Committees on Arms ExportsLetter to the Chair of the Committees from Rt Hon William Hague MP, First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Foreign and Commonwealth Office

It was good to see you again at the Foreign Affairs Committee meeting on 7 September, and to resume our debate about the highly important issue of UK export controls in the context of the “Arab Spring”.

You raised the legitimate concern that some controlled equipment, exported from the UK to Libya before February this year, may have been used by Qadhafi’s forces for internal repression. In the light of your comments I have taken another very careful look at my Written Ministerial Statement of 18 July.

My statement reflected the conclusions of the FCO Review of Export Controls Policy in regard to the whole MENA region. This was intended as an update to Parliament before the summer recess. When I provide a fuller report of the outcome of the Review I will give more detail and address the points you have made over the last several months.

The review found that, despite the UK’s position as the world’s second largest arms exporter and the widespread unrest and conflict of the Arab Spring, information suggesting misuse of controlled military goods from the UK was limited to uncorroborated reports of the use of UK-origin crowd control equipped vehicles in Libya. Our Ambassador in. Tripoli reported at the time that the Post had only one report of possible use of a British-supplied riot control vehicle. Contacts told Post that regular police units, who were the principal recipients of UK equipment and training, were being held in reserve while other internal security forces were deployed. We subsequently closed our Embassy in Tripoli, making further investigation during the conflict impossible.

All relevant FCO officials and Ministers were involved in the Review, which took account of the views of other Whitehall Departments as well as different parts of the FCO. The review also considered reporting from our Posts in the region, as well as media and NGO accounts.

As you have rightly pointed out it is difficult to gather firm information on the ground and some pieces of equipment, by size and end-use, are clearly more difficult to identify than others. Licenses granted to Libya in earlier circumstances included such items as small arms and ammunition, as well as surveillance and military communications equipment. We cannot prove that these UK exports were not used by either side in the conflict, and I accept that there is a risk that some were. But it remains the case, as I said in my statement, that we have no evidence that any UK supplied equipment was actually used, and therefore that statement remains accurate.

Monitoring of end-use is an important element of the overall system, and one of the issues I know you and the Committees have raised consistently. One of the FCO Review outcomes under consideration is enhanced end-use monitoring through our network of Posts, particularly in high risk countries. This may improve our information, but there will always be practical and resource limitations.

I greatly appreciate the good work you and your colleagues on the. Committees on Arms Export Controls are doing. It is vital that we maintain robust and transparent export controls, while at the same time supporting the British defence and security industry. It remains my intention to announce improvements to our export control policy once I have concluded discussions with Government colleagues, particularly the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who has responsibility for our export licensing system and operations. I look forward to further discussion, and it is my intention to give oral evidence to your Committees on Arms Export Controls at the Annual Inquiry early in the New Year.

I am copying this letter to Richard Ottaway.

1 October 2011