Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

UK Arms Exports: Transparency

Thursday 21 July 2022 · 3 questions

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

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 2 Not answered 0

Key points

  • UK publishes more licensing data on arms exports than any other country, including an annual report covering 2021.
  • HMRC issued the largest fine of 2.7 million for breach of arms exports controls, but details about the fined party are not disclosed.
  • Government guidance on granting licences has been changed to make the criteria clearer after leaving the European Union.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Emma Lewell Lab South Shields
Foreign Affairs Standards & Ethics
Context

The MP is concerned about the adequacy of transparency measures surrounding UK arms export decisions, given recent controversies and criticisms.

Question

What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the transparency requirements for UK arms exports. The concern is over whether existing regulations provide sufficient clarity and oversight to ensure ethical practices in exporting military equipment.

Answer from Ranil Jayawardena

We publish more licensing data than any other country. Yesterday, we published our annual report covering 2021. The data reveal that of 4,234 licensing decisions on standard individual export licences, 96.1% were issued, 1.5% were refused and, because of our sanctions on Russia and Belarus, 2.4% were revoked. The Government remain committed to openness on strategic export licensing to provide Parliament with the means to hold us to account.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The MP sought an assessment of adequacy while the answer focused on current publication practices without addressing the specific evaluation requested.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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

Get updates like this by email
Q2 Jeff Smith Lab Manchester Withington
Foreign Affairs Business & Trade
Context

HMRC imposed a record £2.7 million fine for breaching arms export controls, but no details about the case or involved parties have been released.

Question

In February, HMRC issued its biggest ever fine of £2.7 million for breach of the arms exports controls. HMRC has refused to publish any details so we do not know who was fined, the name of the company, the military goods exported or where they ended up. How does the Minister expect us to have any faith or confidence in our arms export controls when they are so shrouded in secrecy?

Answer from Ranil Jayawardena

The hon. Gentleman refers to HMRC which does not fall under my Department, but I will ensure that the relevant Minister provides him with an answer.

Not addressed: The question was about specific details and transparency regarding a fine case, yet the answer shifted responsibility to another department without addressing the secrecy issue.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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

Get updates like this by email
Q3 Emma Lewell Lab South Shields
Brexit Business & Trade
Context

Changes to guidance on granting licenses have raised concerns about reduced transparency and accountability, with new wording focusing on government determination rather than clear risk.

Question

I heard the Minister's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), but the reality is that the changes to licensing criteria have reduced transparency and accountability. Can the Minister explain the rationale for changing Government guidance on granting licences from refusing a licence if there is a clear risk that items may be used in violation of international humanitarian law to if the Government determine there is a clear risk?

Answer from Ranil Jayawardena

As we have left the European Union, we have decided that it is right to review many aspects of our system. This is one part, and we have made the wording of the criteria clearer than before to provide certainty to exporters and others.

Partly answered

Not addressed: The question asked for rationale behind changing guidance but the answer only provided a general statement about reviewing EU systems without addressing transparency concerns directly.

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

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

Get updates like this by email