Examination of Witness (Question 121-139)
BILL RAMMELL
MP, MS JO
ADAMSON AND
MR ANDREW
MASSEY
22 APRIL 2009
Q121 Minister, welcome. For the record,
can you introduce yourself and your colleagues?
Bill Rammell: Bill Rammell, Minister
of State at the Foreign Office; on my left, Jo Adamson, who is
the Deputy Head of the Counter Proliferation Department at the
Foreign Office; and on my right Andrew Massey, who is head of
our Arms Trade Unit within CPD.
Q122 Chairman: Thank you very much
indeed. I want to start with questions on arms exports to Israel,
so could I also thank you for yesterday's written statement, following
the questions that we put to Ian Pearson about whether UK-supplied
equipment may have been used by the Israeli defence forces in
the recent conflict in Gaza. Thank you for the advice that we
were going to get that before this meeting; it is very helpful.
We would have been slightly miffed if it had come out tomorrow,
and we are very grateful that it came out yesterday because we
have a basis for a conversation. Minister would it be fair to
say that the answer to the question, whether any UK-supplied equipment
was used by the IDF during the recent conflict in Gaza, essentially
is "yes" but that it was mainly in the form of components
for incorporation in the United States, in F16s and Apache Attack
Helicopters, and then were exported to Israel, and also there
were some components directly supplied to Israel? Would that be
a fair summary?
Bill Rammell: Yes. Let me start
by saying, Chairman, that I am grateful for your thanks that we
gave you advance sight of the ministerial statement. It had been
our intention to get it out before the recess, but we wanted to
double-check and make sure that it was as accurate as possible,
and therefore it only proved possible to do it yesterday. Broadly,
your description is correct. We say within the statement in the
third category, where we are talking about combat aircraft helicopters,
naval vessels and armoured personnel carriers, that we believe
that there is IDF equipment that was used in Operation Cast Lead,
and it almost certainly contained British-supplied components.
What it is important to make clear is that our arms export control
procedures have not changed in any way; all applications are assessed
on the basis of the information that we have available at the
time, and all of these export decisions were in accordance with
the criteria on that information that we had available at the
time.
Q123 Sir John Stanley: Minister,
as you know, in your response to the debate we had in Westminster
Hall on the Committee's last Arms Exports Control Report, you
referred to further work taking place within the Foreign Office
to establish whether or not UK arms exports and components exports
were in breach of the EU consolidated criteria. Is the written
statement that you issued yesterday the end product of the considerations
going on in your Department as to whether or not the criteria
have been breached, or is there further work going on, and will
there be a further statement?
Bill Rammell: Let me be clear:
we are confident that the criteria were not breached when the
sales were approved, because you look at all the available evidence
and you take that evidence from our posts, from NGO, newspaper
and media reports, and a whole variety of sources; and then based
upon that evidence you make a judgment about whether there is
a risk that the various criteria will be breached. In all of these
cases, at the time the decision was made, we did not believe,
based on the evidence, that there was a breach of those criteria,
and that is why the sales were approved. That is the case. Looking
forward, what we have said is that we are reviewing all of our
extant licences, and if information becomes available so that
we believe, based upon the information we now have, there is a
risk the criteria will be breached, those licences can and will
be revoked. That process is ongoing, and I hope that that can
conclude as quickly as possible. We have said that, as is absolutely
correct, with all arms export sales, you take account of the evidence
that is available, and the evidence from Operation Cast Lead will
be taken account of when we reach future decisions on new exports.
Q124 Sir John Stanley: Yes, but that
skirts round what is the key issue of concern. It may be that
the criteria were being adhered to at the time the licence was
granted—and I very much welcome your risk assessment as
to what might happen in the future in relation to British weapons
systems and components that have been licensed to go to Israel
either directly or indirectly—but the key issue is whether
or not the use that was made of British-made weapons systems and
components in the recent conflicts, in Lebanon and most particularly
in Gaza, did or did not represent a breach of the EU consolidated
criteria. That is the issue that I hope the Foreign Office is
addressing, because it was not addressed in your written statement
as of yesterday, nor in your reply to the Committee today.
