---

Arms Export Controls

My hon. Friend is right. It would be trying your patience, Mr. Pope, and going beyond the remit of this debate if we spent too long discussing what has gone on for many years. The Committees on Arms Export Controls raised concerns before Operation Cast Lead, and the predecessor Committee, the Quadripartite Committee, has raised concerns about UK policy and practice on arms exports to Israel. Concerns have certainly been raised since 2000, but they probably go back long before that. I referred to a UN report dating from last week— 21 to 27 October—and quoted only a small piece from it, relating to fishermen off Gaza. It also mentions an increase in injuries in occupied East Jerusalem, the demolition of houses in East Jerusalem, violence by settlers in the west bank, demolition orders in the west bank, and children in Bethlehem being affected by water-borne parasites. There is also good news about opening a road to Palestinian use. Another item is about the fears of John Ging, the UN Relief and Works Agency co-ordinator for Gaza, that although we are heading for winter, essential supplies and equipment are still not getting into Gaza. He has called for an immediate opening of all Gaza border crossings before winter. It is important to consider such matters in the light of arms exports. The Committees and I welcomed the Foreign Secretary's statement on 21 March, which laid out how Britain was approaching its policies on arms exports to Israel, particularly in the light of Operation Cast Lead. The evidence that the Committee received from Ministers in this year's evidence sessions has been helpful and illuminating, but concerns remain. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) said, we have had those concerns for some time. In various forums we have questioned how head-up display units produced in the UK were allowed to be exported to the USA, re-exported to Israel and used in F-16s that attacked civilian targets. We would not have exported that equipment to Israel directly if there was a risk that it would be used in that way. We allowed that situation to develop, despite warnings and a knowledge of the risks. As has been mentioned, we also allowed the export of naval equipment for the Saar corvette. I welcome the reviews of extant export licences to Israel. Five of the 182 export licences were revoked in the light of the situation in Gaza. As the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling said, that was explained in the letter from the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) to the Committee, dated 22 July. There are still issues that we have to address. My worry is that we will keep going around in circles. Some years ago, Britain exported equipment for armoured personnel carriers to Israel. It was exported on the understanding that it would not be used in contravention of criteria 2 and 3 of the arms export licensing criteria and so would not be used for internal repression or external aggression. It was pretty well proved that the armoured personnel carriers were used for those purposes against the Palestinians. To his credit, the then Foreign Secretary picked up on that and criticised Israel. He said that future assurances from Israel that exports would not be used for internal repression or external aggression would not be sufficient, and that Britain would look more closely at the situation and require evidence before granting further licences. I thought about that incident when I read the Foreign Office Minister's letter of 22 July. It gave the good news that a number of licences had been revoked because of Britain's concerns. The penultimate paragraph stated:""I would like to take this opportunity to reassure the Committees that we continue to rigorously apply the licensing criteria, and it was on this basis that we revoked the licences. There is no embargo in place against Israel, and all decisions continue to be taken in line with announced government policy. But clearly, the decision to revoke the five licences in question will also influence our thinking when assessing future licence applications."" I am pleased that this will influence our thinking when considering future licence applications. However, with the background of the armoured personnel carriers, Israel's reaction to two intifadas, the years of ongoing military activity against Palestinians and the blockade of Gaza, how did we get into the position of having to revoke extant licences if we were always rigorously assessing the risks? As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South, said in relation to Sri Lanka, why have we not been assessing the risks? In areas of conflict where war has been going on for years, we are obliged not only to assess things on a case-by-case basis, but to ensure that we do not fan the flames any more and do not allow military equipment produced in the UK to get there, whether directly or indirectly. We do not allow that on the other side; I do not hear anybody saying that if Palestinians are under attack from an Israeli tank, they have to defend themselves. Nobody is saying that if Palestinians want to secure arms from the UK or elsewhere, we should consider on a case-by-case basis whether they will be used for internal repression or external aggression. That is because it is said, with some justification, that to supply arms to the Palestinians would be fanning the flames. Yet we still adopt a different view when it comes to Israel. It is interesting that the Government's response to our report states:""The Government notes the Committee's conclusions that a case-by-case basis is the correct approach when assessing the granting of export licences"" to Israel. It is absolutely true that the paragraph about Israel in our report states that we agree with a case-by-case approach. However, all sorts of other things in that paragraph ask the Government to be rigorous in how they do such things, and we ask them to try to ensure that we do not get ourselves into that position again. When the Minister sums up, I ask him not simply to tell us that reviews are going on, although that is good and I welcome it; not simply to record the fact that five out of 182 licences have been revoked, although I also welcome that; and not simply to give an undertaking that the comments made by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling will be taken on board. I hope he will do that, but not simply that. What about the 177 licences that have not been revoked? I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us about how the Government will assess the ongoing risk of any arms exports to Israel being used for internal repression or external aggression. What risk assessment is being done on that? What criteria do the Government bring to bear in making that risk assessment, and what confidence does he have that, in a few years' time, we will not be having a debate such as this and recalling that while there was a question about armoured personnel carriers, from which we learned some lessons, the same thing happened again with head-up displays for F16s and Saar corvettes? What confidence can we have that next time we have such a debate we will say that the decisions we took meant that we did not get into such a position again? We must not end up shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.