| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Ms Drown: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is some tension in the House, because there is much agreement today about the need for an ethical arms trade policy, but, when another debate comes up about jobs, hon. Members will defend jobs in the arms industry in their constituencies? Does he agree that, as a strong part of the new Government's developing policy, the first part of money released through defence diversification should go back into the areas concerned, so that the skilled people there can find jobs in more constructive areas of employment?
Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend reads my mind. What brilliance; no one else can. Her point is important. I do not seek to make enemies or to criticise people who work in the arms industry. That is not my purpose, or that of anyone else concerned about human rights. I am concerned that a diversification agency should reduce Britain's dependence on arms manufacture and export. It must invest so that, instead of the market madness of the Tory Government, we examine rationally how to reduce the volume and value of the arms industry and its exports, and put the money into socially useful products.
The subsidy to the arms industry is enormous. About £5,000 per job is subsidised every year. The subsidy on exports is more than £300 million a year. The Export Credits Guarantee Department's exposure on arms exports is vast. Following the collapse of the south-east Asian tiger economies, I understand that £800 million is still unpaid by Indonesia. The figure is duplicated in many other countries.
The British taxpayer is to be asked to pay for the weapons that are going to be used to kill people in Indonesia and many other places. It is a ludicrous business
to depend on. If we are concerned about human rights, we cannot at the same time promote arms exports knowing full well that Governments such as Suharto's will use them against the poor people of East Timor and many other places.
Since the second world war, conflicts have arisen all over the globe. They were sometimes cold war conflicts by proxy, sometimes demands for self-determination, and often arguments about oil and natural resources. The common thread is that, in every one of those conflicts, in which 40 million people have died since 1945, someone along the line has made a great deal of money from the export of the weapons that helped to fuel them.
Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park):
It has been an interesting debate, but Her Majesty's Opposition are conspicuous by their absence. Earlier, they challenged the Leader of the House to give them time for debates on defence and foreign policy, but they cannot be bothered to turn up to a debate on the international arms trade. A plague on them.
Mr. Faber:
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Dr. Tonge:
No, I will not, because I have very little time. The hon. Gentleman took more than enough time.
We had a detailed response from the Minister. There were a lot of words, but they must be matched by action. I urge him to more action and a few less words. I agree with the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) that there was a lot of rhetoric, and that nothing much seems to have changed yet. We shall see.
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham), my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), and, of course, the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) brought passion to the debate. We heard about the effects of the international arms trade.
We live in an unstable world, because the end of the cold war left us with a paradox. There is less threat, but also less peace. Of the major armed conflicts in the world today, not one is a classic war of one state against another. Typically, wars today are violent, and ethnically or religiously oriented. Almost all are in poor countries. For those embroiled in such conflicts, the dominant threat is not nuclear arsenals but small arms controlled by warlords, as so aptly noted by the hon. Member for Gloucester.
Civilians suffer 90 per cent. of casualties, of whom more than 40 per cent. are children, as the hon. Member for Gloucester and I saw illustrated vividly in Rwanda--
something we will never forget. Such violence, ethnic cleansing and mass rape undermine the values on which depend human relationships and respect for human rights. A little bit passion in the debate would have been appreciated.
As civilised nations with human rights, we call on the world to do something. However, those called upon to do something are the men and women in the military who once protected us from a single threat. I am grateful for that, as one of the generation that was protected and given a good life as a consequence. They are now called on for peacekeeping, and, more often, peace enforcement.
I hope that the defence review--which, it was promised, would be policy-led--reflects the strategic change, while recognising the continuing need for a well-equipped military. The hon. Member for Westbury was very hot on the importance of a strong defence industry.
Mr. Stephen Hesford (Wirral, West):
The hon. Lady mentioned the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber). Does she agree that speeches such as his make the Government's position very difficult, in an area which is already difficult? There was no support from Conservative Members for an ethical foreign policy. The Opposition said virtually nothing about human rights.
Dr. Tonge:
I agree. I remind the hon. Member for Westbury that a strong defence industry that is good for the economy comes at the expense of the lives of women and children and the torture of people all over the world. In the next century, that cost must be taken into account.
Mr. Faber:
Does the hon. Lady accept that most of my quotations in defence of the British defence industry were from last month's Government Green Paper?
Dr. Tonge:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out, but I stick to what I said about his remarks.
If we are to promote an ethical foreign policy, it must be backed by a code of conduct for arms sales, as ably argued by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). My first major concern is the matter of licences not being granted if there is a risk of arms being used for internal repression.
I still have no idea who or what decides what internal repression is. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain it. Baroness Chalker spoke in terms similar to the Government's about internal repression, but still licences are granted. Not much has changed. Since 1 May, there have been 22 to Indonesia, 16 to Kenya, 86 to Turkey, two to Algeria, and so on. That is why full parliamentary scrutiny of arms sales in advance is imperative.
Arms broking was also mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife and the hon. Member for Gloucester. It is essential that all EU residents and registered companies comply with the European policy on arms exports. We must stop the scandal of brokerage. The hon. Member for Gloucester told us about the scandal in Rwanda and Mil Tec's involvement. The issue must be cleared up and included in the policy.
On the subject of scrutiny in Parliament, I ask the Minister to consider carefully Sir Richard Scott's suggestion of a standing interdepartmental committee.
The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible at the same time for promoting and for restricting exports. The Scott report questioned whether the DTI should continue to be the licensing authority when the material reasons for refusing export licences were usually the preserve of other Departments such as the Department for International Development.
A standing committee would facilitate communication between the DTI, the Foreign Office, the Ministryof Defence and the Department for International Development, and concerns could be raised. It would enable parliamentarians to scrutinise sensitive export licences in advance.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |