Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

UK Exports of Arms and Equipment

Thursday 18 June 2020 · 1 question

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 1 Partly answered 0 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Zarah Sultana questioned the UK government about arms export criteria regarding internal repression.
  • The response indicated that the government will monitor developments closely and review as necessary.
  • The UK government emphasized the importance of criterion 2, which addresses human rights and fundamental freedoms in the destination country.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Zarah Sultana Your Party Birmingham, Ladywood
Foreign Affairs Business & Trade
Context

Concerns about UK-supplied tear gas and rubber bullets being used against Black Lives Matter protesters in the United States.

Question

Arms export criteria state that licences should not be granted if “there is a clear risk that the items might be used for internal repression”. In light of police in America using tear gas and rubber bullets, which may have been supplied by the UK, to attack Black Lives Matter protesters, will the Minister cancel licences involved in the arming of repression? On a technical point can he tell me whether tear gas equipment is covered by the open general export licence for the US-UK defence trade co-operation treaty?

Answer from Ranil Jayawardena (Minister of State for International Trade)

We will continue to monitor developments closely. We will review where necessary. On the technical points that she refers to, I welcome her probing question. We believe that criterion 2 is very important. It addresses the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country of final destination, and that is something that Her Majesty's Government will certainly bear in mind as we review situations in the United States or elsewhere.

Answered
Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email