Bill Rammell: Forgive me, I believe
we have addressed it, where we specifically say that we are looking
at all of our extant licences to see whether any of these need
to be reconsidered in the light of the recent events in Gaza.
That process is ongoing, and should we conclude it appropriate,
those can and will be revoked. That is very clear. We are looking
at this issue at the moment and we will reach a conclusion. In
addition to that, for future sales we will take evidence from
Cast Lead. That is very clear, that it is a process we are undertaking.
Q125 Sir John Stanley: Minister,
can we assume that you will make certain this Committee will be
informed as to the outcome of this review that is taking place,
not merely whether some licences are being revoked, but I am sure
the Committee wishes to know whether you have taken a decision
that no licences have been revoked in the light of your view of
what is going on. In either circumstance, I am sure the Committee
will wish to be informed of your conclusions.
Bill Rammell: I can certainly
give that commitment; that when we have reached the end of that
process, I will ensure that not only—as is inevitable—that
be made aware publicly, but we will communicate directly with
this Committee.
Q126 Chairman: Has the Government
refused any licence applications, say over the last five years,
for the supply of components for F16s for use by the Israeli Air
Force?
Bill Rammell: Yes, and let me
provide some additional information. In respect of F16s, helicopters
and armoured personnel carriers, either on an incorporated or
an unincorporated basis, there have been no approvals since Lebanon
2006.
Q127 Chairman: Why were they refused?
Bill Rammell: Based upon our assessment
against the arms export criteria, and the risks inherent in the
application that there could be a breach of one or more of the
criteria.
Q128 Chairman: Can you be more explicit?
Bill Rammell: Without going back
in detail through the files, no. As I said before, we take account
of the information we have before us, and the fundamental judgment
is: do we believe there is a risk that one or more of the criteria
will be breached?
Q129 Chairman: Was it because it
is well known that F16s have been used offensively by the Israeli
Air Force against the occupied territories? Is that not the obvious
reason why you said no?
Mr Massey: In answer to the question,
have we refused any licences in the type that you describe, the
answer is "yes". Without pulling up the licences and
going through them forensically, it is difficult for me to give
you a direct answer as to the grounds on which that particular
licence was refused. It could have been refused for any number
of reasons. We can certainly go away and come back to the Committee
with the details as to why those particular licences were refused.1[1]
Q130 Chairman: I can only think of one
reason why you should seriously consider rejecting a licence application
of that kind; it is because everybody knows the history of the
use of F16s by the Israeli Air Forces. My question is, therefore:
if in these cases you made a decision that it was unacceptable
to provide components for F16s for use by the Israeli Air Force,
why does that policy not extend across the piece?
Bill Rammell: Because inherent
within our arms export processes is that each application has
to be judged by its merits on a case-by-case basis. If I were
to go down the road now of committing, in all circumstances, regardless
of what was happening on the ground, to refusing in principle
an application, not only would that be a breach of our procedures,
but it would be judicially reviewable by an arms export manufacturer,
who could say, "You have not judged this in accordance with
the Arms Export Act."
Q131 Chairman: It would be fair to
say that my understanding of what I believe the reason for refusal
to be is not a million miles away from the truth, is it?
Bill Rammell: Again, I think I
would take up Andrew's suggestion that we write to you specifically
on the circumstances.2[2]
I dealt with a number of these and previous ministers have, so
I am not going to pluck arguments out of the air.
Mr Massey: If I could clarify,
the reason I say this is that without the information in front
of me I cannot tell you specifically whether it was refused under
criterion two, criterion three, possibly criterion four or possibly
even criterion seven, and that is my reluctance to state the grounds
without going back and reviewing it.
Chairman: We thank you for the offer
of the detail.
Q132 Mr Holloway: In all but name,
and for practical purposes, we have a kind of arms embargo against
Israel at the moment!
Bill Rammell: No, we do not. We
judge each application on its merits, on a case-by-case basis.
Q133 Mr Holloway: Since 2002 there
has not been an application that has been granted?
