House of Commons Hansard Debates for 29 Nov 1990

Column 1052

developers richer. They should set up housing help centres in mid-Wales. They should have a crash programme on homelessness and certainly should ensure that the capital receipts that local authorities and the DBRW receive from the sale of local authority houses go back to them so that when houses are lost through the right-to- buy scheme they are replaced with new houses for people in the centre of Wales who look to the board to house them.

We have highlighted some of the problems in mid-Wales. We welcome the increased resources that have been allocated to the board, but we are convinced that the extra £175 million would be put to best use by a Labour Government, as a Labour Government set up the board in the first place.

Sir Wyn Roberts : With the leave of the House, I will reply to the debate. In all, 10 hon. Members have spoken in this clause stand part debate. If there is an excuse for the wide-ranging character of the debate, it is that, as I understand it, we propose not to have a Third Reading debate.

I begin by dealing with the speech of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). I seriously suggest that he reads again what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said at column 936 of Hansard about the funding of the special rural action programme. Similarly, at column 967 my right hon. Friend dealt clearly with the interest taken in the problems at Trawsfynydd. The problems are some years ahead but the north-west Wales training and enterprise council, although only recently established, has begun exploratory discussions.

Dr. Thomas : I appreciated what the Secretary of State had to say about the training and enterprise council, but there is also a role for the development board and for additional funding to meet head-on the crisis that will emerge in the area in the next five years.

Sir Wyn Roberts : We certainly expect the efforts of the training and enterprise council and other agencies such as the Development Board for Rural Wales to provide alternative jobs to be intensified in the intervening period.

The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside said that the gross expenditure of the DBRW had declined. He chose some curious years as examples of its expenditure. He chose 1978-79 and 1979-80, when there was exceptionally high expenditure at Newtown, but taking the period from the board's inception one sees that there has been an increase of some 15.4 per cent. in real terms in the board's gross expenditure. Similarly, from 1980-81 to 1990-91 there has been a 20 per cent. increase in real terms in the board's gross expenditure. Several hon. Members talked about housing. Indeed, it would be easier to name those who did not refer to it. The Welsh Office has been aware for some time of the problems faced by people in rural Wales in securing affordable homes. I am glad to say that several measures are being taken. Although housing is an ancillary responsibility of the development board, hon. Members will be aware of the growing role of Tai Cymru, or Housing for Wales. It has directed about £25 million--no less than a quarter of its resources--to be spent by housing associations in rural areas this financial year. This year we have made available additional allocations or credit approvals totalling £2.8 million to rural district councils with severe second home problems to enable them to buy dwellings for rent or resale or to purchase land for housing development. To help

Column 1053

mitigate the effects of inward migration and second homes, public sector landlords in national parks and certain designated areas may impose conditions on the resale of dwellings sold under the right-to-buy scheme. I did not agree with the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), however, when he implied that we should deny the right to buy because houses bought under the scheme are somehow lost to the housing stock. He knows as well as I do that that is not the case. 6.15 pm

Mr. Murphy : The Minister completely misinterprets what I said about the right-to-buy legislation. I did not imply that the right to buy would not continue or that it was not a good thing. I said that the receipts from the sale of those houses should go back to the local authorities or the development board so that they can build new houses for those on the waiting lists in mid-Wales, who number over 6,000.

Sir Wyn Roberts : Unless things have changed drastically, the current year's receipts from right-to-buy sales can be used by the authorities to which they are paid.

Within the next few months we shall issue planning advice on land for low- cost housing in rural areas following consultation last year. Last year, Housing for Wales launched a rural housing initiative to assist local people, especially young people, to find suitable homes which they can afford in their own communities. The initiative is being run on a pilot basis in 31 villages across rural Wales. The majority of homes are being provided on shared ownership terms with a pre-emption right eventually to return the home to the relevant housing association.

More significantly, as the hon. Member for Torfaen mentioned, earlier this month Housing for Wales published the results of two vital research projects on the nature and extent of the need for housing in rural Wales. The second of those reports, which dealt with the importance of affordable housing for young people in determining their decision to remain in their home communities, goes further than housing issues. Housing for Wales intends to call a working conference early in the new year to discuss the findings of both studies. It will draw on the expertise of organisations with an interest in the quality of rural life.

