Download Free Scrutiny Of Arms Export Controls 2010 Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Scrutiny Of Arms Export Controls 2010 and write the review.

The joint committee is known as the Committees on Arms Export Controls, formerly the Quadripartite Committee. The UK strategic export controls annual report 2008 was published as Cm. 7662 (ISBN 9780101766227)
The Committees on Arms Export Controls (CAEC) believe that the Government should apply significantly more cautious judgements on the export of arms to authoritarian regimes which might be used for internal repression. The Committees have scrutinised in unprecedented detail the Government's latest (2010) Annual Report on Strategic Export Controls (HC 1402, session 2011-12, ISBN 9780102973662), the Government's quarterly information on individual export licence approvals and refusals, and the Government's policies and performance on arms export controls and on arms control generally. The Committees conclude that the Government's review of its policies and practices on arms exports following the Arab Spring should not have been carried out merely as "an internal review" and should instead have been the subject of public consultation in accordance with the Government's stated policy of transparency on arms exports. And whilst the Government's introduction of a new licence suspension mechanism is welcome, this is not sufficient to ensure that arms exported are not used for internal repression overseas because in many cases the arms will have left the UK before suspension occurs. The Government should extend its arms export policy review from countries in the Middle East and North Africa to authoritarian regimes and countries of human rights concern worldwide. Annex 7 of the report gives selected arms export licence approvals by the Government to countries of human rights concern, and the report also contains details of the extant UK Government approved arms export licences to Argentina, Bahrain, Egypt, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen.
This is the first joint report on arms export controls since the present Government took office in May 2010. As in previous years, the report reviews the Government's policy on arms exports, its administration and enforcement, and the adequacy or otherwise of current legislation. This year the Committees have paid particular attention to the Government's policy of intensifying the promotion of arms exports. The policy has come under scrutiny following the uprisings and demonstrations in recent weeks in North Africa and the wider Middle East and the armed response made to them. Since January 2011 the Government has been vigorously backpedalling on a number of arms export licence approvals to authoritarian regimes across the region. The MPs conclude that both the present Government and its predecessor misjudged the risk that arms approved for export to certain authoritarian countries in North Africa and the Middle East might be used for internal repression. The Committees welcome the revocation of a number of arms export licences to Bahrain, Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, and recommend that the Government extends immediately its review of UK arms export licences for countries in North Africa and the wider Middle East to authoritarian regimes worldwide. The Government should also set out how it intends to reconcile the potential conflict of interest between increased emphasis on promoting arms exports with the staunch upholding of human rights.
The International Development Committee calls for concerted action to curb food wastage in the UK and for expansion of DFID's bilateral nutrition programmes with a particular focus on pregnancy and early years, as part of wider efforts to improve global food security. There is scope for the Government to launch a national consumer campaign to reduce domestic food waste, also setting national targets to curb food waste within the UK food production and retail sectors. Agriculturally-produced biofuels are having a major detrimental impact on global food security by driving higher and more volatile food prices. EU targets requiring 10 per cent of transport energy to be drawn from renewable sources by 2020 are likely to cause dramatic food price increases, and the Government should revise its domestic Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation to specifically exclude agriculturally-produced biofuels. Looking at the impact of rising world population, the Committee praises DFID's significant efforts to meet the considerable unmet need for contraception in many developing nations and urges the UK government to maintain a keen focus on women's reproductive rights within its development assistance programmes. MPs also flag the longer term barriers to development posed by systematic undernutrition. The Committee expresses concern that large corporations are buying up large areas of land in many developing countries previously farmed by smallholders. UK-domiciled corporations should be required to be transparent about land deals. Lastly, MPs focus on the key role that smallholder farmers will play in feeding a growing global population and in reducing rural poverty.
Better health is a basic human right and an end in itself. A healthy population is also essential to development. Recent years have seen some rapid improvements in health partly driven by the Millennium Development Goals and the large international funds set up to accelerate progress towards them. However, these improvements have at times been achieved despite the poor state of health systems in many developing countries. Stronger health systems will be required to ensure efficiency, tackle growing challenges such as non-communicable diseases and progress towards self-sufficiency. DFID has long had a good reputation for health system strengthening and this is reflected in its own work. But DFID now relies on international partners, which do not all share this reputation, in an increasing number of countries and to manage an ever-greater proportion of its expenditure. We recommend that DFID reviews in each country whether its funding arrangements enable its health systems strengthening objectives to be met. Assessing the effectiveness and value for money of health system strengthening work by DFID and its international partners is more difficult than it ought to be. Expenditure and performance figures are not published and the research base is inadequate. This must change. The UK has one of the best health systems in the world, but DFID makes only limited use of it. We call on DFID to work with the NHS in expanding volunteering schemes for doctors and nurses and making more use of NHS finance and management skills.
