---

Arms Export Controls

I welcome this debate. The issue was ignored for many years and we should give credit to Parliament for, in the past 10 years or so, developing the Quadripartite Committee's parliamentary examination of exports and having proper debates on the subject once a year. That is to be welcomed and shows that pressure from the people concerned about the effects of arms exports and the long-term economic issues that accompany them are being taken seriously. I welcome the Committee's report and the huge amount of detailed work that has gone into it. In view of the news that has just come out of Guinea concerning the release of somebody who was involved in a coup there and the issue of human rights abuses, one has to start asking very serious questions about what at first sight might appear to be fairly low levels of arms exports of often quite low technology equipment that can become lethal further down the line. I know this is not the subject of the debate, but I ask for there to be a serious examination of the whole philosophy behind promoting, developing and encouraging arms exports, and the development of an arms-based industry in this country. Indeed, if we are concerned about abuses of human rights, loss of life, illegal wars and the rest of it, we need to recognise that somewhere along the line somebody has bought those weapons and that a great deal of money has been made from their manufacture. It is not good enough just to say that we are concerned about human rights around the world if we do not do something about controlling or reducing the number of arms that get into the hands of people who would do wrong to others. We also need to consider the philosophy behind the development of that industry. There was a time when my party proudly seriously discussed an arms conversion strategy. One does not hear such words often these days, but I have a feeling they will be coming back. As more and more people view with horror the outcomes of Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Congo, Colombia, Guinea and so many other places, they might begin to think more about these issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) outlined the report's specific recommendations, which I absolutely welcome: the extra-territorial controls, the absolute necessity for a register of arms brokers—such people make phenomenal sums of money in trading weaponry from one dodgy source to another, which ends up killing an awful lot of innocent people and causing mayhem and misery for many others—and the attempt at the non-re-export of weapons. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) talked about what is actually a fairly minor part of the whole picture. The head-up display systems that were re-exported through the United States to Israel are just one example of that particular problem. I thank him for drawing our attention to that. There are many recommendations in the report, but I particularly want to draw attention to the concerns about anti-corruption elements and an anti-corruption strategy. This country prides itself on being firm on corruption and on dealing with any public officials or politicians who are involved with corrupt activities. It is absolutely right that we do so, and we have signed up to the OECD's and many other guidelines on anti-corruption activities. However, our moral status in the world is seriously damaged by the decision of the former Prime Minister to halt the Serious Fraud Office's investigation into the al-Yamamah arms deal and the huge amount of money that that involved for BAE Systems and other companies. That deal has reduced our ability to talk learnedly about the subject. I draw hon. Members' attention to the Saferworld memorandum that has helpfully been reprinted in the report. The memorandum outlines Saferworld's serious concerns about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. Although I welcome the ban on arms exports to China because of its behaviour in Tibet—I would welcome such a ban in a number of other places—it seems that we have a blind eye when it comes to Saudi Arabia, because it has vast amounts of oil and it has bought vast numbers of planes from BAE Systems. We cannot have it both ways all the time, as that would be too simple and convenient. We must be prepared to face up to that. The other points I briefly want to make concern a number of the countries that have been mentioned. I endorse the good points that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) made about Sri Lanka and the current treatment of the Tamil people. Although we might not now be exporting arms to Sri Lanka—I hope that we are not—the reality is that the ill treatment of the Tamil people and the method of conduct of the war in Sri Lanka is not new. The abuses of human rights there are not new; they are just more intense at the present time and subject to much more international scrutiny. I hope that the Minister will be able to address the point that if countries are undertaking some kind of internal conflict—civil war—we must ask ourselves why we are exporting arms to them. I recall meeting the late Robin Cook when he was Foreign Secretary to discuss arms exports to Indonesia at that time, because we had concerns about what was happening in East Timor—and for that matter in Aceh and other parts of the country. There are concerns that have to be recorded. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield spoke passionately and quite correctly about the situation in Israel. I repeat what I said in an intervention on him: concerns about the treatment of the Palestinian people are not in any sense new. That country has become the world's fourth-largest arms exporter, never mind a substantial importer as well, so, although we are not necessarily directly into re-export, we are certainly into the re-export of technology and the import of technology by Israel. I think we should consider having a complete embargo on all arms trade of any sort with Israel while it continues the policy of illegal settlements in the west bank and the imprisonment of the people of Gaza, and while it flouts the rest of the world's international law on the development of nuclear weapons. I say that even though it is not a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. I wish it were a signatory to that treaty, or at least to a nuclear weapons convention. Submissions have been made to the Committee by many organisations, including the UK Working Group on Arms, which is made up of Amnesty International, Landmine Action, Omega Research Foundation, Oxfam and Saferworld. The group made some very good points about torture and the ultimate destination of weapons. I do not for one moment suggest that the British Government intend to allow their equipment to be used to torture people or to violate international law or human rights. However, the reality is that if there is no control over the re-export of equipment, it clearly can end up being used in that way and in violation of all kinds of international law. The statements that Amnesty International and other organisations sent before today's debate have been extremely useful on this matter. I hope that the Minister has seriously taken on board the points and views that they have put forward. The Government response states:""The Government is working with the European Commission to take this forward, and has passed to the Commission a draft amendment to the existing Torture Regulation"." It then goes on to explain what the position is, adding:""The Government will continue to push for early adoption of the proposed revision to the Regulation. We shall keep the Committees informed of progress."" Will the Minister tell us how far that particular proposal has gone and what progress is being made in that respect? My final points concern the economy and other aspects surrounding the arms industry that Ministers and others often quote when they say what an important export earner the arms industry is for our economy. The long-standing and, in my view, very respected organisation, Campaign Against Arms Trade, which is based in my constituency, placed a memorandum before the Committee. At paragraph 16, it states:""The Annual Reports of the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) show that, yet again, one business benefits more than any other—the arms business. Even though arms account for just 1.5 per cent. of total UK exports, in 2006-7, 42 per cent. of all ""export credits were for military goods and, in 2007-8, the figure was even higher, 57 per cent. This export credit support is given for very few deals. In the earlier year, the whole 42 per cent. was accounted for by BAE's arms sales to Saudi Arabia. At £750 million this was also by far and away the ECGD's biggest liability in 2007-8"." The arms industry tells us that it is a huge and very efficient exporter from this country, but it receives a disproportionate amount of export credit guarantee support. Also, there is some suspicion that finance for research and purchasing by the British military of equipment in effect pays for an awful lot of the arms industry's basic costs. It can then go on to become an exporter almost free of risk because its basic costs have already been met. I conclude with this thought: we live in a world that is extremely dangerous, in which we witness conflict the whole time. Is it morally right for us to spend such a huge amount of money on expanding and developing the arms industry in this country when we have brilliant skills, technical abilities and developments that could be used for much better, useful social purposes, rather than the business of war? The House needs to consider that.