You will probably not allow me to stray far on the community charge, Miss Boothroyd, but it is perhaps worth noting that within the development board's area some 29,000 chargepayers are obtaining transitional relief averaging £27 per person. The House will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had to say this afternoon about a review of the community charge.

Many references have been made to agriculture but, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out on Second Reading, agriculture is the direct responsibility of the Welsh Office agriculture department. Of course, we recognise that it is not an easy time for Welsh livestock producers. That is why we have introduced measures to deal with the position. Again, Miss Boothroyd, you will not allow me to stray far into what we have done for the beef sector by way of intervention. Neither would you

Column 1054

allow me to say much about the way in which we have brought forward the two advance payments of sheep annual premium, and so on.

Mr. Win Griffiths : You will recall, Miss Boothroyd, that I raised the issue of agricultural support. In the development board's annual report there is a section entitled "Support for Agriculture". The point made in the report and the reason why we raised it is that, while we recognise that direct income support for farmers is entirely another part of the Welsh Office, the development board has a responsibility to promote the industry and income for farmers by other means. That is why we should like to hear something from the Minister about that.

Sir Wyn Roberts : Perhaps, Miss Boothroyd, you will allow me to say a little about some of the income which is flowing into the rural community as a result of the measures to which I have referred. Intervention in the beef sector alone is costing the Government some £11 million a week. Welsh sheepmeat producers have a cash flow benefit of nearly £25 million from the decision to bring forward the two advance payments of sheepmeat annual premium. Obviously, there are other developments in the livestock sector. The hill livestock compensatory allowance payments alone total some £33 million.

The Second Deputy Chairman : Order. The Minister is trying to be helpful to the House, but he is going too deeply into agriculture. I am looking at the report and he is taking us too far into another Department's responsibility.

Sir Wyn Roberts : I am seeking to say--

Mr. Win Griffiths : On a point of order, Miss Boothroyd. I am grateful for your intervention. As you pointed out, the Minister was exceeding his role. However, I asked what the Development Board for Rural Wales was doing to support farmers. It has a remit to support them. That is what I want to know.

The Second Deputy Chairman : That is not a point of order for the Chair to resolve.

Sir Wyn Roberts : I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's point. I was simply prefacing my answer to him by pointing out how much money was being poured into agriculture. The HLCA payments alone are worth some £33 million. Apart from all that, agricultural grants and subsidies, excluding intervention and so on, are worth some £100 million a year to Welsh farmers. Against that background, hon. Members are well aware that the role of the development board is to encourage industries and activities which are ancillary to agriculture. It is not a function of the board to administer grants and subsidies. That is the responsibility of the Welsh Office. Many of the activities covered by the development board are ancillary to agriculture and, indeed, life in general in the rural community which they serve. Tourism has been mentioned--

Mr. Alan W. Williams : May I take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) about agriculture and the responsibilities of the development board? There is a crisis in agriculture, particularly regarding lamb and beef. Even worse are the 30 per cent. cuts in export subsidies being negotiated in the general agreement on tariffs and trade round. We are

Column 1055

talking about small farmers. What is the Minister doing and what more can we do by using the development board to help and sustain the rural economy? Small farmers are critical to the rural economy. Is there not a case for a massive expansion of the board's role in supporting small farmers?

Sir Wyn Roberts : We all sympathise with that point. Indeed, I began my statement with an appreciation of the situation in agriculture. I also said that the administration of support for farmers in Wales was the prime role of the Welsh Office agriculture department, as in England it was for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. There is a role for the development board. Its function is not to provide grants and subsidies direct to farmers--there is separate administration for that--but to encourage and promote businesses ancillary to agriculture and life in rural areas. I am sure that that is where its main thrust should be.

Mr. Geraint Howells : The Minister's positive approach has been welcome, in mid-Wales by the western initiative drive which has taken place in the past few months. It will bear fruit in the months to come. May I suggest that area offices should be opened in Ceredigion, Meirionnydd, Brecon and Radnor--the development board has opened a new office in Machynlleth which has been a great success in Montgomeryshire--so that young entrepreneurs and small business people who are keen for advice can go to a local office under the jurisdiction of the development board?