Bill Rammell: Not, for want of
a better phrase, for a whole item. There have been sales for incorporated
items by the United States, but not since Lebanon 2006.
Q134 Mr Holloway: As I say, in practical
terms, in all but name, is that not an informal embargo against
Israel?
Bill Rammell: No, I do not believe
it is because you judge each case on its merits.
Q135 Mr Holloway: Are you planning
to grant any?
Bill Rammell: What I am planning
to do is to do what we are properly authorised to do, which is
to judge them on their merits. What I cannot say is that the circumstances
change. Your judgment may change because you operate according
to the—
Q136 Mr Holloway: But our judgment
since 2002 has pretty much been not to sell arms to Israel, so
that is a kind of informal embargo, then.
Bill Rammell: Again—sorry—there
have certainly been incorporated items that have been approved
for sale since 2002; but since Lebanon 2006 for F16s, helicopters
and armoured personnel carriers, there has not been a sale either
on an incorporated or an unincorporated basis.
Q137 Mr Holloway: Because we do not
trust the Israelis to use them properly.
Bill Rammell: We make a judgment
based upon the evidence at the time. That is not a definitive
judgment for all time. If you go back in history, there are all
sorts of locations and countries where there may be particular
concerns based on the circumstances at the time, which change
over a period of years. If you set your procedures in tablets
of stone, you would not be responding to the reality of the situation.
Q138 Mike Gapes: If we are exporting
components to the United States, is it not in reality impossible
to have an embargo on a country like Israel, given that 95% of
Israeli military hardware is imported from the United States,
and much of that hardware of various kinds will include small
components that have come from other countries? Is that not the
real problem that you have got?
Bill Rammell: Certainly on a historical
basis, yes. Once you have sold the component, it can get through
to Israel. The point you make is an important one. I think it
is right that we scrutinise our arms export to Israel, but the
contextual point that you make, that we are relatively, both historically
and accurately, a very small exporter to Israel is absolutely
right. I read the Amnesty report, which I do not resile from,
that 95% of Israel's imports on a defence basis come from the
United States. If you add gifted items it is probably about 99%,
and even within the European Union we are not one of the big exporters.
That does not mean we should not properly scrutinise what we do,
but sometimes when I read stuff in the newspapers about what we
are doing, it somewhat misses that contextual point.
Q139 Richard Burden: Can I pause
to add my thanks for the statement, which I think is very transparent
and very welcome. We have been here before, have we not? The issue
of armoured personnel carriers being used in contravention not
at that time of consolidated criteria because the criteria were
not consolidated, but in contravention of the licences for which
they were granted, was exposed several years ago. The then Foreign
Secretary said the fact that they were being used for purposes
in contravention of the licences would be taken into account in
future arms sales. That was well before Lebanon. After that, it
seems that they were sold, and after that there was the sale of
components for F16s, before Lebanon. What I want to establish
is this: have we now changed and firmed up policy, or are we just
doing a re-run of the previous policy, which is constantly saying,
"in the future we will check if the basis on which licences
have been granted has been breached"? If we are doing the
latter, it sounds as though we are in a perpetual state of shutting
stable doors after horses have bolted. If it is the former, should
we not say we are toughening up our stand on Israel?
Bill Rammell: I genuinely do not
want to mislead the Committee. I do not want to pluck answers
out of the air about what happened five, six, seven years ago,
at that particular sale. What I can say—and I know this
to be the case, because not just in respect of Israel but all
other countries these regularly come across my desk—is that
it is an issue of such import that you do not just sign it off
as a minister. More often than not I will ask for a meeting. John,
as a previous minister I know you have gone through this process.
I ask for a meeting with officials to go through it in fine detail
and bat it backwards and forwards; and we do take account of previous
practice. It is a fact that in the last five or six years, each
year between nine and 26 applications to Israel have been refused,
and Israel regularly features in the top three or four countries
for which sales are refused. That is the reality, and that does
attest to the fact that we do take account of previous history
when we are reaching conclusions.
1 1 Ev 108 Back
2
2 Ev 108 Back
| 
