Asked by: Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour - South Shields)
Question to the Department for International Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what assessment her Department made of the potential merits of varying the terms of licences issued for the export of arms to Israel in response to the violence in that country and the neighbouring Palestinian Territory in May 2021.
Answered by Ranil Jayawardena
I refer the Hon. Lady to the answer I gave on 21st July 2021 (UIN: 34507).
Asked by: Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour - South Shields)
Question to the Department for International Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, for what reason information on licences granted for the export of arms to Israel is not released for six months after those licences were granted.
Answered by Ranil Jayawardena
Official licensing statistics are published on a quarterly basis, three and a half months after the end of the reported time period. For example, data for 1st January to 31st March 2021 was published 13th July 2021.
This is to allow for any reporting delays to be captured in the data, checking processes to be carried out, etc. These processes are to ensure accurate and reliable statistics in line with the Code of Practice for Statistics.
Asked by: Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour - South Shields)
Question to the Department for International Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what assessment her Department has made of the potential merits of varying the terms of any licences issued for the export of arms to Israel as a result of the violence in that country and the neighbouring Palestinian Territory in May 2021.
Answered by Ranil Jayawardena
HM Government takes its export responsibilities seriously and will continue to assess all export licences in accordance with the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria (the ‘Consolidated Criteria’). HM Government will not grant an export licence if to do so would be inconsistent with the Consolidated Criteria.
We continue to monitor the situation in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories closely, and we will take action to suspend, refuse or revoke licences – in line with the Consolidated Criteria – if circumstances require.
Asked by: Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour - South Shields)
Question to the Department for International Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, pursuant to the Answer of 17 December 2020 to Question 115685 on Arms Trade Export Controls; what those errors were; what period of time elapsed before those errors were identified and the licences revoked; whether any inappropriate deliveries were made under those licences before revocation; and what steps her Department is taking to prevent similar errors recurring.
Answered by Ranil Jayawardena
One OIEL had one destination revoked (Isle of Man). The Isle of Man is a British Crown Dependency and we do not licence exports of military goods to there from the United Kingdom. A licence was issued on 9th January 2014, the error was identified on 10th February 2015 and the licence revoked 11th February 2015.
One OIEL for a variety of goods to a large number of countries had some items for three destinations (Hong Kong, Mongolia and Taiwan) recommended for rejection by one adviser. A licence was issued on 12th May 2015, the error was identified on 29th May 2015, and the licence revoked on 3rd July 2015. The procedure for partial refusal recommendations from advisers has now been amended.
One OIEL had 31 destinations revoked (Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Barbados, Bolivia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Gibraltar, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Iceland, India, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Namibia, New Caledonia and Dependencies, New Zealand, Norway, Paraguay, Peru, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, St Helena, Switzerland, Taiwan, Trinidad and Tobago, United States and Uruguay). The items included on this application required import authorisation from recipient countries before an export licence is granted specifying quantities, which could not be obtained. A licence was issued on 12th February 2019 and the error identified on 15th July 2019; the licence was revoked 17th July 2019.
Two OITCLs for Sierra Leone had goods revoked because the licences were issued in error (Criterion 1). The activity licenced, which was the promotion of supply of less-lethal weapons, was outside the scope of policy as set out by Lord Howell on 9th February 2012. One licence was issued on 5th January 2017 and another on 14th June 2017. The errors were identified on 22nd July 2019 and the licences revoked 29th July 2019.
We keep our processes under constant review and have an ongoing staff training programme. We do not hold information on any transfers that took place under these historic licences, but these licences have been corrected now. We have implemented a transformation programme which, amongst other things, will be improving our processes and control mechanisms, as well as implementing recommendations from an internal audit report.
Asked by: Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour - South Shields)
Question to the Department for International Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, how many times the Government has suspended or revoked an existing Arms Export licence in the last five years; what the grounds were for those actions; and which countries those licences were for.
Answered by Ranil Jayawardena
Since 2015, we have taken revocation action 74 times on individual licences; and suspended licences, pending further investigations, four times.
I have provided the Hon. Lady with instances below where a licence was revoked in full; where a country was removed; where goods were removed; or where goods for a country were removed.
In seeking to be open with the Hon. Lady, this data is provided from management information and may, therefore, not align with published official statistics. My department has identified some instances where revocations were not reported. For example, following the introduction of EU restrictive measures in 2017, we revoked Venezuela from 13 OIELs, but five were not reported. My department has identified the cause of this and put in place measures to ensure there is no re-occurrence. The data will align with the next official statistics update and the official estimates will be revised.
