---

Arms Export Controls

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are on all fours with the Government on this issue, in so far as we asked for an independent study to be carried out, our recommendation was accepted and the study was carried out. Rather tantalisingly, however, and for reasons best known to them, the Government will release the study only "in due course", whatever that means. Perhaps the Minister will cheer us all up by saying that the study will be in the Vote Office by the end of the debate—I say that as a hint to the civil servants sitting behind him. On the arms trade treaty, the hugely important and wonderful news is that the new American Administration have carried out a 180° U-turn on the previous Administration's policy. For my money, the single worst vote that the American Administration have cast since the foundation of the United Nations was the lone vote that the last Bush Administration cast against the rest of the world on the arms trade treaty. Happily, that is now merely history, and as the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes), said, we were enormously encouraged by the total change of atmosphere and policy direction when we were in Washington last week. We had an extremely valuable meeting with Mrs. Ellen Tauscher, who is the new Under-Secretary responsible for arms control in the State Department. On the arms trade treaty, too, I commend the Government, because they have been right out in front of pretty well every other country. As they go forward, however, there will inevitably be a tension between maximising support for the eventual treaty and minimising the watering down that will have to take place to get the treaty agreed by the largest possible number of states. At present, we are in the foothills at the start of the negotiations, and all that I would say to the Minister is that although I am sure that the Government and all our expert people in the various Departments will do their utmost to achieve the maximum support, let us please have the minimum possible watering down. I want now to discuss one or two countries, starting with China. I am delighted that the Government are taking a firm line on maintaining the arms export embargo on China. China's human rights record remains appalling. It is not every day of the week that I rush to applaud the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, but I am delighted to do so on this occasion and heartily agree with his recent statement:""I think it's reasonable for us in Europe, if we are going to make a move on the arms embargo, that we see clear steps forward in individual and political rights and freedom of expression in China, which sparked our concern in the first place."" Well said, Secretary of State: I could not agree more strongly. My only minor quibble with the Government's policy on arms exports to China arises with the coverage given to the Chinese expedition to the recent arms trade fair in London this September, which was billed as the largest defence fair in the world. More than 40 countries were represented there, with 1,300 exhibitors selling everything from machine guns, bullets and tanks to medical equipment. I noted that, at the invitation of UK Trade and Investment, there was a Chinese delegation, comprising nine members of the military, at that four-day event. The UKTI spokesman, whom I should not dream of naming, because he is a civil servant, and I should not want to cause him any embarrassment—he was only doing his job for the Government—said of the delegation that they would not be meeting any of the major defence contractors and would focus instead on humanitarian and disaster relief equipment. The spectacle of those nine carefully hand-picked top military people in the Chinese delegation wandering around the arms fair for four days, carefully averting their eyes from anything among the 1,300 exhibits other than humanitarian and disaster relief equipment, stretched my credulity somewhat. Leaving that aside, the policy is excellent. I am very glad that we are taking strong steps to impose an arms embargo on the dismal new military regime that has sadly now installed itself in Guinea, under army Captain Camara. I have one question for the Minister. As he knows, there was a peaceful demonstration in Conakry, in which some 150 peaceful demonstrators were killed, and dozens of women were gang raped by the so-called presidential guard. I read Amnesty International's report, which said that armoured personnel carriers manufactured by a South African subsidiary of Alvis, a British company, but now a subsidiary of BAE systems, were involved in that terrible humanitarian crime. I should be grateful to know whether the Minister confirms that that equipment was present there. I want to deal quickly with Israel and Iran. I welcome the recent written statement by the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, in which she used the provisions of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 to stop UK financial services contacts with the Iranian bank Mellat and the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines. As she said, that was done because both those entities have been involved in transporting goods for Iran's ballistic missiles and nuclear programmes. That Government initiative is excellent and absolutely justified, but taking the initiative in arms control is no good if we take it entirely by ourselves: what steps are the Government taking to make certain that similar measures will be taken by the other EU member states, the United States—if it has not done so already—and other possible major users of ships, such as the Japanese and Koreans, who might make ships available to Iran for the shipments? That is something we do not want them to do. I welcome the revocation by the Government of five export licences for the Israeli navy Saar 4.5 corvettes. The grounds for doing so were set out in the letter of 22 July from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) to the Chairman of the Committees on Arms Exports Controls. He explained that if it had been known that they were to be used for coastal bombardment purposes, those licences would not have been granted under criteria 2 or 3. Before I make my policy point to the Minister, it is worth explaining criteria 2 and 3, as stated by the Foreign Secretary in his written statement of 21 April. Criterion 2 states that""we will not issue an export licence where there is a clear risk that the export might be used for internal repression"" and criterion 3 states that""we will not issue licences for exports which would provoke or prolong armed conflicts or aggravate existing tensions or conflicts in the country of final destination".—[Official Report, 21 April 2009; Vol. 491, c. 8W.]" The Minister of State's letter of 22 July to the Chairman of the four Committees states that there are in fact a total of 182 licences for Israel. The Government have revoked five, so presumably there are 177 outstanding. My question to the Minister is whether he and the Government are satisfied that each and every one of the remaining 177 licences is valid and in compliance with both criteria 2 and 3 under the EU agreed consolidated criteria.