---

Arms Export Controls

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry), who chaired the four Committees with great diligence and effectiveness during their consideration of the reports. At the Committees' evidence session on 11 March, we took evidence from non-governmental organisations such as Amnesty International, Oxfam and Saferworld. I asked whether they could cite specific examples of UK arms exports that had breached the EU consolidated criteria, and I was supported in that by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (John Bercow). At the time, the NGOs were unable to come up with specific examples, with the exception of Israel, to which I shall come. They said that they would like to go away and reflect further, and as of today's debate, we have not heard further from them. I would therefore conclude that, in broad terms, and with some exceptions to which I shall come, the British Government are in pretty full compliance with the terms of the EU consolidated criteria. However, there are three areas of policy that need further careful consideration by the Government. One is components, and the remaining two relate to two particular countries, to which I shall come. On components, the Government need to carry out a serious review of their present policy and particularly of whether it complies with the EU consolidated criteria. In the Committees' evidence session with the Minister, I specifically raised with him the issue of the head-up displays and the F-16s and I asked whether there was any evidence that they had been used in the recent operations in Gaza. There is also the issue of Apache helicopters, which the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) raised in an intervention. Equally, there is the issue of whether British components have been incorporated in unmanned airborne vehicles—UAVs. There are a number of other examples of British components ending up in other countries' complete weapons systems, and of those systems in turn ending up in undesirable hands. I certainly recognise that this is a significant and difficult policy issue for the Government. Many British companies that employ considerable numbers of people and transact high-value business manufacture components for weapons systems. At the same time, however, it can make no sense and is, indeed, of dubious ethics to have an arms export policy that prohibits a complete weapons system from going to a particular destination, but which is so leaky that components for that same weapons system can go into similar or identical weapons systems in another country and then end up in a destination prohibited by the Government. I hope that the Minister will agree that that is an unacceptable position to get into, although it is precisely the position that the Government are now in in some areas. In his reply to the debate, will the Minister therefore give us an undertaking that the Government will carry out a full review of their arms export policy in relation to components for weapons systems on the military list of the EU consolidated criteria? I hope that the Minister will be able, in due course, to reply fully and frankly in an entirely open policy statement. I use the phrase "entirely open" deliberately. Following the Minister's evidence session in front of the four Committees, he wrote the letter of 19 February 2009, to which the Chairman of the Committees referred. Although our Chairman quoted from that letter, the Minister and his Department had classified it as restricted. Having read the letter in full, however, I consider that classification wholly unnecessary, because there is nothing whatever in it that could not perfectly well be put in the public domain, although the terms of the letter might cause the Government limited embarrassment. I consider that the word "restricted" was put on the letter solely to gag the members of the Committee and to prevent them from making it public. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that. When he returns to the issue of components, therefore, I hope that he will address it in full and detailed terms and in a fully public way.