Asked by: Caroline Lucas (Green Party - Brighton, Pavilion)
Question
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, pursuant to the Answer of 26 February 2014, Official Report, column 348W, on arms trade: trade fairs, what consideration his Department gave to any previous breaches of arms control legislation by exhibitors during the process of agreeing the Memorandum of Understanding between his Department and Clarion; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Matt Hancock
The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between BIS and Clarion Events was set in place in 2013 to give Clarion the authority they need to control the activities of their exhibitors at the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) exhibition. It sets out Clarion’s role and responsibilities, and those of the exhibitor companies, regarding export and trade control legislation.
The process of agreeing the MOU drew on the experience of previous exhibitions. The MOU contains specific provisos instructing Clarion to inform their exhibitors that, where required, they must apply to the Export Control Organisation in their own right for the appropriate export and trade control licences. The MOU also enables Clarion to refuse participation at DSEI to any exhibitors not complying with the legislation.
Asked by: Caroline Lucas (Green Party - Brighton, Pavilion)
Question
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what assessment he has made of the letter he received in February 2014 from the law firm Hodge Jones and Allen setting out alleged breaches of law at the Defence and Security Equipment International arms fair in 2013; whether any enforcement actions have been taken in response to this letter; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Matt Hancock
Responsibility for investigating potential breaches of UK export controls falls to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). I am assured that HMRC fully and properly considered the alleged breaches at the 2013 Defence and Security Equipment International exhibition, as they would in any case where potential breaches are detected or where there are credible allegations of an offence. In this instance, HMRC determined that further action was neither appropriate nor viable.