| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Battle: I tend to want a world in which we would emulate those who formed Arsenal football club in 1886. They worked at the Woolwich arsenal. Each of them put in 6d to back the football club; their works factory has now shut down. I feel that if people did other things rather than making arms it would make for a better world.
I also think that those in East Timor, for instance, might say, "As we form a new country and a new Government, we need the means to defend ourselves against a possible future engagement with Indonesia."
I think that the problem here relates to the word "prior". I do not think that the real issue relates to Ministers going through red boxes late at night; I think that it arises at the other end of the process. The pressure is coming from the arms companies. I want them to think twice. I want them to think seriously about the whole process, and not put in speculative bids as they often do. Prior scrutiny would push the process a further stage back, and people would know where they were. I think that that could be done, and would send a very healthy signal through the system.
Nigel Griffiths: I am sure that the industry will note my hon. Friend's comments. I certainly have.
Mr. O'Neill: I have listened to my hon. Friend with great interest, but he was not specific on one point. What would he expect to be the volume of work required? We have been given estimates of 40 to 50 cases, up to a maximum of about 100. Not all those cases would necessarily be referred at the Minister's discretion. Given the timing of such matters, it would probably be possible to arrange several meetings each year of a group that would examine them. I do not think that the volume would be as great as the Minister suggests, but I may have got it wrong. Perhaps the Minister could be a little more specific, as it seems that Government thinking has changed.
Nigel Griffiths: I have no more up-to-date information than my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) asked about legal difficulties in the revoking of licences. There are no such difficulties where circumstances have changed significantly since the issuing of a licence. The difficulties
would arise if a country's circumstances had changed, or new and relevant information was available to the Government.Let me return to a point I made earlier. The annual report sets out the reasons for refusals and the statistics. The hon. Member for Twickenham raised that matter, too. On page 15, the report makes clear the cases where revocation took place, so it is clearly set out.
I believe that the proposals that we have put before the House are the practical ones, and I urge the House not to press the other new clauses to a vote.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Amendment made: No. 1, in page 1, line 9, at end insert—
'( ) The power to impose export controls is subject to section (General restriction on purposes of control orders).'.—[Nigel Griffiths.]
Clause 2
Amendment made: No. 2, in page 2, line 21, at end insert—
'( ) The power to impose transfer controls is subject to section (General restriction on purposes of control orders).'.—[Nigel Griffiths.]
Clause 3
Amendment made: No. 3, in page 2, line 35, leave out Clause 3.—[Nigel Griffiths.]
Clause 4
Amendments made: No. 4, in page 3, line 35, leave out from "of" to end of line 40 and insert—
'technical assistance controls in relation to technical assistance of any description.
(2) For this purpose—
"technical assistance controls", in relation to any technical assistance, means the prohibition or regulation of participation in the provision outside the United Kingdom of that technical assistance; and
"technical assistance" means services which are provided or used, or which are capable of being used, in connection with the development, production or use of any goods or technology.
(2A) Technical assistance may be described in the order wholly or partly by reference to the uses to which it (or the goods or technology in question) may be put.
(2B) The power to impose technical assistance controls—
(a) shall only be exercised for the purpose of imposing controls corresponding to or connected with—
(i) any export controls or transfer controls imposed under section 1 or 2; or
(b) is subject to section (General restriction on purposes of control orders).'.
No. 5, in page 4, line 3, leave out from "of" to end of line 4 and insert "technical assistance".—[Nigel Griffiths.]
Clause 5
Amendments made: No. 6, in page 4, line 10, leave out "controlled".
No. 7, in page 4, line 12, leave out "controlled".
No. 8, in page 4, line 17, at end insert—
'( ) Goods may be described in the order wholly or partly by reference to the uses to which the goods, or any information recorded on or derived from them, may be put.
( ) The power to impose trade controls—
(a) shall only be exercised for the purpose of imposing controls corresponding to or connected with—
(i) any export controls or transfer controls imposed under section 1 or 2; or
(ii) any controls imposed by a directly applicable Community provision on the exportation of goods or the transfer of technology; and
(b) is subject to section (General restriction on purposes of control orders).'.—[Nigel Griffiths.]
Clause 7
Mr. Key: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in page 5, line 27, after "function;", insert—
'(bb) the time necessary to process applications;'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 35, in page 5, line 33, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
'(3) Any published guidance relating to export licensing, which is capable of applying in relation to the exercise of functions under an order under section 1 or 2, shall be treated as guidance under this section.
(4) The consolidated criteria relating to export licensing decisions announced to Parliament by the Secretary of State on 26th October 2000 shall be included in the guidance referred to in subsection (3).
(5) Changes to any guidance issued under subsection (4) shall not take effect until laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(6) Changes to any guidance issued under subsections (1) or (2), or under subsection (3) which does not contain any guidance made by virtue of subsection (4), shall be laid before Parliament and published within 40 days.'.
Mr. Key: Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have companies great and small in their constituencies that produce goods for export, and some of them require export licences. Many hon. Members present today can tell their own tales of letters to Ministers, telephone calls, parliamentary questions and debates concerning delay in granting export licences to companies.
We have heard some passion about the great companies in this country that do so much to create wealth, which is therefore taxed, from which we all benefit. We have heard
a lot of good sense. We have heard one or two over-the-top comments about the merchants of death—over the top in my view, anyhow. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman who made that comment finds out how many people in his constituency who vote for him are involved in defence industries. Nevertheless, one of the perennial problems—the Minister and two former Ministers present have commented on it at some length—is the care that is taken in assessing the value and disbenefits of any export licence application.The officials who carry out the scrutiny before the decisions go to Ministers have themselves found that their departments have been understaffed and that extra burdens have been put on them. Under this Government, a new department was set up in the Foreign Office to secure a particular Foreign Office input to the ethical dimension. I am not arguing about that, but whatever mechanism Government create to handle the issue, it should be efficient and not unnecessarily disadvantage British industry where it is pursuing lawful objectives in the interests of this country and of their employees, our constituents.
As long ago as 10 May 2001, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) asked the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
- "what the (a) average and (b) maximum length of time taken to process export licences was in 2000."—[Official Report, 10 May 2001; Vol. 368, c. 305W.]
My amendment is concerned with the fact that the Government have failed to introduce time limits in granting licences in this Bill, which provided a very good opportunity to do so. That is essential to help competition. It would mean that manufacturers could guarantee a time scale for the production and delivery of goods. The 20-day average causes anxiety to businesses, great and small. We heard some interesting ideas from the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) about the equivalent of an outline planning permission being put in by some large companies to try it on with an export licence. That is not the norm; it is the exception.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |