Oral evidence: Use of UK-manufactured Arms in Yemen HC 928Wednesday 27 April 2016

Oral evidence, 27 April 2016.

Witnesses

Philip Dunne MP, Minister of State for Defence Procurement, Ministry of Defence, Tobias Ellwood MP, Minister for the Middle East, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Rt Hon Anna Soubry MP, Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and Rt Hon Desmond Swayne TD MP, Minister of State, Department for International Development, gave evidence.

Chair

Ministers, thank you very much for turning up more or less on time. We are going to curtail the meeting at 5.30 pm, so we are hoping that questions and answers will be brief. We will not start with the normal niceties and ask you to introduce yourselves, because we all know very much who you are. As a group, could you start by telling us how important the Gulf region, particularly Saudi Arabia, is to the UK Government and the UK’s strategic interests?

Philip Dunne

In a sense, there is a Foreign Office lead in relation to the Gulf as a whole. From a Ministry of Defence perspective, the Gulf Co-operation Council represents one of the most significant groups of countries with whom we seek to work in a number of areas to provide reassurance for regional security. The Gulf represents one of the most important trading areas for the United Kingdom. We secure a large proportion of our energy supplies from gas reserves in Qatar, in particular. We have some 200,000 British nationals living in the Gulf as a whole. In relation to Ministry of Defence support for military activities, we have some of our closest relationships with Gulf nations, in terms of training, exercising and now operations. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, specifically, is an important member of the coalition against Daesh in which we have been participating over Iraq and, more recently, over Syria. It is very important to us that the stability of the region is maintained by encouraging military stability there.

Mr Swayne

The Gulf nations are emerging as important development partners and are increasingly giving generously in the world. We want to build relationships with them and shape their donations according to our own priorities and, increasingly, draw them into the international system.

Chair

Can I go bit further on that question? If we were to suspend arms exports, what impact would that have on our relationship with Saudi Arabia on issues such as counter-terrorism?

Mr Ellwood

First, can I add something on the importance of the Gulf to Britain? The Gulf matters to us. As the SDSR outlines and Philip has indicated, we want to support a secure, prosperous and politically stable middle east region, and Saudi Arabia, and our relationship with it, plays an important role in that. As Committee members will be aware, we have a deep and historical relationship not just with Saudi Arabia and Yemen but with the region. We are seen as fair, knowledgeable and trustworthy. Therefore, as the UN penholder for Yemen, it is important that we take those responsibilities very seriously. Our UK bilateral interests clock up to £35 billion a year. There is no doubt that the area is facing challenges, which they expect Britain to be involved in—the Arab spring, the reduction in the oil price and the growth of extremism. I commend Saudi Arabia and other Gulf allies on their contribution to countering Daesh. I also make it clear that the pace of change on the economic front since this new country came into being in the 1930s has been much faster than the political change, which we are trying to work with. The question that you pose is hypothetical, and I would not like to speculate on it. We work very closely with Saudi Arabia on the intelligence front. There have been various public comments about the thwarting of terrorist attacks, not least at East Midlands airport, among others. We have a very strong and powerful relationship and I hope it continues.

Amanda Milling

We have received some evidence that the British defence industries are in a vulnerable position at the moment, as a result of sustained reductions in defence budgets, and that there is therefore greater emphasis on export trade. Do you agree with that?

Anna Soubry

Yes, absolutely. I come to this job having been in the Ministry of Defence, but not in Philip Dunne’s job. Based on my time in the MOD, I am struck by the huge range of the industry; Philip can speak about that in much more detail. We have to be careful when we talk about arms exports, and the whole of defence exports, because defence exports encompass an astonishing number of different things. They can, indeed, be bullets, by way of example. They can be other equipment that delivers things that might kill or harm people. Equally, there is the desire, which I would say underlies all of this, to protect and defend people—not just nations, but actual people. Defence exports go right across the spectrum, notably, for example, into surveillance, which I find quite exciting. The industry is a huge and various part of what we do in Britain. We do it very well. It has considerable benefit to our nation—to all the people who work in defence, in any event—and plays a huge part in what we do in the world. It is incredibly important for our exports and an important feature of them. There is huge potential for future growth—rightly so. Like most exports, defence exports are good for Britain and good for the people of Britain, as well as those nations that receive them. I do not know whether Philip wants to add to that. He is the Minister for Defence Procurement.

Philip Dunne

I will make a brief point in relation to interoperability with our allies. It is increasingly recognised by the Ministry of Defence that we are likely, as is evident from the operations we are involved in today, to work with other nations when we are either exercising or on operations. The greater the extent of interoperability of equipment with other nations, the more effective those undertakings are. It is in our military interest, from our military’s perspective, to seek other nations that deploy similar capability or, indeed, UK-manufactured capability.

Crispin Blunt

I put this question to Anna, as her Department signs off these licences. Last December, Vince Cable told “Newsnight” that when he was Business Secretary he had temporarily blocked arms sales to Saudi Arabia over concerns about human rights violations in Yemen. Then the Defence Secretary told him that the UK had personnel embedded in coalition operations. He said, “I was having to make a judgment on the basis of good faith. I was given assurances we had sufficient oversight of the bombing activity to make sure that international humanitarian law would not be compromised.” Given what you know now, how confident are you of the United Kingdom’s oversight of Saudi operations and that you are making decisions based on more than assurances?

