Committees on Arms ExportsLetter from the Chair of the Committees to the Rt Hon William Hague MP, First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
At its meeting of 11 July, the Committees on Arms Export Controls considered the Government’s response to our inquiry into the Scrutiny of Arms Exports 2011 UK Strategic Export Controls Annual Report 2009, Quarterly Reports for 2010, licensing policy and review of export control legislation. The Committees agreed questions relating to your response as set out in Annex A to this letter.
The Committees also attach a series of questions relating to the review of Government policy and practice with regard to the export of equipment that might be used for internal repression. These questions are attached as Annex B.
I would be grateful if I could receive a response to these questions no later than 30 September.
The Committees will be making this letter public.
I am copying this letter to the. Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Secretary of State for International Development and the Secretary of State for Defence.
Annex A
QUESTIONS RELATING TO CM8079—GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CAEC ANNUAL REPORT
The paragraph numbers follow those in the Government’s Response.
Paragraph 2—The Government’s Arms Exports Review
1. Why is the FCO not in close consultation with DFID as well as with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Ministry of Defence on its arms exports review?
2. By what date does the Government expect to have reported back to Parliament on its arms exports review?
3. The Government has now chosen to give a particular focus in its arms exports review to “crowd control goods”. What arms and categories of arms does the Government consider to be “crowd control goods”?
4. Why has the Government apparently restricted the scope of its review by giving it a particular focus on “crowd control goods” when no such restriction was made when the FCO Minister Alistair Burt first announced the review on 18 February?
Paragraph 3—The Treaty on US/UK Defence Cooperation
1. Will the Government provide the CAEC with the list of “pathfinder” projects to implement The Treaty on US/UK Defence Co-operation when agreed between the UK and US Governments?
2. By what date does the Government expect to provide the CAEC with its further note on the implementation of The Treaty on US/UK Defence Cooperation? It is hoped that this will be before the Committees start taking further Evidence.
Paragraph 4—The Performance of the Export Control Organisation
1. By what date will the Government be reporting its findings following its review of the Open General Export Licence (OGEL) system and whether there will be consultation with outside bodies in the course of this review? It is hoped that the Government will report to the Committees before the Committees start taking further Evidence.
2. By what date will the Government be starting its full consultation on the possibility of the Export Control Organisation being funded by its customers? It is hoped that this will be before the Committees start taking further Evidence.
Paragraph 6—“Brass Plate” Companies
1. By what date does the Government expect to “revert” to the CAEC on “Brass plate” companies? It is hoped that this will be before the Committees start taking further Evidence.
Paragraph 7—Pre-licence Registration of Arms Brokers
1. By what date does the Government expect to “revert” to the CAEC on pre-licence registration of arms brokers? It is hoped that this will be before the Committees start taking further Evidence.
Paragraph 8—Extra-territorial Arms Export Controls
1. By what date does the Government expect to “revert” to the CAEC on extra-territorial arms export controls? It is hoped that this will be before the Committees start taking further Evidence.
Paragraph 9—Military End-use Control
1. Will the Government provide the Committees with details of the UK proposal for an expanded Military End-Use Control and of the EU Commission’s Green Paper as part of the preparation for the 2012 review of the EU Dual-Use Regulation?
Paragraph 10—Torture end-use Controls
1. Will the Government provide the Committees with a copy of the letter of 12 April 2011 that the Minister for Business Mark Prisk MP wrote to the EU High Representative, Baroness Ashton, on torture end-use controls and with a copy of Baroness Ashton’s reply when available?
Paragraph 11—Sodium Thiopental
1. Given the further shipments of sodium thiopental for capital punishment executions were reportedly made from the UK to the US during the one month from 28 October to 30 November that it took the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills to bring into force an Order under section 6 of the Export Control Act 2002 controlling the export of sodium thiopental from the UK to the United States, given also that under the applicable federal law it is not currently lawful to import sodium thiopental into the United States for medical purposes and also that sodium thiopental is virtually unused for legitimate medical purposes in the US, why did the Government not impose a Control Order immediately for a temporary period whilst the Leigh Day & Co representations were investigated and assessed?
Paragraph 14—Compound Penalties
1. The Government’s Response fails to answer the Committees’ recommendation that the Government makes public its criteria used for imposing compound penalties and how the amounts of such penalties are calculated. Will it now do so?
Paragraph 15—Compound Penalties
1. In how many cases to date involving breaches of arms export controls has a publicity clause been included in a compounding agreement?
Paragraph 16—The Arms Trade Treaty
1. In what specific ways is the UK continuing to play a leading role in the UN process on the Arms Trade Treaty so that an effective, legally binding international Treaty is secured?
Paragraph 17—The Arms Trade Treaty
1. Which of the other Permanent Members of the UN Security Council—namely China, France, Russia and the US—are, like the UK, also committed to achieving the strongest possible Arms Trade Treaty with the broadest possible scope, including ammunition?
2. Will the Government provide a further note to the Committees on what it considers would be the most effective way in which the Arms Trade Treaty could address the issue of corruption? It is hoped that this will be before the Committees start taking further Evidence.
Paragraphs 19 and 20—Bribery and Corruption
1. Will the Government confirm that if it becomes aware of corruption in arms deals it will, regardless of whether there is a risk of diversion or re-export under Criteria 7, take appropriate action under the provisions of the Bribery Act 2010?
Paragraph 24—Saudi Arabia and Yemen
1. Why does the Government consider that, notwithstanding the events this year, in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Yemen, that the arms and components of arms that could be used for internal repression and which have been approved for export to Saudi Arabia and Yemen, as detailed in Annex 4 of the Committees’ Report, remain in line with the Criteria and have not therefore been revoked by the Government?
Annex B
QUESTIONS RELATING TO THE REVIEW OF GOVERNMENT POLICY AND PRACTICE WITH REGARD TO THE EXPORT OF EQUIPMENT THAT MIGHT BE USED FOR INTERNAL REPRESSION
1. Since the Government announced its arms export licence review on 18 February 2011 into licences approving arms exports to countries in North Africa and the Middle East, how many (a) SIEL and (b) OGEL licences have been revoked in respect of each country; and what was the date of revocation in each case?
2. In respect of each of the licences revoked what was the item of military goods and quantity of them that had previously been granted an export licence?
3. In respect of each of the licences revoked, what was the value of each order which has had its licence revoked?
4. In respect of each country for which licences have been revoked, how many (a) single and (b) open licences remain unrevoked; and what (i) quantities of which military goods and (ii) military services are covered by each of those licences? In each case, what was the value of these goods and services?
5. Having regard to the Government’s information made public to date, why have no (a) individual and (b) open licences been revoked for exports to:
(a)
(b)
(c)
In respect of each of the above countries what quantities of which military goods and which military services remain approved for export to them, and what is the value of these goods and services?
18 July 2011