Sir Wyn Roberts : I note the hon. Gentleman's point. He will know that those offices cover rather more than the interests of farmers. Nor would it be appropriate for the development board to have specific powers that are not available to assist farmers in other parts of Wales. I am sure that the board will also note his point. I was about to say a word or two about tourism. Although the development board has a role in tourism, it recognises that the main role belongs to the Wales tourist board. There is collaboration between the two boards. The section 4 scheme administered by the Wales tourist board began operating in 1971 and has greatly assisted tourism throughout Wales. Since then, in the development board's territory alone, nearly £8 million worth of grant and loan assistance has been provided, supporting more than 420 projects with a capital cost of £38 million, creating or safeguarding about 1,550 jobs. On Second Reading last night, and again today, the hon. Members for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) and for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones), to name but two, made a plea for an extension of the board's area. I can only think that that is prompted by a lack of full awareness of what the Welsh Development Agency is doing. It plays an active role in furthering the economy of rural Wales and that part of rural Wales which comes under its jurisdiction. The effectiveness of the WDA's activities in rural areas is demonstrated in a variety of ways. It has 1.7 million sq. ft. of factory floor space, providing jobs for more than 5,000 local people. More than £4 million in private investment has been secured since the launch of the rural buildings conversion grant scheme, resulting in the creation of more than 1,000 jobs. The DRIVE scheme has generated substantial private sector interest, leading to private investment in excess of £2 million.

Column 1056

I could expand considerably on the work of the WDA in areas outside the remit of the DBRW. However, I shall resist that temptation, mentioning only one point that has been raised in the debate--the support that the WDA gives to Menter a Busnes, the initiative to encourage enterprise among Welsh speakers. There is close collaboration between the board, the WDA and the Wales tourist board.

6.30 pm

The hon. Member for Carmarthen referred to the availability of the social powers in the DBRW area. It is important to recognise that there is no legislative gap. The Welsh Office has the power to assist social development schemes throughout Wales, and some £3 million was spent on such measures last year. We have already referred to the Welsh language and the support given to it under section 26 of the Development of Rural Wales Act 1976, but that section gives the Secretary of State power to support the Welsh language in Wales. I know that that will interest the hon. Members for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) and for Bridgend, both of whom referred to the matter.

Mr. Win Griffiths : Does the reference in the annual report of the DBRW to measures to support the Welsh language include initiatives taken by the Welsh Office rather than by the board itself?

Sir Wyn Roberts : Like many other organisations in Wales, the board is quite capable of doing--and has the power to do--whatever is appropriate in connection with the Welsh language. I am sure, without specific knowledge, that both the WDA and the DBRW would support a business venture with the language at the core of its operations.

Dr. Thomas : This is an initiative within the board, strongly supported by the WDA. It has been effective in obtaining a response within the bilingual community in western Wales and from a broader base of opinion.

Sir Wyn Roberts : I am grateful to the hon. Member, who referred to the craft initiative and asked for further information on it. The three- year period of the initiative comes to an end at the end of the financial year. If none of the parties to the agreement gives notice, the agreement allows for the current funding arrangements to continue. An early evaluation of the initiative is under way, at the request of those involved, and talks are also taking place about what support might be offered to the craft industry in the next financial year.

The hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside foolishly accused the Welsh Office of not having a strategy. Who does he think is behind the board? It is not for us to second-guess it, but its policy is clear, as the hon. Member for Torfaen said. The objective of our policy for mid-Wales is to create a thriving, self-sustained, market-based rural economy. We have witnessed a major improvement in the climate allowing private enterprise to flourish. The development board's policies complement the work of the private sector.

The development board can be viewed as a facilitator acting in a catalytic role for manufacturing industry and helping to create jobs, reduce unemployment, encourage growth, improve the balance in population and achieve higher income. Its key objective is directed towards the expansion and diversification of the economy of mid-Wales. Its focus is on encouraging and strengthening the private sector within its area. I was delighted to hear

Column 1057

the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Merionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas) that we should privatise as much as possible of the board's activities.

Our policy has helped to create an environment in which young people can find new jobs in manufacturing industry, in tourism and in the service industry, providing a much greater diversity of employment opportunities. Achievements in this help towards the creation of a much-improved quality of life for local people as well as attracting inward investment. All this helps to create a new confidence in the region.

