5 November 2009
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown winds up the debate on behalf of the Opposition raising several concerns including bribery, re-export and in particular the need for proper controls through end-use legislation.
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
and, secondly, that
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 could provide 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 in this situation. I have had discussions with Saferworld on this aspect. 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 could tell 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
On page 8 of their response, the Government state that the
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
That is in paragraph 64.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) that if contracts are 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
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”,
and, secondly, that
“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 could provide 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 in this situation. I have had discussions with Saferworld on this aspect. 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 could tell 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.”
That is in paragraph 64.
I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) that if contracts are 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
