House of Commons Business, Innovation and Skills, Defence, Foreign Affairs and International Development Committees The Arms Trade Treaty Oral and written evidence Tuesday 10 September 2012 Alistair Burt MP, Parliamentary Under- Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 10 September 2012 HC 599-i Published on 23 April 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £4.50 The Committees on Arms Export Controls The Committees on Arms Export Controls The Business, Innovation and Skills, Defence, Foreign Affairs and International Development Committees are appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development and any associated public bodies. Current membership BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS: Mr Adrian Bailey, Mr Brian Binley, Paul Blomfield, Katy Clark, Mike Crockart, Caroline Dinenage, Julie Elliott, Rebecca Harris, Ann McKechin, Mr Robin Walker, Nadhim Zahawi DEFENCE: Rt Hon James Arbuthnot, Mr Julian Brazier, Thomas Docherty, Rt Hon Jeffrey M. Donaldson, Mr Dai Harvard, Mr Adam Holloway, Mrs Madeleine Moon, Penny Mordaunt, Sandra Osborne, Sir Bob Russell, Bob Stewart, Ms Gisela Stuart FOREIGN AFFAIRS: Rt Hon Sir John Stanley (Chair of the Committees’ concurrent meetings), Richard Ottaway, Rt Hon Mr Bob Ainsworth, Mr John Baron, Rt Hon Sir Menzies Campbell, Rt Hon Ann Clwyd, Mike Gapes, Mark Hendrick, Andrew Rosindell, Mr Frank Roy, Rory Stewart, INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT: Rt Hon Sir Malcolm Bruce, Hugh Bayley, Fiona Bruce MP, Richard Burden, Pauline Latham, Jeremy Lefroy, Mr Michael McCann, Fabian Hamilton, Fiona O’Donnell, Mark Pritchard, Chris White Powers The Committees are departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in Standing Order No 152. The powers of the Committees to work together and agree joint reports are set out in Standing Order No. 137A. These Standing Orders are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committees are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committees (including news items) are on the internet at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a- z/othercommittees/committee-on-arms-export-controls/. Committee staff The current staff of the Committees are Keith Neary (Clerk), Vanessa Hallinan (Committee Assistant), and Alex Paterson (Media Officer) Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Committees on Arms Export Controls, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 2420; the Committees’ email address is [email protected] List of witnesses Monday 10 September 2012 Page Alistair Burt MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Richard Tauwhare, Head of the Arms Export Policy Department, and Ambassador Joanne Adamson, Head of the UK Delegation on ATT, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ev 1 cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [22-04-2013 14:07] Job: 028443 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/028443/028443_o001_th_Corrected - Transcript 10 09 12.xml Committee on Arms Export Controls: Evidence Ev 1 Oral evidence Taken before the Committees on Arms Export Controls on Monday 10 September 2012 Members present: Sir John Stanley (Chair) Katy Clark Bob Stewart Ann Clwyd Rory Stewart John Glen Chris White Ann McKechin Nadhim Zahawi Fiona O’Donnell ________________ Examination of Witnesses Witnesses: Alistair Burt MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Richard Tauwhare, Head of the Arms Export Policy Department, and Ambassador Joanne Adamson, Head of the UK Delegation on ATT, gave evidence. Q1 Chair: Minister, we welcome you and your negotiating period in New York, in which Ambassador colleagues, Ambassador Joanne Adamson and Jo Adamson was closely involved all the time and in Richard Tauwhare, to the Committees on Arms Export which both I and Minister of State Alan Duncan were Controls. We were very eager to put in this additional involved. But the view was taken that we agreed with oral session, at relatively short notice, because of the the chair of the conference, who had been running great importance of the arms trade treaty situation and the negotiations over a lengthy period, that more time the sad failure of the negotiations in New York. would enable more countries to sign the text at the I would like to start by taking you back to 27 July in end of the day and thus fulfil the United Kingdom’s New York. The situation was that the arms trade treaty obligations to Parliament to support a text that was as had been in preparation and under negotiation for consensual as possible, drew in as many parties as years. On that day, the British Government were possible and was both robust and effective. willing to sign up to it, as were 90 countries in all, Accordingly, we agreed with the chair that it was best including all the European Union countries and to allow some more time for states parties to come on countries all over the world—Africa, central America, board. That is why we displayed leadership in saying, South America and Asia. In their statement on that “Yes, we think this is the right process from now on.” day, those countries said, “We had expected to adopt such a draft Treaty today.” Q2 Chair: You say that the root of the problem was Minister, you will know as well as anybody that, on the requirement for consensus. I suggest to you that successive occasions, you and the Foreign Secretary the British Government have a real explanation for have referred to the British leadership in the arms why they went along with the consensus principle. trade treaty negotiating role. Why, given the claimed Consensus has always been—and continues to be—a British leadership, did the British Government not kiss of death on large-scale multilateral arms control display the necessary leadership on 27 July, along negotiations. There is no progress—and total with the other 90 countries, and bring into being the deadlock—in the fissile material cut-off treaty first international arms trade treaty that there has ever been? negotiation in Geneva because of consensus. There would never have been a cluster munitions convention Alistair Burt: Thank you, Chairman, for the warm welcome. I appreciate that it is useful to have an if there had been a need for consensus. There would opportunity to look at arms trade treaty issues so soon never have been a land mines convention if there had after the end of the negotiating conference in July. It been a need for consensus. So why on earth did the was not a question of leadership. The decision was British Government go along with the principle of made a couple of years ago that the rules of procedure consensus? should prescribe consensus. The United Kingdom has Alistair Burt: First, as the Committee is well aware, always proceeded on the basis that the best arms trade this was a decision taken by the previous Government. treaty would be one that was consensual, that brought Secondly, we have taken the view that, in this in as many parties as possible and that was robust and particular case, there is merit in pursuing a policy of effective—terms with which I know the Committee consensus. The merit is that it enables people to is familiar. negotiate from a position in which they don’t feel The truth was that that was not the situation when we threatened. At the end of the day, they can be engaged got to 27 July. Yes, a number of countries—like us— on the basis that they know that, if they don’t agree, were content with the text and would have signed, but things will come to a stop. That is true, but sometimes the chair held that more time was needed in order to that particular process and negotiating procedure bring more countries into a position where they could enables them to move further than they might sign. On 27 July we were at the end of an intense otherwise do. cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [22-04-2013 14:07] Job: 028443 Unit: PG01 Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/028443/028443_o001_th_Corrected - Transcript 10 09 12.xml Ev 2 Committee on Arms Export Controls: Evidence 10 September 2012 Alistair Burt MP, Richard Tauwhare and Ambassador Joanne Adamson I draw the Committee’s attention to the gains that better. We think we can, and that’s why it is worth were made, as displayed through the draft text. staying with the process. Clearly, a number of countries were able to sign up to things we had never seen before: a global commitment Q4 Ann Clwyd: Can I ask you about the rules of to arms control; mechanisms that would ensure that procedure for the conference? Is it not the case that, human rights criteria were taken into account for in 2009, it was the United States that made the small arms, ammunition and components; and stipulation that agreement had to be reached by mainstreaming sustainable development and consensus rather than by majority vote, otherwise they corruption. All of those are in the draft basic text. I would not have taken part in the whole procedure? don’t think that we would necessarily have got all of Alistair Burt: I believe they certainly sought them if we had not been able to negotiate and, on consensus, but it was agreed by everybody else, and the basis that we were proceeding consensually, move that is now in the procedure and the process.