Anna Soubry

I am confident that the advice that I and, of course, my Secretary of State receive comes not only from my officials in BIS but from trusted colleagues in DFID and—I nearly said “even more importantly”, which sounded like a slur on DFID, although I in no way meant it to be taken in that way—

Mr Swayne

I can take it.

Anna Soubry

Des can take it. We act on the advice of the FCO and, indeed, the MOD. I listen to their advice and respect it hugely. I also respect the individual Ministers who are part of that advice. It would take a great deal of persuasion from some other quarter for me not to accept their advice.

Philip Dunne

Could I add to that?

Crispin Blunt

The question was for the BIS Minister.

Anna Soubry

He wanted to correct something that was said by Vince Cable.

Philip Dunne

I wanted to correct the impression that you gave in the introduction to your question. The UK does not have any military personnel embedded in the forces of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. We have liaison officers in the air operations centre in the air force HQ and in the Ministry of Defence. We do not have military personnel embedded in their forces or structures.

Crispin Blunt

There has been a rather substantial report carried on VICE News, which reported that two different types of air strikes were being conducted by the coalition in Yemen. Pre-planned strikes, through a joint combined planning cell in which there are British and American advisers, make up 20% to 30% of all coalition air strikes. The other 70% to 80% of coalition air strikes are conducted from a separate location under dynamic targeting, with dynamic strikes based on real-time, emerging intelligence, where the decision to launch is taken within minutes, rather than hours or days—with, no doubt, consideration of legal advice and everything else from people in the planning cell. We know that British personnel do not appear to be involved at all in dynamic targeting. Can you confirm that I have described properly the difference between dynamic and pre-planned strikes? Can you tell us about the role of British personnel in the joint combined planning cell?

Philip Dunne

We do not have personnel in the joint combined planning cell in relation to air operations. As I said earlier, in relation to air operations, we have liaison officers in the air operations centre. They are not involved in any targeting decision making. Involvement in the two types of air strike that you have described is in relation to training on doctrine for using weapons systems that have been supplied by the UK and for advice on targeting processes. That is where it stops. We do not have any involvement of any British personnel in either the planning of pre-planned strikes or the prosecution of dynamic strikes. The difference between the two is that pre-planned strikes tend to happen earlier in the campaign, when target sets are identified at the outset of the action. Dynamic strikes tend to happen in the later stages of the campaign, as the action has unfolded. Dynamic strikes are where, for example, a pilot is called in to assist units on the ground in relation to an attack or a target that has been identified by units on the ground and they were not available when planning that mission. There are no UK personnel involved in making those targeting decisions.

Crispin Blunt

We are not helping them to ensure that they meet their international obligations there.

Philip Dunne

We are helping them to decide how to go about training their air crews to undertake the processes involved in deciding how to deploy the right weapon for the right kind of target. We have an involvement more in training, process and doctrine, to try to train air crews and planners how to go about assessing targets for the future. We have no involvement at all in determining what those targets should be.

Crispin Blunt

So in the Saudis’ conduct of these operations, through the joint combined planning cell, there is no British involvement helping them to make sure that their processes are consistent with international humanitarian law.

Philip Dunne

As I understand it, the personnel in the joint combined planning cell are people involved in the maritime aspects and at headquarters. They are liaison officers who receive post-activity operational reports. They are not involved in any of the pre-strike planning. There is categorically nobody in the JCPC who is a UK officer involved in air operations.

Crispin Blunt

Have we been asked for help to make sure that they are consistent with their international humanitarian obligations?

Philip Dunne

We have offered advice on how they assess—

Crispin Blunt

First, have we been asked?

Philip Dunne

I am not sure whether the Foreign Office has been asked. We have been asked to provide advice on how to deploy weapons systems that we have supplied. That is a normal part of training when weapons systems are supplied. We have also offered our advice in relation to post-incident analysis, to provide information that we are able to procure ourselves. We can help them with their processes of post-incident analysis, where there is a suggestion that there may have been an incident, but we are not involved in providing advice in relation to targeting.

Mr Ellwood

Could I add to that?

Crispin Blunt

Perhaps you could pick up this point as well. Does any of the training that we are giving relate to helping the Saudis meet their international humanitarian obligations? You have made it quite clear that there is no direct involvement in the targeting. Are there no lawyers on loan to advise them on the planning process or anything else? Lawyers are all over the planning process in our own operations.

Mr Ellwood

Could we make it clear to the Committee that we are not part of that coalition? We are not part of the intelligence planning cells. We do not select the targets. We are not involved in any sense at all. We have a long and enduring relationship with the country. We train, educate and teach best practice, which includes understanding international humanitarian law. To put it simply, in military terms, we focus on J1/J4, which is logistics and personnel, rather than J2/J3—intelligence and operations.

