UK arms exports 'should be checked first by MPs' A Libyan rebel carries a box of British-made ammunition found at a military base in Benghazi in February last year. Photograph: Patrick Baz/AFP/Getty Images British arms exports should be subjected to prior scrutiny by MPs and the risk that the weapons could be used for internal repression must be assessed much more effectively than in the past, two leading members of Labour's shadow cabinet have told the Guardian. A radical shift in Labour's policy on the arms trade, with tougher controls, and greater transparency and accountability, is spelt out by Douglas Alexander and Jim Murphy, the shadow foreign and defence secretaries. "The Arab spring has fundamentally recast the context in which domestic and international security policy is conducted ... a nation's arms-exporting policy represents today one of the most profound ways in which a country can influence events beyond its borders," they say. The Arab spring put the spotlight on Britain's arms export policy as official reports revealed that the government approved substantial exports of weapons - including guns and ammunition, as well as crowd control equipment - to Muammar Gaddafi's Libya, Hosni Mubarak's Egypt, and Bahrain, months before those governments violently repressed popular uprisings. The British government subsequently revoked 158 arms export licences to those countries. However, it resumed arms sales to Bahrain despite a continuing crackdown against protesters. "At present the risk assessment used to determine the legitimacy of an export licence relies too heavily on retrospective assessment, primarily taking in to account evidence of a government previously having breached specific criteria," Alexander and Murphy say in a joint article published on the Guardian Comment is free website. "If the Arab spring has shown us anything," they add, "it is that perceived past stability is no guarantee against future volatility." The government should adopt more pre-emptive risk assessments, placing more emphasis "on social, political and economic drivers of conflict," they say. The previous Labour government increased parliamentary scrutiny over arms export licences but it was limited to reviewing ministerial decisions after they had already been taken. "What is still lacking in the UK system is a method for prior scrutiny," say the shadow foreign and defence secretaries. Lessons could be learnt here from our allies. In Sweden there is an expert advisory body, headed by an independent official responsible for oversight of export licensing, which advises on delicate pre-licence decisions - before a minister has made the final call. And in the US, Congress is given prior notification of all foreign military sales over specific cost-thresholds planned for the following year and can object ahead of the government making a decision. Though Alexander and Murphy say any system of prior scrutiny must not delay decision-making, it could be an important step in increasing transparency and accountability. They accuse the coalition government of "jettisoning of the leadership position bequeathed to them" on proposals for a global arms trade treaty, on the agenda of the UN general assembly this month. The government's position contributed to a stalemate in negotiations in July in New York, they say. What was needed was an agreement that was "transparent, legally binding, and [applying] to all existing and future transfer agreements." Vince Cable, the business secretary, admitted to a committee of MPs earlier this year: "We do trade with governments that are not democratic and have bad human rights records ... we do business with repressive governments and there's no denying that." He was giving evidence to the Commons committee on arms export controls whose chairman, the former Conservative defence minister Sir John Stanley, accused the government of adopting a "rosy-tinted" and "over-optimistic" approach to authoritarian regimes.