing
missions. Minister, is that correct?
Ian Pearson: My understanding
is that we have spoken to this exporter and they have confirmed
what we already know from our own database, namely that whilst
they do export UAV engines to Israel, the engines are a particular
variant which is not used in Israel but is incorporated into UAVs
for onward export so they would not have been involved in the
current conflict.
Q19 Mike Gapes: That is what you
understand. Do you have any information from Gaza or Israel as
to whether that is true?
Ian Pearson: I would make the
point that Israel has a very significant UAV industry and many
of the UAV-related exports to Israel are subject to further work
or incorporation there and then re-exported to another country.
We believe that we made the sort of normal rigorous checks that
we would have done before agreeing to the export licence in this
case. Jayne Carpenter may want to add to that.
Ms Carpenter: Our licensing database
shows that we have only issued licences for those particular engines
for incorporation in Israel and then onward export to a third
destination. If the engines had stayed in Israel, then that would
be a contravention of the licence condition and that would be
an offence. Whilst we cannot categorically confirm that we physically
checked that the engines have been incorporated, we have only
licensed them for incorporation in Israel and onward export to
another destination.
| 