Ann Clwyd

I seem to have been asking the same question for donkey’s years. How well are you monitoring the end use of UK-supplied weapons?

Philip Dunne

As Mr Ellwood said, we are not a member of the coalition. We are, however, in a uniquely privileged position as an observer, as a result of the relationship that we have with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and its armed forces, in that we have been allowed to have liaison officers present in the manner I have described, and they have privileged information on operational reports, after the event, of incidents. We have encouraged them to take us into their confidence to provide that information in order that we can provide them with some advice on best practice in the event of an incident, for them to undertake their own assessment and analysis of what happened in the incident.

Ann Clwyd

Have you investigated the strikes in which the remnants of UK-manufactured weapons were found—for example, the ceramics factory documented by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International?

Philip Dunne

We have undertaken analysis, to the extent that we are able.

Ann Clwyd

What does that mean? What does analysis mean?

Philip Dunne

When an incident is brought to our attention, whether by the Saudis or by NGOs, we seek access to the operational reports which, as I have explained, the Saudis are willing to provide to us. We look at our own sources of information to see whether there is any information to which we have access from our own sources that might provide more or corroborating information in relation to the incident. Then we analyse that to see whether or not the incident appears to have involved a strike from the air and whether or not that strike might have been caused by weapons that we have supplied. We form an analysis in that regard, in relation to potential incidents, and encourage the Saudi armed forces to do their own investigation, to see whether they think that incident is or is not compliant with IHL.

Ann Clwyd

What was your conclusion about that particular incident?

Philip Dunne

We provide some analysis, but in the MOD we do not form a conclusion. We provide that advice to other colleagues in the Government.

Chair

Who would provide that conclusion?

Philip Dunne

The Saudis are undertaking investigations. We are able to inform them with the analysis that we have done. That forms part of their investigation.

Chair

But the analysis would not be used in our Government to take further decisions.

Philip Dunne

We are awaiting the outcome of an investigation by the Saudis.

Ann Clwyd

Can I follow up on that? Why in September did the UK oppose in the Human Rights Council in Geneva an independent investigation in Yemen?

Mr Ellwood

I am not sure that we did. We did not oppose it.

Ann Clwyd

You did not oppose it.

Mr Ellwood

No. If I am thinking of the same thing, consensus was finally taken forward. Are you referring to the Dutch proposal?

Ann Clwyd

Yes.

Mr Ellwood

That was a proposal. As you will be aware, the way the United Nations works is that there are many voices and stakeholders around the table. You have to leave the room with something on which all member states are in agreement. It was clear that the Dutch proposal was not going to lead to consensus. What Britain did, along with other nations, was to make sure that the text provided was eventually agreed unanimously, and that meant the onus was on the Saudis initially to do the investigation. I make it very clear that this is nothing new. When other countries, including ourselves, are in operations overseas and mistakes—collateral damage—take place, the country that is responsible conducts its own independent inquiry and presents the results. I will be very clear and frank with the Committee that Saudi Arabia, which has less experience—indeed, limited experience—in sustained warfare, has been very slow to get these procedures in place. It made an announcement at the end of January, with a press statement listing the improvements that it would introduce to make sure that the process met international standards and accepting that all the aspects of concern, presented by NGOs or others, about where potential breaches of international humanitarian law had taken place needed to be reviewed. That is what Saudi Arabia is now doing. The process is frustratingly slow. I spoke to the Saudi ambassador today to firmly encourage him to make sure that that process is honoured and that the country puts its hands up when it has made a mistake and is honest about that.

Stephen Doughty

Mr Ellwood, last week The Guardian reported Home Office advice, which seems to stand in contrast to the position that we have had from the Foreign Office. I will read it to you: “There are reports of the use of indiscriminate acts of violence by both sides including the use of cluster bombs and attacks on civilians, homes, schools, factories, markets and reports of civilians fleeing air strikes and being chased and shot at by helicopters.” Can you explain why the Home Office advice differs from the advice and the position that the Foreign Office has taken?

Mr Ellwood

Can you clarify for me how the Home Office advice is different?

Stephen Doughty

Because it is very specific about indiscriminate attacks on civilians by both sides.

Mr Ellwood

I am still confused. You are saying that the Home Office is saying that attacks are taking place.

Stephen Doughty

Yes—on civilians, by both sides.

Mr Ellwood

The Home Office?

Stephen Doughty

Yes—the Home Office.

Mr Ellwood

And this is reported by The Guardian.

Stephen Doughty

Yes. This is Home Office advice about the return of asylum seekers from Yemen. It is Home Office analysis of the political situation that, as you know, is conducted when considering asylum applications. Can you explain why the Home Office believes that civilians are being targeted and, therefore, we should not return individuals to Yemen, yet the position of the FCO is different?

Mr Ellwood

I am not an avid Guardian reader. I would have to take a look at that report, which is speculating on something that the Home Office may or may not have said.

Stephen Doughty

No. The Home Office has said it, Minister.

Mr Ellwood

According to The Guardian.

Stephen Doughty

It is guidance. Have you reviewed the Home Office guidance on asylum applications for individuals fleeing Yemen?

