Sale of Radar System (Tanzania) — 30 Jan 2007 at 21:47

The majority of MPs voted against the motion:[1]

  • This House
  • notes the protests of citizens of Tanzania in a demonstration in Dar es Salaam on 20th January 2007 demanding the arrest of any wrongdoers involved in the sale of a radar system to Tanzania in 2001-02;
  • further notes that the Serious Fraud Office is investigating the propriety of the deal and allegations of corruption;
  • further notes that Tanzania is one of the poorest countries in the world and a leading recipient of British aid;
  • further notes that Tanzania borrowed to finance this deal, whilst simultaneously seeking and receiving debt relief;
  • calls upon the Government to explain whether adequate enquiries were made into the propriety of the deal at the time;
  • further calls upon the Government to explain why the views of the World Bank were not adequately considered in the process of deciding whether to issue an export licence, in breach of Criterion Eight of the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria; and
  • further calls upon the Government to explain why consent to the deal was forced through a divided Cabinet by the Prime Minister in the face of the opposition of the then Secretary of State for International Development, the Rt Hon Member for Birmingham, Ladywood.

In its place, a new motion was proposed:

  • This House
  • notes that it would be inappropriate to comment on allegations of corruption in connection with the sale of a radar system to Tanzania in light of the current investigation by the Serious Fraud Office;
  • notes the great progress made by Tanzania since 2002 in achieving debt relief, poverty reduction and public service reform;
  • notes that the decision to grant an export licence for the air traffic control system was taken after due consideration of the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria;
  • acknowledges that that decision took place after full discussion at Cabinet level;
  • further notes that the UK subsequently established its own cross-Whitehall methodology for the assessment of applications against Criterion 8 of the consolidated criteria and was subsequently instrumental in establishing a shared methodology with its EU partners; and
  • further notes the Government's efforts to promote an International Arms Trade Treaty.

which then passed without a vote.

Debate in Parliament | Source |

Public Whip is run as a free not-for-profit free service. If you'd like to support us, please consider switching your electricity and/or gas to Bulb Energy who provide 100% renewable electricity and tend to be 20% cheaper than the 'Big Six'. They'll also pay any exit fees (up to £120) from your old supplier AND give you (and us) a £50 credit for joining up via our Bulb Referral Link.

Party Summary

Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.

What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.

What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.

What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.

PartyMajority (No)Minority (Aye)BothTurnout
Con0 155 (+2 tell)080.1%
DUP0 5055.6%
Independent0 1050.0%
Lab292 (+2 tell) 0083.5%
LDem0 48076.2%
PC0 30100.0%
SDLP1 0033.3%
SNP0 5083.3%
Total:293 217081.1%

Rebel Voters - sorted by party

MPs for which their vote in this division differed from the majority vote of their party. You can see all votes in this division, or every eligible MP who could have voted in this division

Sort by: Name | Constituency | Party | Vote

no rebellions

About the Project

The Public Whip is a not-for-profit, open source website created in 2003 by Francis Irving and Julian Todd and now run by Bairwell Ltd.

PublicWhip v2 codebase is currently under development - you can join the Slack group to find out more or email [email protected]

The Whip on the Web

Help keep PublicWhip alive