To those who have pressed me for an extension of the board's work, I can only say that it has a full agenda already. It has wide-ranging specific powers on property development, business advisory services and the provision of finance for social and economic purposes. Its specific aims are to develop a flourishing enterprise culture within mid-Wales.

Mr. Win Griffiths : What consideration has the Department given to the activities of the board against the background of what is now admitted to be a recession in the coming year? What estimates has the Minister made of the rates of employment and unemployment in the area covered by the board?

Sir Wyn Roberts : I am coming to that.

The second aim of the board is to assist the private sector in building better businesses and creating the jobs necessary to sustain and diversify the base of local economies.

The third aim is to provide for the people of mid-Wales, with their unique social and cultural heritage, the

Column 1058

opportunities to stay and prosper in mid- Wales. The fourth is to improve the quality of life in mid-Wales by improving the number and quality of social facilities and access to them.

The board's operational objectives relate mainly to the creation of viable jobs and the retention of the region's young people by providing the kind of social and economic opportunities that they require. Job creation is inextricably linked with economic, social and demographic structural improvement.

I was asked about the relationship of mid-Wales with the state of the economy. This and last night's Second Reading debate are about the only debates that I have heard for some time in which the unemployment figures were not mentioned once. There is a good reason for that. I am the first to mention the figures because the average rate of unemployment for October 1990 in the DBRW travel-to-work areas was 4.1 per cent., compared with the Welsh average of 6.7 per cent. That is a clear sign of the success of the DBRW, which has been acknowledged on both sides of the House.

The debate has been wide-ranging because it has represented an effort on the part of the Opposition to extend the debate beyond the remit of the development board. The new financial limit proposed under the Bill will provide the board with the headroom it needs to pursue the tasks that I have specified, not only now but in the years ahead. There is no question but that it has been a success and that it will be a success in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Column 1059

Import and Export Control Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

6.40 pm

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Tim Sainsbury) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill is short and technical ; my speech will be short but I hope not too technical.

The Bill repeals section 9(3) of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939. That subsection provides that the Act will expire when an Order in Council is made declaring that the emergency that was the occasion of the Act's passing is at an end. By repealing the subsection, the effect of clause 1 is to make the 1939 Act permanent. I do not think, in the circumstances, that I need dwell on the purpose of clause 2.

The 1939 Act is the last major piece of the emergency legislation introduced at the beginning of the second world war which remains in use, although, perhaps not surprisingly, it is not the only one remaining on the statute book. While preparing this Bill, we have initiated a review of other emergency legislation with analogous provisions to section 9(3), notably the Compensation (Defence) Act 1939 and the Landlord and Tenant (Requisitioned Land) Act 1939 and the Landlord and Tenant (Requisitioned Land) Act 1942. Whilst the review is not yet complete, we have reached the preliminary conclusion that the powers provided by these Acts are no longer necessary.

The Import Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 gives powers to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make orders prohibiting or regulating the import or export of goods to or from the United Kingdom, and enabling licences to import and export goods to be granted. It also provides for the forfeiture of goods imported or exported contrary to an order.

The power to control imports and exports has been, and remains, essential to implement a wide range of important Government policies. The powers to control exports have for many years been used to restrict trade for strategic reasons--for example, with the Warsaw pact countries and the People's Republic of China. The continuing need for such powers, even in a more peaceful world, is only too obvious. Other examples of the use of the powers are to implement international treaty obligations, such as the nuclear

non-proliferation treaty, and to give effect to our other non-proliferation policies aimed at preventing countries from developing a chemical, biological, missile or nuclear capability ; to prevent certain exports which could be prejudicial to national security, such as encryption equipment ; and to prevent the export of goods likely to be used for terrorist purposes or for internal repression.

The powers of the Act are used to prevent exports of antiques and other items which are considered to be an important part of the national heritage. We also use the powers of the Act to implement the voluntary restraint agreement on steel exports.

The powers to control imports are equally important in relation to safeguarding public security, such as firearms, and to support foreign policy objectives, although they are used mainly to enforce internationally agreed trade protection measures, including restrictions on imports of textile and clothing products within the framework of the multi-fibre arrangement. The Act is also used to regulate the import of bananas, although, contrary to some

Column 1060

popular opinions, that is not to help the Government to avoid banana skins but to help protect our traditional suppliers in the Commonwealth Caribbean.

The powers in the Act to control exports are implemented by the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989, which specifies the goods the export of which requires a licence from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. It is for exporters to determine in the first place whether a particular product needs an export licence. In the event that advice is required, my Department stands ready to assist. Licence applications are submitted to the export control organisation within the DTI. To minimise the burden of export controls on exporters, a number of open general and open individual export licences have been introduced covering many industrial dual-use goods. Those remove the need to seek prior authorisation from the DTI before making a shipment.

Imports are controlled under the Import of Goods (Control) Order 1954, also made under the 1939 Act, which prohibits the import of all goods. Since there is no reason to restrict the entry of most goods, an open general import licence has been introduced which permits goods to be imported without the need to apply for an individual licence, with the exception of those goods specified in a detailed schedule. Goods in that schedule can be imported only under the authority of an individual import licence, for which importers apply to my Department's import licensing branch.

The powers have been used regularly by every Government since the war. Nearly 200 orders or amendments to orders have been made since the end of the war, averaging more than four each year. That is a clear indication of the continuing need on the part of successive Governments for powers which enable new items to be brought under control when that is judged necessary in response to a perceived threat or technological change.

Equally, controls which have become unnecessary can be removed. For example, the major relaxation in controls, introduced in the light of developments in eastern Europe, which was announced in July by COCOM partners, has been implemented under the powers of the 1939 Act. I hope that the present negotiations on a "core list" will lead to further relaxations in export controls early next year.

The powers are therefore tried and tested. Experience has shown that they work efficiently and effectively without placing unnecessary burdens on business. The 1939 Act enables us to react quickly and flexibly in response to each situation as it arises. The importance of the power has been highlighted by the present Gulf crisis.

I emphasise that the Bill is essentially a technical measure. It does not affect the exercise of powers under the Act, or the import and export licensing systems which have been established and which are familiar to importers and exporters. However, I am sure that the House will agree that it is no longer satisfactory to control imports and exports under powers derived from an Act which

"shall continue in force until such date as His Majesty may by Order in Council declare to be the date that the emergency that was the occasion of the passing of this Act came to an end".

We should now make the Act permament.

The Bill does not in practice change anything. The powers conferred by the Act have been operating

Column 1061

satisfactorily for many years, and it is important that they continue to do so in the future. The Bill simply has the effect of putting them on a permanent legislative footing.

6.48 pm

Ms. Joyce Quin (Gateshead, East) : I listened carefully to the Minister's explanation. The Opposition do not object to the Bill, as it makes sense in the light of events. In view of the reunification of Germany and the fact that the allied powers now have no role in Berlin, it is patently absurd to suggest that any part of the emergency circumstances of the second world war exist today. In any event, the Government have made clear statements to that effect, in answer to parliamentary questions and in documents, for example, in the Government's observations to the fourth report of the Foreign Affairs Committee, in which they referred to the treaty on the final settlement. It says that the treaty settles

"between the parties definitively matters arising out of the Second World War."

If the 1939 Act were unamended, we should be in the strange position where it would presumably be possible for exporters and companies to challenge the legal validity of any measures taken under the 1939 Act.

When I first looked at the Act and the proposed Bill, my first impressions were of alarm and surprise. My alarm stemmed from the fact that the 1939 Act is couched in the language of war. That was not surprising because it was clearing the way for the conditions of war and the trading embargos and restrictions that were going to operate during that period. I was alarmed at the wording of the Act, which still pertains today, and I was surprised that the Act should be the legal base for so much of the export and import control adopted by Governments of different political complexions since 1939. Therefore, our willingness to accept the Bill does not mean that we accept that the 1939 Act should be the basis of such controls for ever and ever. It might well be sensible for a future Government to introduce a modern Bill, not couched in the language of 1939, to allow, for whatever reason, necessary restrictions on exports and imports.

I am glad that the Minister gave us some details of the way in which the 1939 Act continues to operate and some reasons for existing export and import restrictions. Will the Minister confirm that, while he referred to political reasons, there may be other reasons, such as health reasons, for the control of exports and imports allowed by the Act?

How effective is our import and export legislation? Let us look at the so- called Iraqi supergun incident. I do not apologise for raising that matter now, because the Opposition have repeatedly asked the Department of Trade and Industry to make a statement in the light of the dropping of charges in the Iraqi supergun affair. Following that affair, we are concerned about the effectiveness of our export and import controls.

When the previous Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was first asked about the so-called Iraqi supergun, he said that it was not possible to reveal the full details because of the possibility of criminal proceedings being instigated. Now that charges have been dropped, we feel that we have a right to certain answers and are still perturbed that there seems to have been a failing within the Department of Trade and Industry to appreciate the

Column 1062

warnings given to it by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) and others about the export of that equipment to Iraq. Why was nothing done to act on the information, which has been available since July 1988, on the specifications and contracts surrounding the order, the detailed information on changes made to the order and the knowledge that existed about the involvement of the Space Research Corporation of Dr. Gerald Bull?

Will the Department state what has happened to the equipment already sent to Iraq? Are the reports that some of the equipment is involved in test firing accurate? What is the military assessment of its potential uses?

An alarming report in The Independent stated :

"Somewhere in Iraq, the 90ft long barrels of three British-built guns may be trained on allied forces 750 kilometres away in Saudi Arabia."

That is a matter of grave concern to all hon. Members.

Why did the Government fail to uphold the arms embargo against Iraq? We want full information about other possible breaches of the embargo. Companies need to know where they stand on export and import restrictions. One company involved was apparently told, in a telephone conversation with the Department of Trade and Industry, that it did not need a licence, but the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), subsequently said at Question Time that the company should have applied for an export licence. That effectively changed the nature of the application system and put a different onus on the companies involved. If companies are to be held responsible for every possible end use of equipment or products, they need a great deal more assistance and effective response from the Department of Trade and Industry than was evident in that case, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) said.

Considerable concern was expressed on both sides of the House when statements were made by Ministers in March and April this year on the Iraqi supergun affair. Many of the questions asked then are still unanswered. Surely it is time for the Government to come completely clean on that issue. It is simply not good enough for the Department to say that any statement made on the judgment made to drop charges should be made by Customs and Excise--a full statement to the House of Commons by the Department of Trade and Industry is necessary. The Opposition do not object to the Bill which, as the Minister said, is a technical measure and a necessary amendment to the 1939 Act if that Act is to accord with reality. But we urge the Government to improve their export-import procedures. In the long term--if the Government have a long-term future, which I doubt-- will other legal vehicles be brought forward to achieve the control of exports and imports which are more appropriate than the obviously dated 1939 Act?

6.57 pm

Mr. Sainsbury : With the leave of the House, I shall reply. The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) has expressed her support for the Bill, for which I am grateful. I note what she said about the long term-- she used the expression "for ever and ever." I certainly would not suggest that the 1939 Act should remain the basis of legislation for ever and ever, but it is a matter for later consideration whether it would be appropriate to change it. In practice, very few people have occasion to look at the

Column 1063

original Act and would look at the orders, with which the hon. Lady is familiar and which are set out in more modern language, not in terms of dealing with the enemy.

With regard to the Iraqi supergun, as I hoped I made clear in my introductory remarks, it is for those seeking to export items to satisfy themselves whether a licence is required. The mechanism for controlling the export of military equipment and components from this country is the licensing regime administered by my Department, under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989, made under the 1939 Act. It is for exporters to take reasonable steps to find out what they are making and disclose all relevant facts when asking about the need for a licence. A licence would have been needed to export components for a long-range gun to any destination, and would not have been granted for export to Iraq. In 1988 exchanges took place between Government Departments and industry in which advice was sought about the need for licences in relation to certain tubes. No basis was found for advising the companies that the tubes were subject to licence, and industry was accordingly informed that no export licences were required.

In the light of the Iraqi supergun case, the relevant Departments have reviewed their procedures. The hon. Lady asked about the effectiveness of those procedures. Some improvements have already been made and others will soon be made. The aim of the improvements is to remove any scope that may exist for misunderstanding between inquirers and Departments and ensure that all information available to the Government, which might be relevant to particular export proposals, is taken into account when deciding whether a licence is necessary and, if so, whether it should be granted. I hope that the hon. Lady will be reassured by what I have said.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.-- [Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Bill immediately considered in Committee ; reported, without amendment ; read the Third time, and passed.

Column 1064

Weapons

7 pm

Next Section

Home Page