Mr Ellwood

Not only have I reviewed it but I have asked the Immigration Minister what the situation is. Are you suggesting that people are being returned to Yemen?

Stephen Doughty

No. I am suggesting that the Home Office takes a different position on whether civilians are being targeted by both sides. Are you saying that it has not said that?

Mr Ellwood

I am saying that I would have to look at the Guardian report to make a full assessment of that. I would make it very clear to the Committee that, if you are insinuating that somehow the Home Office is suggesting that we return people to Yemen, I am not aware of any returns taking place.

Stephen Doughty

No. The Home Office is saying that we should not return people there because of indiscriminate attacks on civilians. It gets to the very heart of the argument about whether or not indiscriminate attacks on civilians are occurring from the Saudi-led coalition. Obviously, that is different from your position.

Mr Ellwood

You will be very familiar with the remit of the Home Office on returns—they should be looking to the Foreign Office for advice on the exact wording they use. Let us take a look at The Guardian, and I will get back to the Committee with the details. I can assure the Committee that there have been no returns, as far as I am aware, as long as I have been—

Stephen Doughty

Will you review the Home Office guidance and write back to us to say whether or not you agree with it?

Mr Ellwood

I will first look at it. As I said, you are quoting a Guardian report. I am more than happy to do that. I will report back to the Committee.

Chair

Thank you. We need to move on.

Dr Lewis

Would it be fair to say that there are two huge incentives for the British Government to turn a blind eye to any breaches of international humanitarian law by the Saudi authorities in particular? The first is that, rightly or wrongly, Saudi Arabia is regarded as a key strategic ally, and the second—perhaps a lesser imperative but nevertheless a significant one—is that we sell a great deal of defence equipment to Saudi Arabia. If it is true that those are incentives to turn a blind eye to human rights violations, why do we sign up to conventions on arms exports that say that we should not export arms to countries that commit human rights violations?

Mr Ellwood

I would say that the exact opposite is true. Saudi Arabia is a culturally conservative country that is not used to having a Jamie Shea-type character—if you can remember him from the Kosovo intervention—bringing the nation, internationally or otherwise, up to date on a regular basis. Saudi Arabia is aware that it needs to be more transparent in what it is doing. The suggestion that you make is that somehow we turn a blind eye. Not only would that damage our reputation but it would take Saudi Arabia in quite the wrong direction, just as we are encouraging it to make incremental steps to improve its human rights position and its position in the region.

Dr Lewis

The problem is that when you have a country that has a great deal further to go to improve its human rights position, as Saudi Arabia has certainly done, by definition, such a country may well employ weapons that we have supplied, in breach of people’s human rights and of the conventions to which we sign up when we say that we are not going to supply weapons to countries that have an insufficient standard of human rights. Are you saying to me that if it could be shown that Saudi Arabia had used our weapons indiscriminately, in breach of human rights, we would stop supplying those weapons, or are you saying that, in fact, because we are so busy urging them to come up to modern, 21st-century standards, we should nevertheless not break off that relationship of weapons supply?

Anna Soubry

This is quite important. I know that Tobias will come in, but I hope that the Committee has before it all the criteria, word for word, that have to be exercised before any licence is granted. I am helpfully reminded by Mr Dunne that each case is considered on its own merits. You look at each licence; there is no blanket approach to any country. I am looking at criterion 2: “The respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country of final destination as well as respect by that country for international humanitarian law. Having assessed the recipient country’s attitude towards relevant principles established by international human rights instruments, the Government will: a) not grant a licence if there is a clear risk that the items might be used for internal repression; b) exercise special caution and vigilance in granting licences, on a case-by-case basis and taking account of the nature of the equipment, to countries where serious violations of human rights have been established by the competent bodies of the” United Nations—

Dr Lewis

With the greatest respect, Minister, this is what we have to apply before we supply the weapons. The question we are concerned with is what happens if we think they have met those stringent conditions, we supply the weapons and then we find out that they have used the weapons in ways incompatible with the conditions. Do we then break off the relationship, or do we still say, “Saudi Arabia is such a vital strategic ally, and, what’s more, they buy so much of our defence equipment that we’d better carry on”?

Anna Soubry

Mr Lewis, I took slight exception to the tone—or the content, rather—of your question. The allegation was that we are turning a blind eye to Saudi Arabia, for those reasons and I just do not accept that. Trust me, Mr White—I’m not going to read out any more from the criteria. We apply the criteria on a case-by-case basis. That is how we operate. I object to the idea that we turn a blind eye because of other considerations. We do not do that.

Chair

Minister, we still need to get through a number of questions.

Dr Lewis

I must pursue this. Frankly, I do not care whether you like my tone or not, Minister—

Anna Soubry

But I am entitled to say it.

Dr Lewis

What I want you to do is to answer the question.

Anna Soubry

I am.

