| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5 Nov 2009 : Column 336WH—continued
"briefed the Ukrainian licensing authority on the introduction of the UK's new rules on licensing brokering transactions at an EU organised meeting in April in Kyiv".
But they go on to say that, unfortunately, they had not publicised them very well and that they were considering how to improve that situation. However, they were saying that back in April, and in July they thought that they would reconsider the matter, but there they were, in October, still without a mechanism by which the new controls that they have brought out can be properly publicised. There is a deficiency somewhere is there not?
On brokering, I share the view of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley); I think it would be of benefit to companies to be on a register. It would be helpful to them. If one is recognised as being an honest broker-if there is such a thing when it comes to arms dealers-one will benefit from not having to go through the systematic and long regime of work that needs to be carried out to get permission to go ahead. The resistance to having a register is beyond me. I cannot believe that is about cost, or a lack of willingness. There has to be some other reason why people do not want to do it. Arms brokers are the one group that do not lose out in a depressed world: they always seem to be able to make a buck or two, and usually more than that, as hon. Members have said. Being properly registered and accredited so that they are recognised as having some antecedents with our Government would be of enormous benefit to arms brokers.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), who chairs the International Development Committee and is listed in the report, and other hon. Friends who have appeared at meetings of the Committees on Arms Export Controls recognise their debt to the hon. Member for Kingswood for his chairmanship.
I would like to make a few points on behalf of my party. We welcome the Government's commitment to review whether anti-vehicle mines should be placed in category B of the trade controls and would welcome further clarification on who will implement that review, the terms of reference that will guide it and when it is expected to be completed. Once again, I do not think
that that is too much to ask. Given the Government's support for the 2006 declaration on anti-vehicle mines in the UN convention on certain conventional weapons and the UK arms industry's recognition that there is little commercial interest at stake in moving those mines to category B, the case for doing so on humanitarian and policy coherence grounds seems fairly straightforward. So why the delay? The Government could and should provide a clear indication pretty soon on how and when they plan to implement any proposed changes in the law and on their plans to review whether those mines should be placed in category B.
I am also puzzled by the Government's response to paragraph 9 of the report's conclusions, as it seems they cannot recognise the importance of the non-re-export clause, and every Member who has contributed to the debate this afternoon has mentioned that fact. Some people might believe that it is hard to prove whether India sold the two maritime surveillance aircraft to Burma. Some suggest that it did and some that it did not, so how does one prove either case? The evidence available at the time makes it pretty clear that that was going to happen, yet the Indians totally ignored it. The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, the hon. Member for Harlow (Bill Rammell), stated in evidence to the Committee that there was a more worrying case of a helicopter that was to be transferred. The Indians once again made it clear that there was nothing in the contract that obliged them not to sell it on. Surely we must do something on that issue.
It is unclear from the Government's response to paragraph 11 what exactly they are doing on the EU end-use control. End use is vital and needs to be moved further forward. The Government's response to paragraph 21 states that on 30 October the UN voted overwhelmingly on the resolution to negotiate a strong, robust arms treaty. As Members have said, we know that only one country voted against that. The Americans, to their credit, voted for it, but I think that the proof will be in the eating in that regard: it is one thing to vote in the UN, but quite another to carry out that policy when the pork-barrel politics of the US are at work. The pressures on a Government and on Congress to adhere to it is another thing, so we will have to wait to see how that transpires. Unless there is some sort of breakthrough in the way those laws are adopted, we could find that good ideas, such as a unified ban on lots of weapons or a treaty that is sufficient robust not be easily ignored, could be overwhelmed by the idea that they can be dealt with only on a basis of consensus. What is the point of that, because there will always be someone prepared to be the odd one out or a group that would simply stifle debate on those ideas?
I know that it is easy to criticise, as I have done a little today, but I am also optimistic enough to think that the Government in this country have seen the light when it comes to export controls on weapons and that we all as a nation feel upset at the evil we see in the world, whether in Guinea, Sri Lanka or elsewhere, such as the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan. How many of our soldiers have been killed by equipment provided by other countries whose representatives sit down and eat with our politicians and share discussions? How many of the weapons used in Iraq were manufactured in
Transnistria and exported through Ukraine? Those end up in the hands of the enemies of our soldiers in Iraq and have been used to kill them.
We must be mindful of the fact that those things are never easy to overcome, and the Government are showing a determination to do something about it. It would be foolish of anyone to criticise the Government by saying that they are doing nothing, because they are doing an awful lot. However, we cannot go on using the excuse that it is in the post. We must find a way of delivering a comprehensive response to reports such as the one we are considering.
The report is one of the best I have read in more than 20 years in Parliament. It is not a difficult read, and members of the public and journalists will find a lot of information in it, and the Government's response has tried to do it justice. The best thing in the world, as the hon. Member for Islington, North concluded, is to work towards making it an even firmer proposition that would deliver the peace we want to see and for those weapons to be less easily available than they are at present.
