MISC 106: Letter to the Chairman of the Committee from

Ian Lucas MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

 

 

Thank you for your letter of 1 December, about the conflict in Sri Lanka between the Sri Lankan Armed Forces and the Tamil Tigers. You asked the following:

 

Were UK supplied helicopters or their components, or telecoms equipment or its components, used by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces in the conflict with the Tamil Tigers?

 

Following an extensive search of our records and in consultation with the British High Commission in Colombo, I can confirm that HMG has not supplied any helicopters or airframes to the Sri Lankan Air Force.

 

We have reviewed all licences dating back to 2004. I can confirm that the UK has supplied helicopter components for transport helicopters to Sri Lanka. These components have been safety, maintenance or countermeasure related. Due to the lack of access and information surrounding the final stages of the conflict collecting information on how helicopters were used in the conflict has been challenging. Using the information available we can say the helicopters were used for medical evacuation, logistical support, resupply and ad hoc search and rescue operations and to transport VIPs including foreign delegations up to the northern region. They were used to a much lesser extent moving troops themselves to forward areas although, it is understood that the majority of troop movements were conducted by road.

 

All of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces have been supplied with UK military communications equipment for a number of years. The specification of the communications equipment used by the Sri Lankan Armed Forces is low and does not have the capability to facilitate long range or ground-to-air communications.

 

As such the equipment supplied would not have been used to call in air strikes. However, due to the lack of information it is not possible to confirm the extent to which communications equipment was used in the conflict, so we cannot state categorically that it was not. It was due to this uncertainty and following the escalation of the conflict earlier this year that a licence for military communications equipment was refused and all extant licences of a similar nature were revoked.

 

Why were the licences for military helicopters and telecoms equipment revoked?

 

Where circumstances change significantly in-country or new information comes to light it is standard practice to review extant licences to determine whether a different decision would be reached in view of the changed situation. This was the case earlier this year with Sri Lanka. When the licences were issued they were assessed against the circumstances prevailing at the time and we are content that when the decisions were made they were consistent with the Criteria. However, the final offensive raised grave concerns for human rights and when we reviewed the licences we assessed that the thresholds under Criterion 2 and 3 may have been reached. It was as a result of this revised assessment that the revocations took place.

 

You also referred to export licences granted in February and September 2006 for semi-automatic pistols, armoured vehicles and machine gun components. As the Minister of State at the FCO, Ivan Lewis, made clear these licences had not been revoked, but not because we had assessed the equipment had played no significant role in the conflict. In fact, Standard Individual Export Licences are valid for a period of two years and therefore the licences issued in 2006 had expired before the conflict commenced and so there was no question of revoking them.

 

The Government continues to monitor the situation in Sri Lanka very closely. If information is received from any source that UK equipment is being misused, then this will be factored into any future licence assessments and may be raised with the Sri Lankan Government.

 

31 December 2009