Dr Lewis

No, you are not. You are saying that you do not like my tone. The question is quite straightforward. We give deadly weapons to unsavoury regimes like the Saudis—sorry, our strategic allies—in accordance with our best estimates that they will use them in accordance with certain agreed standards. My question to you, which you have not answered and which no one has answered yet, is this. If we give them those weapons and they then abuse the weapons—if they break the standards that we gave them, on the assumption that they would observe those standards—do we simply say, “Well, we must carry on with this relationship,” or do we say, “Right, that’s it. We are going to cancel these deals”? You have explained what we do before we give them the weapons. What I want to know is, what do we do if, after we have given them the weapons, we find that they have not used them in the way they were supposed to?

Anna Soubry

Indeed. However, your first question was different, and I have answered it. In answer to your second question, my short answer is no, and Mr Dunne will very ably explain more as to why your assertion is not correct. I would answer no.

Dr Lewis

So we would break off the arms supply relationship if we found that they were not using the weapons that we supply according to the basis on which we supply them.

Anna Soubry

We look at each case on a—[Interruption.] I am sorry. You may not like the answer, but that is the answer.

Dr Lewis

It is not the answer. Let me give you a specific case, and then I will give up. I will give you the last word and people can judge for themselves whether you have answered the question. Let us consider a specific case. We have supplied a certain quantity of bombs, on the basis that they will be used in a certain way. Then we find that they have not been used in that way but have been used in a way that breaches international humanitarian law. My question is, do we then say, “Right, that’s it. No more bombs,” or not?

Philip Dunne

We routinely assess—not constantly, but routinely—that certain applications for new arms exports do not meet the clear criteria that have been set. The criteria have different levels. As a result of those refusals, from time to time we lose defence business with a whole host of countries, including some of our closest allies. The Minister is quite right to refer to case by case, because we look at these issues each time. Somebody mentioned cluster bombs. We have not supplied cluster bombs for many decades, but some countries have a stock of cluster bombs that we supplied in the past, under previous Administrations. If those were to be used inappropriately and we were still supplying cluster bombs—we are not, because we have signed the convention—we would decline those licences. You are suggesting a hypothetical. We are not at the point where we can answer the question specifically in relation to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, because the investigations that are being undertaken into the incidents have not concluded. We are therefore not in a position where we can answer your question in the way you have put it, because we do not have that information at this point.

Anna Soubry

To make it very clear, if it is found that there has been a breach of those criteria with an export licence, the answer is a very clear yes. We will revoke licences. We will suspend licences, if there is evidence—just so that we are very clear.

Mr Ellwood

We have done this with Russia, Egypt and Yemen, for example. There are real examples where this has happened. The relationship continues, but the licences can be revoked or, indeed, suspended. That does not prevent us from continuing a human rights dialogue and all the other aspects of the relationship.

Anna Soubry

We do not turn a blind eye.

Mr Sharma

Can you give us any examples of your having taken action in the past?

Mr Ellwood

I think I have just done so. There are many. Off the top of my head, recent examples are Russia, Egypt and Yemen.

Chair

I understand that Mr Ellwood has to leave at 5.30 pm. I would like to continue for another 15 minutes, if at all possible. Is that okay?

Mr Ellwood

I have been convinced to stay, so I will.

Chair

Thank you very much for that.

Jim Shannon

In February, the Foreign Secretary told the Conservative Middle East Council that he had “looked at every allegation of breach of international humanitarian Law”—in Yemen—“and we have found no evidence of breach of international humanitarian law.” We have heard about 36 reports by Human Rights Watch of international humanitarian law violations, and some 30 reports by Amnesty International of violations and 119 reports by the UN Security Council panel of experts. Can you confirm that you have looked at all of that evidence? You say that you look at every allegation. There are 185 items of evidence and 185 allegations.

Mr Ellwood

I have the UN report here. Can you show me one of those 119 reports that would be an example of what you are saying?

Jim Shannon

I can only ask the questions as I have them here in front of me. The evidence is clear. There were 119 violations put forward by the UN Security Council panel of experts. Minister, if your answer is, “No, we have not,” maybe that is what I want.

Mr Ellwood

Please do not put words into my mouth. The reason why I ask is that this is an important report. We are looking at it very seriously and have asked the Saudi Arabians to do the same. The panel of experts did not enter Yemen. They did not enter the country they were providing the report about. There are 119 instances that need to be looked into in detail—I do not doubt that for a second—but they involve satellite images that were taken, in some cases, a number of weeks apart. It is important to understand what has happened on the ground. I hope you understand that, from a British perspective, when we are doing the very detailed and important analysis of whether there has been a breach of international humanitarian law, we cannot simply use this as complete evidence in itself. We need to ask the appropriate bodies—in this case, the commission in Saudi Arabia—to do a report on what is going on. That will be linked to the information and intelligence that we have, which Mr Dunne has spoken about. We can then make a judgment on whether there is a breach of humanitarian law. That is why the Foreign Secretary was able to stand up and say what he did at the time.

Jim Shannon

I understand that Human Rights Watch and Amnesty have entered Yemen. An international investigation could enter Yemen as well. Could you tell us about the 36 violations identified by Human Rights Watch and the 30 identified by Amnesty International—which have been verified, as they have entered Yemen? Can we have some information on those 66 reports? Have all of them been looked at individually?

Mr Ellwood

Incidents take place. The first process must be for the Saudi Arabians, who are leading the coalition—there are nine or 10 other countries involved as well—to make a determination and report what has actually happened. I have made it very clear that that process has been too slow, and measures have been put in place to improve it. If the Committee is suggesting that we must take that evidence straightaway, without going to the coalition—which has the legality to be there, under UN resolution 2216—and make a judgment and start revoking or suspending licences, that is not the order in which we do things.

Jim Shannon

In your response, you seem to be saying that Saudi Arabia is the reason for the hold-ups. What discussions have you had with Saudi Arabia to ensure that we can expedite the complaints? Respectfully, Minister—you know that I have great respect for you; that goes without saying—if they are using delaying tactics in relation to this, we as a Government and you yourself need to see the evidence being placed before us. If Saudi Arabia is holding that up, what do we do to try to get them out of their lethargy or obstinacy in reporting back to us?

Philip Dunne

Perhaps I can help, Mr Shannon. All the incidents in the report by the UN panel of experts and those raised by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty are on the list that we are analysing.

Jim Shannon

I have a question about a bit of information that Amnesty International has given us. They say that “the cornerstone principle of the rules that the UK Government must follow is that it is a risk-based analysis based upon likely conduct.” What have you done in relation to the opinion from Amnesty International that “the UK Government must follow…a risk-based analysis based upon likely conduct?” How have you applied that to your investigations—if we have even got to that stage? I am not quite sure whether we have.

Mr Ellwood

That comes into the same answer as before. With any information that is provided to us via NGOs on the ground or, indeed, a UN expert panel, we must make sure that the Saudi independent investigations committee has the opportunity to investigate and make a report. Yes, it has been slow—far too slow—and they must improve. They have not had experience of this. They will report back and we will then make a judgment. At that point, when we see the analysis, we will be in a better place to confirm whether or not what we see ties in with our own information. I would not speculate any further than that.

Stephen Doughty

I can give you an example. To follow up on the point that Jim has very ably made, we also heard from Oxfam, who operate in the country. They were very specific. On 18 April 2015, there was an air strike on an Oxfam storage facility in Sa’dah governorate containing humanitarian supplies. There are numerous such examples. We have a distinct problem, Minister. The Saudis are not conducting individual incident investigations, so why are we relying only on general assurances that none of these things is the case? We have the intelligence assets, the oversight and all the other aspects to be able to look at them ourselves, as well as assurances from the Saudis. If they are not conducting individual investigations, how will we get to the truth?

Mr Ellwood

First, that is incorrect.

Stephen Doughty

They are conducting individual investigations.

Mr Ellwood

That is the whole purpose for the commission being set up. Then we need to ascertain exactly what happened in any particular case.

Stephen Doughty

Have they done individual investigations to date?

Mr Ellwood

They are conducting individual investigations—absolutely.

Stephen Doughty

Into all these incidents?

Mr Ellwood

That is what we have requested should happen.

Stephen Doughty

Have they done it? Not what you have requested—have they done any individual investigations to date?

Mr Ellwood

They are conducting individual investigations. They do not report back to me individually each time that happens. It is an ongoing process. It is also quite difficult to do in a number of respects, because of the need to get intelligence on the ground. It will be compared and mapped with us in due course. I made that very clear.

Stephen Doughty

Have we had reports back on any of these incidents, bearing in mind that the one I mentioned took place a year ago?

Mr Ellwood

Can I confirm that you are talking about the Médecins sans Frontières hospital in October? Is that the one you are referring to?

Stephen Doughty

No. I am referring to 18 April 2015, when an Oxfam storage facility with humanitarian supplies was targeted. Have you had a report yet from the Saudis on examples like that—yes or no?

Mr Ellwood

Not on that particular one. We have had a report back on the attack that took place on the hospital in October. That shows that the process is working, but it is tiresomely slow. Discussions are now being held on the repercussions, and the reparations that need to be done with Médecins sans Frontières. I think they visited Riyadh in order to discuss these matters. That is an example of the process that we need to see in every single one of these cases, including the case that you cite.

Stephen Doughty

But you have not had a report on it.

Mr Ellwood

For the third time, sir, no, I have not had a report.

Stephen Doughty

Do you have any idea of the percentage of these incidents you have had reports back on yet from the Saudis?

Mr Ellwood

I cannot give you that information here now.

Jim Shannon

You will appreciate our frustration when it comes to asking questions when we find that the Saudi Arabian authorities are the judge and jury—in other words, they decide what they do. They are not just slowing up the matter. They are totally obstructing the process, and they are obstructing international humanitarian law. I say that just to put it on the record. You have to appreciate the frustration that we feel as elected representatives when we see blatant obstruction on the violations that have taken place. From the answers that you have given so far, I know that you may not be able to respond to that, but we have to say that we are very frustrated when we see that Saudi Arabia is deliberately ignoring what we have asked.

Mr Ellwood

I agree with and share your frustrations. I agree that the process has been slow and, to some extent, has been found wanting. However, had the Saudi-led coalition not been formed, the scale of violations of humanitarian law that would have taken place in Yemen would have been 10 times worse. The Houthis would have managed to get all the way down to the port of Aden and we would have had a completely failed state, far worse than the humanitarian catastrophe that is currently taking place, and despite the civil war that is actually there. That does not exonerate Saudi Arabia in any sense from its obligation to come forward and make sure that all the information is provided. I share the Committee’s frustration that that information has been slow to come forward. This is a nation that is not used to sharing information in this manner and to having to expose internationally the details of what it does. This is the first time it has had to do sustained warfare. It must look up and answer to the international standards that we expect. We will make it very clear if we feel that it does not meet those standards, but we require time, and Saudi Arabia will require time, to provide the analysis that needs to be done in all these cases.

Jim Shannon

Would you support calls for an independent international investigation into reports of breaches of international humanitarian law by all parties to the conflict, similar to those advocated for Sri Lanka and Syria? You support investigations of Sri Lanka and Syria for IHL breaches. Would you support calls for a similar investigation into reports relating to this conflict?

Mr Ellwood

We are mixing different forms of breach of international humanitarian law. We need to be very clear. There is a legitimate case for a coalition to use military lethal force to support the presidency of President Hadi. He used a chapter XI request for assistance, as stated in the UN Security Council resolution, to use all necessary measures to deal with the Houthis, in effect. The coalition was then formed, so that is legitimate—they are allowed to do it—but we must make sure that they answer to international humanitarian law. That is different from what is happening on the ground in Iraq or Syria, where war crimes, crimes against humanity and, indeed, genocide are taking place. There, an independent investigation allows those details to come out, because we will never get Daesh, for example, to conduct an investigation into itself.

Ann Clwyd

It has been reported that the Home Office is issuing guidance to immigration and asylum decision makers that sending asylum seekers back to Yemen would likely be a breach of the European convention on human rights, due to the indiscriminate acts of violence both sides in the conflict have been responsible for. That seems to run counter to the FCO claims that Saudi-led air strikes have not breached international human rights law and there is no need to suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Why are different branches of Government giving different advice?

Mr Ellwood

This leads into the question that was raised earlier. I will certainly look at the Home Office and have firm words with that Department that it should somehow have let The Guardian realise that it is using words that are not consistent with the Foreign Office. Returns are a very important issue. We have guidance on international conventions, as you have said. I am not aware of any returns taking place; because of the dangers you would be putting people in, it would be a breach. There are agreements that take place on, for example, voluntary return, which may have happened in 2011 and 2012, just after the Arab spring, when President Saleh stepped down and President Hadi, then vice-president, took over. However, since the Houthis pushed down from the north-west, through Sana’a and further down to Taiz, it would be irresponsible of any Government to make returns to that country. I will happily look at this in more detail, but I think I am right in saying that no returns have taken place since I have been Minister for the Middle East and North Africa.

Crispin Blunt

At a previous session, Philippe Sands, a rather eminent lawyer in this area, said that if he were a legal adviser to a Minister he would be saying that, “beyond international humanitarian law and international human rights law, there is now also international criminal law. International criminal law imposes responsibilities not on states but on individuals. If it turns out that the UK is supplying weapons in a conflict that is giving rise to systematic violations of international humanitarian law, I cannot exclude the possibility that, on some day in the future, you,” the Minister, “as the person who supplied the weapons, could be hauled before some foreign national court, some domestic UK court or some international court.” Which Ministers would be having their collar felt if Philippe Sands and Human Rights Watch are correct in their view on this breach of international humanitarian law?

Anna Soubry

The person who signs off the final export licence. I am looking at Professor Sands’s evidence. I saw it only about three quarters of an hour ago, in the Division Lobby, so forgive me for not having been able to look at it in much detail. I do not know the part where he gives the evidence you cite. Is it in his opinion or is it in the evidence?

Crispin Blunt

He said that if he were advising you—

Anna Soubry

Was this in his evidence to the Committee?

Crispin Blunt

It was in his evidence to us. He said that the application of the law is quite complex, but there are three layers of law that apply.

Anna Soubry

That is right.

Crispin Blunt

The bottom line is that international criminal law engages the personal responsibility of the individuals making a decision. My question to you is, where does the responsibility sit? Does it sit with your Secretary of State?

Anna Soubry

Yes. I suspect it must, because it is the Secretary of State for Business who signs it off. In the short time I have had to look at this—

Crispin Blunt

We are short of time, Minister. Because you have a legal background yourself, I invite you to give us a written commentary on his advice to us.

Anna Soubry

You want me to give you one?

Crispin Blunt

Your Department.

Anna Soubry

You really do not want me to give you one, I can assure you.

Crispin Blunt

I was merely respecting your former professional—

Anna Soubry

I will tell you why. It is because I am not an international lawyer, although I am a criminal lawyer by training and, indeed, by practice.

Crispin Blunt

We are short of time. Can I invite you to give us a commentary on his view?

Anna Soubry

I have to say this. From what I have seen, he did not look at the criteria.

Michelle Thomson

I think he did.

Anna Soubry

No, he did not. He looked at international, EU and—

Crispin Blunt

We are very short of time.

Chair

Can I suggest that you take up Crispin’s invitation outside this meeting?

Anna Soubry

I just thought that it was important to say this. Lawyers are frequently misquoted. I thought that the piece of work that he and his two colleagues did looked at the different overall strands of law. They did not actually look at the criteria and I think that was a failing.

Crispin Blunt

Given the shortage of time, Minister, with the Chair’s support, I invite you to give us written evidence on his evidence and its merits.

Anna Soubry

I am sorry. I do not mean to be difficult, but I need to establish this. Do you want my Department to instruct Queen’s counsel to look at the evidence that he gave to this Committee or the opinion that he put forward? It is important, because it will cost the taxpayer money.

Chair

I would like to respond to that. I would like your opinion—

Anna Soubry

You would not want my opinion.

Chair

We would.

Anna Soubry

You would?

Chair

We would, but we will not be able to take it in the next five minutes. Would that be okay, Minister?

Anna Soubry

Fair enough.

Stephen Doughty

I have a point of clarification. The opinion did look at the consolidated UK criteria, as well as international law. I am not sure what advice you are getting, Minister, but it did.

Anna Soubry

As I said, I have read this only very swiftly; I skimmed through it. I thought there were some holes in it.

Stephen Doughty

It would be good to read the whole thing.

Anna Soubry

In any event, I am quite happy, as ever, to talk to Mr Blunt about it, but I would not hold an awful lot of water in what an academic says.

Stephen Doughty

He is a QC.

Anna Soubry

It does not matter whether somebody is Queen’s counsel.

Chair

Thank you, Minister. Julian will now ask the last question of this session.

Dr Lewis

Here is a question, you will be relieved to know, that you do not have to be a lawyer to be able to answer. I suspect that it is one for Tobias, but anyone can answer it—the more the merrier. Are you concerned about reputational damage to the United Kingdom’s international standing with regard to international law and human rights by our continued arms exports to Saudi Arabia and our response to evidence of breaches of international humanitarian law?

Mr Ellwood

It is a very important question. Contrary to a couple of the reports that have come out in the last year, I do not recognise some of the characterisation that has been made about human rights work being degraded in the Foreign Office. We have mainstreamed human rights within the Foreign Office, ensuring that it is always a central part of our diplomacy in delivering tangible results. In relation to what we see here, I am very pleased that this Committee has now been formed. It is an important part of the public process that this Parliament and our Government are seen to go through the due diligence of making sure that international processes are followed. It ties into your previous questions. We need countries to recognise that, if we sell them weapons systems and they use them incorrectly, there will be repercussions, but we must follow the systems and the processes. They have been seriously slow, and that must improve.

Chair

I am reminded that Minister Swayne has not been given an opportunity to speak.

Crispin Blunt

Criterion 8 under the export licensing regime means that DFID’s advice does not count as far as exports to Saudi Arabia are concerned. Do you think that it ought to be amended when those exports are being employed in countries that are subject to ODA rules?

Mr Swayne

The only issue that we are required to address in this process is, can they afford it? Will allowing them to buy it seriously undermine their development effort?

Crispin Blunt

Plainly, that does not apply to Saudi Arabia.

Mr Swayne

Indeed.

Crispin Blunt

But it certainly applies to Yemen, which is being bombed with these weapons.

Mr Swayne

That is why we have refused armaments to Yemen. Perhaps I have misunderstood your question. The key point is that, if we were to seek to expand our question as to the end use of those weapons, that would be to intrude on criterion 4, which, I am confident, is being addressed already by the Foreign Office.

Crispin Blunt

I am obliged.

Chair

Minister Soubry, you may have one last comment.

Anna Soubry

I want to say two things that arise from what Julian was talking about. I do not want anybody to think that we do not take this very seriously. Each application is looked at with considerable care. Of course, being, I would like to say, a responsible Government, we take the reputation of this country extremely seriously. For what it is worth, I think that the relationship with Saudi Arabia is extremely complex. If only it were as simple as people sometimes wish it were, but it is complex and there are some very difficult balances to be struck. You might expect me to say this, but I think that at the moment we have definitely got the balance right.

Philip Dunne

Could I add a final quick comment, again for context? We are not a member of the coalition engaged in the conflict in Yemen. We are in a uniquely privileged position in relation to the opportunity that we have to advise the Saudi Arabian armed forces and to undertake analysis of the impact of some of the strikes that they are undertaking. We have never done this before in any other conflict that I am aware of, or that the Ministry of Defence has advised me about. The only reason we have this privileged position is the nature of the important allied relationship we have with Saudi Arabia—which, by the way, is a very important member of the coalition against Daesh. We are working hand in glove with the Saudis in that campaign. In our view, it is appropriate that we should try to help them to learn how to lead their own operation—for the first time, as Mr Ellwood said—and to do so in accordance with international humanitarian law.

Chair

Thank you for coming and for staying over the allocated time. We may need to write to you for further evidence. I am sure that you will be happy to respond. Oral evidence: Use of UK-manufacture arms in Yemen, HC 928 2