Asked by: Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour - South Shields)
Question to the Department for International Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, with reference to her Written Statement of 7 July 2020 on Trade Update, what the threshold is at which the Government would assess the number of incidents violating International Humanitarian Law as unacceptable in the licensing of arms sales to Saudi Arabia for use in Yemen, regardless of whether they constituted a pattern; and what the basis is for the level of that threshold.
Answered by Ranil Jayawardena
All licence applications are considered on a case by case basis against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria.
Specifically, Criterion 2c makes sure that we do not grant licences if there is a clear risk that the items might be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law. My Rt Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade set out in her Written Ministerial Statement of 7th July how she has fully considered Criterion 2c in relation to the re-taking of the licensing decisions, in accordance with the Court of Appeal’s judgment.
HM Government is able to review licences – and suspend or revoke as necessary – when circumstances require, and this is done in line with the Consolidated Criteria.
Asked by: Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour - South Shields)
Question to the Department for International Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, with reference to her Written Statement of 7 July 2020 on Trade Update and the Answer of 13 July 2020 to Question 68798, what criteria were used to determine whether the 535 incidents which, for the purpose of the Government’s analysis are being treated as violations of International Humanitarian Law, constituted a pattern.
Answered by Ranil Jayawardena
Our analysis as to whether or not an incident constituted a ‘possible’ breach of international humanitarian law (IHL) was applied to over 300 incidents. The assessments used all available sources of information, including some that are necessarily confidential and sensitive. As a result, we are not able to provide details of individual assessments for national security reasons.
We have assessed that there were a small number of incidents that were ‘possible’ violations, which have been treated for the purposes of this analysis as ‘violations’ of international humanitarian law.
The Statement made by my Rt Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade on 7th July was clear that we sought to determine whether these ‘violations’ were indicative of:
(i) any patterns of non-compliance;
(ii) a lack of commitment on the part of Saudi Arabia to comply with IHL; and/or
(iii) a lack of capacity or systemic weaknesses which might give rise to a clear risk of IHL breaches.
Our analysis did not reveal any such patterns, trends or systemic weaknesses.
Asked by: Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour - South Shields)
Question to the Department for International Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what (a) volume and (b) type of arms and equipment have been sold to Saudi Arabia through open licences since March 2015.
Answered by Ranil Jayawardena
HM Government publishes Official Statistics (on a quarterly and annual basis) on export licences granted, refused and revoked to all destinations on GOV.UK and these reports contain detailed information, including the overall value, the type (e.g. Military, Other), and a summary of the items covered by these licences.
This information is available at: gov.uk/government/collections/strategic-export-controls-licensing-data and the most recent publication was on 14th July 2020, covering the period 1st January to 31st March 2020.
HM Government does not hold complete records on the amount of equipment sold to Saudi Arabia – nor any other country – and this can only be provided at disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour - South Shields)
Question to the Department for International Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what (a) amount and (b) type of (i) arms and (ii) equipment have been sold to Saudi Arabia under open licences since March 2015.
Answered by Ranil Jayawardena
HM Government publishes Official Statistics (on a quarterly and annual basis) on export licences granted, refused and revoked to all destinations on GOV.UK and these reports contain detailed information, including the overall value, the type (e.g. Military, Other), and a summary of the items covered by these licences.
This information is available at: gov.uk/government/collections/strategic-export-controls-licensing-data and the most recent publication was on 14th July 2020, covering the period 1st January to 31st March 2020.
HM Government does not hold complete records on the amount of equipment sold to Saudi Arabia – nor any other country – and this can only be provided at disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Emma Lewell-Buck (Labour - South Shields)
Question to the Department for International Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for International Trade, what licences for the sale of artillery and associated targeting equipment the Government has granted to Saudi Arabia in the last five years.
Answered by Ranil Jayawardena
HM Government publishes Official Statistics (on a quarterly and annual basis) on export licences granted, refused and revoked to all destinations on GOV.UK and these reports contain detailed information, including the overall value, the type (e.g. Military, Other), and a summary of the items covered by these licences.
This information is available at: gov.uk/government/collections/strategic-export-controls-licensing-data and the most recent publication was on 14th July 2020, covering the period 1st January to 31st March 2020.
HM Government does not hold complete records on the amount of equipment sold to Saudi Arabia – nor any other country – and this can only be provided at disproportionate cost.