As the end of the 2010-2015 Parliament approaches, the Committee has taken the opportunity to look back on their work. This Report outlines some of the Committee's work, progress and effectiveness during this Parliament and sets out areas that may be of interest to their successor committee. It has also provided the opportunity to scrutinise what actions the Government has taken with regard to issues and recommendations raised in our reports.
The Chief Commissioner of ICAI has a crucial role in scrutinising aid spending by the UK Government and reporting to Parliament through the International Development Committee. The Committee are pleased to endorse the appointment of Dr Alison Evans to this post, but recommend that at least one of the existing Commissioners be reappointed for a further term to ensure continuity, and that one of the Commissioners be an audit professional. The selection process used resulted in an unranked list of four candidates deemed "appointable" being presented to the Secretary of State for consideration. This puts too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State for an independent scrutiny post and threatens to undermine the candidate in the eyes of the public who may assume that the candidate most sympathetic to DFID was chosen. The Committee recommend that panels for ICAI Commissioner appointments should be invited to rank candidates or otherwise advise the Secretary of State as they see fit. In the longer term, it is recommended that the Committee be able to choose the Chief Commissioner from the list of candidates.
The number of low income countries is falling. At the same time, the importance of global issues - conflict, climate, migration, trade, tax, financial stability, youth unemployment, urbanisation economic development, and infectious disease - is rising. The Committee argues that aid remains vital for addressing poverty in poor countries, for encouraging economic development, for providing global goods such as tackling climate change, combating diseases such as Ebola and providing humanitarian assistance, but new forms of co-operation have to be developed in order to meet these challenges. This will include new financial mechanisms and facilitating links with UK institutions in a wide range of areas, including health, education, culture, law, culture and science. This will require the Department for International Development (DFID) to put more emphasis on working with small organisations and less on programme management.As the focus moves away from aid, policy coherence for development must be at the heart of a new approach. This means working across Government in the UK, and with global partners in the multilateral system, to maximise the impact on development of all the UK's actions. This approach and changes will require DFID staff to develop different skills.
Helping British businesses to thrive and grow is vital to the UK's long-term economic prosperity. The Government's ambition is for the UK to be one of the best places in Europe to start, finance and grow a business. In order to facilitate this, the Government offers support to business in accessing finance, promoting exports, developing manufacturing and encouraging growth at a local level. The Committee's inquiry considered the wide range of support that is on offer, and in particular those support programmes run by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. Access to finance is fundamental to the success of business of all sizes. However, the Committee heard varying evidence about the availability of finance, in particular for SMEs. Too many business still report that they find it difficult to get the financial support they need. By drawing on the British Business Bank's expertise, the Government should be able to develop a better understanding of the blockages in the system, why they occur, and whether changes in regulation or funding are needed to address them. The British Business bank also has a clear role to play in enhancing SME access to finance though clearly signposting the services available from alternative finance providers. In particular, it should develop a menu of alternative finance providers for each different area of financial support.
In this report the Defence Committee says the information published so far by the Scottish Government on the defence and security implications of Scottish independence falls far short of requirements. The Committee also cannot currently judge the likely running costs of the proposed Scottish defence force, given the limited information it has so far received. The Committee is, however, unconvinced that the proposed budget of £2.5bn can support both the proposed Scottish defence force and the purchase of new equipment including fast jets and submarines. The report seeks answers to the following questions: how would a sovereign Scottish Government ensure the defence and security of an independent Scotland? For what purposes would Scottish armed forces be used? How would Scottish armed forces be structured and trained, and where would they be based? How much would it cost to equip, support and train an independent Scotland's armed forces and how much of this could be procured and delivered domestically? And how many jobs in the defence sector would be placed at risk? The Committee also raises detailed questions about the proposed Scottish defence force: the numbers and types of aircraft and naval vessels which would be needed and how they would be procured and maintained; the numbers of combat troops the Scottish Government envisages (including its plan to re-instate historic Scottish regiments); and the availability of training facilities to maintain the appropriate professional standards. In the event of independence, the defence industry in Scotland would face a difficult future.