You would expect human rights, arms controls and environmental policies to be central to all of the UK's foreign investments. Yet, today the findings of an Inquiry by the All Party Parliamentary Group on International Corporate Responsibility - a group I chair - will reveal that one UK government body has been able to operate under the radar, at times offering little regard to these concerns.
The body concerned is the UK Export Finance, the government department which provides financial support to British exporters.
In December 2006, this little known government agency was embroiled in a national scandal when Tony Blair, then Prime Minister, called on the Serious Fraud Office to drop a corruption investigation into Britain's biggest-ever arms deal. The Al-Yamamah deal, between BAE systems and Saudi Arabia, was insured by the British Government through the Export Credits Guarantee Department, the precursor to UK Export Finance (UKEF).
Over the years this secretive agency has attracting criticism for underpinning many inappropriate exports and acting as a debt collector for British corporations. When a foreign importer defaults in its payments to a British exporter, the default becomes part of the importing State's sovereign debt. Critics argue this creates moral hazard in so far as corrupt and repressive governments may feel encouraged to buy arms and default on their payments in the knowledge that the debt accumulated will be paid for far into the future. The people of Indonesia are still paying for British arms sold decades ago with the backing of export credits while the country was under the rule of General Suharto.
Export Credit Agencies have taken on renewed global significance recently as OECD and G20 governments have pledged to use them to ensure liquidity in global trade and investment in response to the financial crisis. While many of these agencies, including UKEF, have attracted opposition from human rights organisations for supporting heavy footprint business sectors most commonly associated with human rights violations, the UK cannot afford to ignore the potential use of export credits to enable British companies to compete abroad. This is especially true in times of major financial disruption where private sector finance is lacking. The challenge is to ensure these agencies operate to acceptable ethical standards.
It is in this context that the All Party Parliamentary Group on International Corporate Responsibility, decided to launch an inquiry into how UKEF can achieve, in an ethical manner, the twin aims of supporting export led growth and promoting a wider range of businesses that have export potential. Evidence was sought from many sources, including the British Exporters Association, UKEF's clients, export credit agencies from other countries, UKEF itself and some of its critics such as Amnesty International, Jubilee Debt Campaign and WWF.
The report of our inquiry, which is being launched today in parliament, concludes that delivering export-led growth and upholding ethical business standards are not mutually exclusive. Our recommendations include the application of international social and environmental standards to all project applications, penalties on companies that violate standards, a grievance mechanism, and consultation on a prohibitions list for armaments.
We believe this approach to be not only viable, but essential to ensure that the availability of public funds for British exporters promotes the competitiveness of British business in a way that is compatible with evolving international standards on the environment and human rights.
Follow Lisa Nandy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/lisanandy
Lisa Nandy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lisa Nandy : Labour MP for Wigan
Lisa Nandy (lisanandy) on Twitter
Business ethics: am I boring you?
Possibly. If the expenses scandal was in any way a surprise.
“one UK government body has been able to operate under the radar”
If they can only militarise that ability, they’ve got themselves a winner.
“a corruption investigation into Britain's biggest-ever arms deal.”
We don’t seem to have an inquiry for, or into, that.
“When a foreign importer defaults in its payments”
recourse to high street lender’s tactics should be enough to put the frighteners on them.
“paying for British arms”
Considering this relates to dealing in means of disfigurement, death and destruction.
Ensuring that financial transactions are all conducted with the best possible grace seems a non sequitur. As misplaced as the courtesy of always remembering to shut the bulkhead door, after a missile’s been fired.
“to enable British companies to compete abroad”
we might consider investing our considerable ingenuity in inventing death dealing devices, into solving the renewable energy problem instead. So when foreign powers are fighting each other over the barrels of their guns, for the last few barrels of oil, we can step in and sell our ethical solutions. Indeed, given the environmental activity abounding in this location. It might even be that the UK could becoming a major exporter of liquefied hydrogen. Ridiculous? Maybe. But then we did do something very similar once before.
The majority of that equipment is manufactured in and by responsible companies and countries! The fact that is available and ever advancing in its power and capabilities is what keeps the majority of invaders at bay.
The fact it is exported and imported to and by nations, ensures (theoretically), that allies are also capable of defending their boundaries. The fact a percentage of it falls into the wrong hands and/or there are changes in alliances, is an unfortunate fact of human life!
Morals, ethics and human rights depend entirely on which side of the fence one sits, individual preferences and beliefs!
It is not for us, or any others for that matter, to try and impose our views, or they theirs, on other countries, by threats, force or coercion
We can all 'wring our hands' and hang our heads over 'dodgy' export deals done in our name. These same deals however keep thousands of people in this country in paid employment.
If we go down a dead straight line ethically in these matters are we, all of us, prepared to pay the extra taxes etc necessary to cover the costs of thousands more out of work people??
Not that I hold any brief for the chief destroyer of the Labour movement
I refer to Blair because, although he may have led the government of his day, that government is
culpable in allowing a government department to direct policy, which any sensible and moral government would not dirty it's hand s messing in.
From the article content, am I to assume Camoron is also being led by the nose in this matter?