The British government’s role in arms exports has come under scrutiny amid accusations that the trade’s corrupt practices are being deliberately protected to benefit the economy.

Andrew Feinstein, CEO of Corruption Watch, an arms control watchdog, said the government’s approach was not only deeply damaging to Britain’s global development efforts but also fuelled world conflicts.

At the launch of Corruption Watch’s latest report, entitled The Anglo-Italian Job, Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyles, a member of the committee on arms export control (CAEC), joined a panel of experts in calling for the government to reduce secrecy around its arms deals and promote transparency in policies geared towards reducing corruption and global conflict.



“Corruption drives conflict,” said Katherine Dixon, programme director at Transparency International, an organisation that monitors corruption. “An average seven-year war reduces income by 15% – it drives inequality, so the poor become poorer – and it allows governments to divert priorities that people in that society don’t care about, such as defence or infrastructure, making budgets easier to steal from. Half of all African states spend over 5% of their public spending on defence, so generally poorer countries spend more on defence.



“I believe that the Department for International Development really cares about this, but are completely hampered …. they have no meaningful impact on the decisions that are taken. I think that development agencies do really care, but they are not at the heart of the political debate.

“With 80% of UK conventional weapons exports being sold to countries that Transparency International ranks as being at high risk of defence corruption, the question comes down to what kind of country do we want to be – a country that exports our values and good governance, or a country that races to the bottom and takes control of weak markets, that benefits a small number of corrupt people, creating unstable situations that we then have to respond to?”

The report focuses on a number of cases involving alleged corrupt payments by UK arms manufacturers to intermediaries with the aim of securing contracts in the developing world. The countries involved include Yemen, Indonesia, Nigeria and India.

“UK-led corruption is taking its toll on global development, it’s time to look in the mirror,” said Russell-Moyles.

Among measures called for were the addition of an anti-corruption criterion to the considerations used by the government when deciding whether or not to grant an export license application; the introduction of an independent statutory body to authorise arms sales; an increase in HMRC staff to detect and enforce breaches of legislation; and an end to the government’s tendency to use the cloak of “national security” to halt corruption investigations conducted by the Serious Fraud Office (SFO).

“I would suggest that it is not just the defence sector that is corrupt – I would suggest that there is a murky world within government about how they operate,” said Russell-Moyles.



Other countries tackle claims of arms trade corruption. Why not the UK? | Paul Holden Read more

Answering questions on Labour policy, Russell–Moyles said like-for-like legislation was essential after Britain left the EU, adding: “Labour is working towards a broad agreement for a diversification agency, we have to make sure trade unions are on side.

“Once this has been established, Labour will have a better oversight of the defence industry and will beef up HMRC whilst deciding on the requirement for an independent regulator – but no final decision has been.”



A government spokesperson said: “The UK government takes its export control responsibilities very seriously and operates one of the most robust export control regimes in the world. We rigorously examine every application on a case-by-case basis against the consolidated EU and national arms export-licensing criteria.



“We will not license the export of items where we assess that there is a clear risk that they might be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law or international human rights law.”

On Wednesday, CAEC published their annual report, which called for tighter regulations on who the UK sells arms to and highlighted particular concern about sales to countries with a history of human rights violations including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Turkey. The study also recommended the introduction of systems to stringently regulate and monitor the activities of manufacturers, brokers’ intermediaries and end users.

Calling for an increase in HMRC staff to enforce the sector, CAEC accused the government of “misrepresentation of data” surrounding enforcement and prosecution, and recommended the introduction of compliance checks on UK arms companies operations overseas to whom export licences are granted. This came after the government’s admission that no audits of such companies have ever been carried out.



The report called for the government to provide clarity around the UK’s impending EU exit on export controls and warned of “potential consequences if UK and EU arms control policy drift apart after Brexit”.

