APPENDIX 11
Supplementary memorandum from the UK Working
Group On Arms (UKWG)
In amendments to the Export Control Bill in
the House of Lords, Lord Campbell-Savours has proposed the Defence
Export Scrutiny Committee (DESC), a new system of prior scrutiny
of arms export licence applications which would be based on the
workings of the Intelligence and Security Committee, outlined
in the Intelligence and Security Act 1994. At the Report Stage
of the Export Control Bill in the Lords last week, Lord Sainsbury
raised some new concerns with the DESC and in particular its relationship
with the Quadripartite Select Committee (QSC). We would like to
take this opportunity to contribute to the debate and set out
the views of the UK Working Group on Arms on the proposals.
We are in favour of the most transparent system
of prior scrutiny possible. The DESC proposal would not allow
for the same level of scrutiny and transparency as contained in
the QSC's recommendations (which provide for the possibility of
a report to parliament and parliamentary debate in extremis).
However, it would at least provide a first crucial step towards
adequate prior parliamentary oversight and we recognise that following
the model of the Intelligence and Security Committee does address
concerns that the Government have hitherto raised about prior
scrutiny, notably the constitutional objections.
We understand the concerns raised by Lord Scott,
and expressed by Lord Sainsbury in the Report Stage, that Parliamentarians
sitting on the Committee may not be able to play a role in the
QSC. We agree that this would not be appropriate but do not see
that this need be problematic, as the DESC and QSC would have
very distinctive roles.
— The DESC role would be to advise
the Government on specific licences in advance of export licensing
decisions and raise any concerns before decisions are made. Lord
Scott expressed that his constitutional objections did not apply
in case of the DESC as the Committee would not represent Parliament.
— The QSC would continue to have a
full retrospective scrutiny function including assessing the UK
Government Annual Reports on Strategic Exports, calling on respective
Secretaries of State to give evidence in public and making recommendations
for changes in policy and law, none of which would fall within
the remit of the proposed DESC. Since its inception, the QSC has
also assessed the progress of international commitments including
the EU Code of Conduct and the Wassenaar Arrangement, it has been
involved actively in analysing the Export Control Bill and it
will be involved in assessing the forthcoming secondary legislation.
The DESC, once again, would have none of these functions
It is clear that the functions of the two committees
are different and both roles are needed. In terms of reporting,
the QSC would continue to report directly to Parliament playing
a major role in increased transparency. The DESC would report
to the Prime Minister which aids accountability and has a more
limited role in terms of transparency. Were the DESC to replace
the QSC, this would be a serious backward step in terms of transparency
in the UK. The QSC has, and must continue to, provide an essential
public forum for debate on wider export control policy. At the
Committee Stage of the Bill Lord Sainsbury said, "the Government
sees Parliament's role in this area as being one of scrutinising
decisions after they have been taken and having the opportunity
to input into policy." It is crucial that this function is
not lost to Parliament. The DESC as proposed and the QSC would
have distinct but complementary roles. We shall continue to follow
the debate surrounding prior scrutiny with interest and would
welcome the opportunity to give evidence to the QSC on this issue.
24 April 2002
|