4.36 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Pope, and I welcome the Minister to the Chamber. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry), as other Members have done. It is a difficult job to chair a Committee that crosses four departmental Select Committees and to produce a unanimous report that goes into such constructive depth, so I pay him a sincere tribute. It is no coincidence that Mr. Speaker fixed the date of the debate for 5 November: a juxtaposition that has already been noted by the Committee's Chairman.
The issue of arms exports is notorious for its ability to polarise opinion. We have seen that the report covers several conflict areas in the world, and the hon. Members for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) have highlighted two particularly difficult conflicts where there are human rights abuses, to say the least, and I agree with many of their comments. Countries cited in the debate include Israel, Palestine, China, Sri Lanka, Iran, Libya and Guinea, yet the report from Saferworld for the period from 1997 to 2008 mentions exports to several other countries that are of concern. That memorandum demonstrates what a difficult but important area of Government policy the report addresses.
I believe that we have one of the strictest licensing regimes for arms control exports in the world, and that is to be commended, but we must ensure that it does not stifle the legitimate work of the defence industry. It is within that framework that the Committee must work, and it performs a vital role in scrutinising the Government's policies. The Committee has done lots of good work, for example in highlighting end-use controls on torture equipment through the EU. The Government, in their response to paragraphs 10 and 11, have highlighted the fact that they have been working with the European Commission to take that work forward and have passed the Commission a draft amendment to the existing torture regulations. I hope that the Government's response to that work will be completed within 2010 and ask the Minster to give us an update on the timetable for that matter.
This year the Committee was able to provide details of its visit to Ukraine, which has been much mentioned this afternoon, and I have highlighted the article that appeared in The Guardian. That incident and the Committee's visit to Ukraine highlight several other issues covered by the report.
First, there needs to be a proper register of arms export licences to the Ukraine. Secondly, there needs to be a proper investigation of the list of people on the register provided to the Committee by the Ukrainian Government. It may have been done in error; nevertheless, the Ukrainian Government did provide the memorandum to the Committee. Will the Minister tell us how many such registers there are in other countries around the world that neither the Government nor anyone else are aware of, and what action our posts and embassies are taking to discover their existence?
The report makes several sensible recommendations. It states in paragraph 22, first, that
"the FCO should ensure that its embassies and diplomatic posts engage more effectively with the national export control organisations to obtain information on UK arms brokers licensed by overseas states",
"the Government should instigate an investigation into the list of UK brokers provided to us by the Ukrainian government and provide confirmation as soon as possible that the UK brokers on the list obtained any necessary licences from the Export Control Organisation and breached no UK legislation".
Something else from the Ukrainian situation was highlighted by the report in The Guardian-I stress that I do not believe that any UK arms exporters were involved in this: if the report is correct, whether it was small arms or whatever that were exported to Guinea and subsequently used in human rights repression, it typifies what can happen if we do not have proper control through end-use legislation. An even more important aspect of the whole incident is that not only have the arms to Guinea caused trouble, the military junta that is now in control of that country is beginning to destabilise some of its neighbours such as Sierra Leone and Liberia.
I would be grateful if the Minister provided us with information about the situation in our embassies around the world. What work do they undertake to determine whether such registers exist?
A subject that has been mentioned by several right hon. and hon. Members this afternoon is the arms trade treaty, which the Opposition strongly support. We all recognise the moral imperative of ensuring that the global arms trade is governed by firm, consistent and fair rules. A treaty would provide a set of common minimum standards for the control of arms transfers and a workable mechanism for the application of those standards.
I wish to examine, as other Members have, the position of the Americans. I have had discussions with Saferworld on this subject. It was great to see that under the new Obama Administration, the Americans voted in favour of the United Nations resolution in the General Assembly, but does the Minister think that the Americans, by insisting that there must be unanimity on the treaty, are ensuring that it can be watered down so much that it actually becomes meaningless? What do the Government expect from the treaty? Do they want it to be strong and
deep, or do they want it to be wide? It would be useful if the Minister told the Committee what discussions he has had with the Americans in that respect.
Another aspect that has been raised is bribery, which has featured in previous debates on this subject. The report notes in paragraph 97 that
"the shifting of responsibility for anti-corruption from one Department to another raises questions over whether the Government has the necessary vigorous anti-corruption culture across all Departments to tackle the risk of bribery and corruption engaged in by UK-based companies and individuals."
On page 8 of their response, the Government state that the
"Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor wrote to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) last October committing to develop a comprehensive strategy to combat foreign bribery and strengthen our work with international partners."
Given that it is now a year since that happened, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), I am sure that all of us in the Chamber this afternoon would be interested to hear what progress the Government have made on the matter.
The issue of re-exports surfaced in several speeches this afternoon, and it comes up regularly in these debates. The Committee continue to recommend that the
"requirement to have a non re-export clause in contracts for the supply of controlled goods would send a clear message to both parties to the contract that re-export to certain countries is unacceptable."
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) that if contracts are to be enforceable, and if I were the Minister in charge of Government policy in this area-I am sure that I never will be-I would want an end-use clause included, because it would then be clear to any countries that export to another country what is and is not acceptable. I hope that the Minister will be able to address that point.
I would like briefly to touch on two other issues before I conclude. The first is extraterritoriality, which many Members have spoken about this afternoon. This baffles me: if it is illegal to do something inside the UK, surely it is illegal for a British citizen to do it outside the UK. If that is the logic that applies, perhaps the Minister could tell us why the Committee's recommendations on extraterritoriality cannot be enforced. He may cite the difficulties and practicalities of enforcement. If that is the case, perhaps he could make it clear.
Finally, I want to touch on end use, which is a difficult subject. It is difficult for those who apply for a licence to export arms to a country that, on the whole, has a good record to know whether that country will pass the arms on to someone else. An example from a previous debate on the subject has been quoted-not so much today-of the Indian Government re-exporting aircraft to the Burmese Government, to whom no sane person in the UK would want to export. It would be difficult for an arms exporter to know whether the Indian Government, in the first instance, would want to do that. I am not sure how possible it would be to enforce the contract, and I would like to hear the Government's thinking on whether it is possible to do so.
I want to give the Minister plenty of time to reply. He has been asked an enormous number of questions, and I do not envy him the task of replying. On the whole, I commend the Committee on its report, but I also commend the Government on their up-front reply, although, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South said, there are still several areas where it is taking too long to get action. It will be interesting to hear from the Minister this afternoon what action he is taking.
4.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Ian Lucas): It is a pleasure to be here this afternoon and to appear before you, Mr. Pope. It has been a privilege to listen to the debate, which has been of extremely high quality. I shall try to the best of my ability to address the issues that have been raised. If I do not deal with some questions during the course of the debate, I will ensure that responses are forwarded to right hon. and hon. Members, because it is evident that there is a breadth of knowledge that is well worth tapping. Many of the arguments made today have been extremely persuasive.
The Government have engaged with the Committee and listened to its arguments. They do so because these are difficult issues, and the benefit of experience and argument is something that the Government need to continue to use in determining their approach.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) for his chairing of the Committee. If I may, I would like to use his speech as the cornerstone of my response. I have selected some of the issues that he raised.
The Government are firmly of the view-some Members share it-that the UK has one of the most rigorous export control regimes in the world, and that it is right and proper that we do, because this is an extremely difficult area where difficult judgments have to be made at specific times on specific applications, and in the context of changing events. It is right and proper that throughout the process we take into account the changes that have occurred in countries when licence applications are made.
We must balance the decisions that we make on export control applications with the important role that the defence industry plays in the UK economy. Many people are employed in the industry and it is important to take that into consideration. There is no conflict between effective export controls and supporting the defence sector, but it is important that we have an open, rigorous and transparent regime with which to assess applications and make the difficult decisions. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood that we have made significant progress, but I want to talk specifically about the areas that he mentioned and explore why we may not, as yet, have reached agreement on particular points, and I hope give him some comfort.
First, on extraterritoriality, the Prime Minister announced in 2007 the Government's commitment to extend extraterritorial controls to small arms and other weapons and we implemented it in relation to small arms and man-portable air-defence systems in October 2008. We further extended those extraterritorial controls to other
weapons-light weapons-on 6 April 2009. We committed to and prioritised the introduction of the controls on the basis of evidence of the risk associated with them. We asked the NGOs and industry stakeholders to consider the case for those extensions of controls to be applied to even more military goods.
The joint industry and NGO working group met several times, from 2008 onwards, and presented its proposal to us in late spring this year. Following that, we held two further meetings with the group to clarify aspects of the proposal. We have been assessing the proposal and the outcome of those meetings, and although I cannot give my hon. Friend and the Committee a response today, I can say that there will be a response within a few weeks to the process that has been undertaken. It is a difficult area. We have listened to the views of the Committee, the NGOs and the industry and we will be introducing proposals-I was going to say "very shortly" but will stick to saying "within just a few weeks".
Roger Berry: Will the Minister confirm, or otherwise, that one proposal was submitted by both the NGOs and the defence manufacturers?
Ian Lucas: I think that is correct; that is my understanding.
Roger Berry: An agreed proposal, that is, from the NGOs and the defence manufacturers?
Ian Lucas: I understand that it was a joint proposal from the NGOs and the industry.
Secondly, on brokers and a register of brokers, it is helpful to make it clear that there is no difficulty in producing a list of individuals who have made applications in respect of export controls. We have a database from which those individuals could be identified. The issue is whether, if one produced a register, one would, in those circumstances, apply criteria to enable individuals to go on it. It is not simply about having a list, but about the importance of the list indicating, perhaps, some measure of respectability. Therefore we have to consider closely how the Government deal with the issue.
We looked closely at such a list in 2007, but concluded at the time that it would not be right to introduce a full registration system, because it is not just a list, but a full registration system. However, we are happy to consider it once again when we see how other initiatives work, such as clamping down on people who misuse open licences and focusing our awareness and activity on traders. We need to take into account the burdens that any pre-licensing registration system could impose on legitimate business. I am not sure to what extent the Committee has considered the type of system that may be needed to create a proper register of arms brokers. I do not think that simply producing a list would be an adequate way to address matters. We would have to think carefully about the process.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |