4 Trade in products used for capital punishment,
torture etc.
| (24579)
5773/03
COM(02) 770
| Draft Council Regulation concerning trade in certain equipment and products which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
|
| Legal base | Article 133 EC; QMV
|
| Department | Trade and Industry
|
| Basis of consideration | Minister's letter of 16 October and 13 November 2003
|
| Previous Committee Report | HC 63-xxvii (2002-03), paragraph 2 (25 June 2003) and HC 63-xxxv (2002-03), paragraph 5 (29 October 2003)
|
| To be discussed in Council | No date set
|
| Committee's assessment | Legally and politically important
|
| Committee's decision | Not cleared; further information awaited
|
Background
4.1 In December 2002, the Commission put forward this proposal,
which would:
- ban all trade in equipment which has no, or virtually no,
practical use other than for capital punishment, or torture and
other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment: this ban would also
extend to brokering or facilitating such trade;
- allow competent Member State authorities to control
the trade in certain listed equipment and products, which could
readily be used for capital punishment or other cruel etc. uses,
but which also have legitimate uses.
4.2 In his Explanatory Memorandum of 11 June 2003,
the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of
Trade and Industry (Mr Nigel Griffiths) told us that the UK currently
bans, through its export licensing system, certain torture equipment,
and requires a licence for the export of various other items which
could be used for torture. He added that the proposal would enable
additional items to be banned or controlled with minimal changes
to UK legislation, and in the process would make these criteria
legally, rather than politically, binding. The UK therefore supported
the broad thrust of the proposal, subject to certain reservations.
4.3 One of these related to the fact that human rights
and export licensing decisions are not currently within Community
competence, and the proposal suggested that an application for
a licence to export equipment with a potential use in torture
could be objected to by another Member State or the Commission.
Moreover, if this happened twice, the power to take that decision
would ultimately pass to the Commission. The Government, therefore,
wanted to examine carefully the proposal that the Commission should
be involved in the decision-making process. In view of this, we
said in our Report of 25 June 2003 that, although the purpose
of this proposal was clearly laudable, we would at that stage
simply draw the proposal to the attention of the House, pending
further information on this point. However, when the Minister
wrote to us about this on 16 October, he appeared to address instead
the question of the Treaty base chosen by the Commission for the
proposal. We therefore asked him in our Report of 29 October to
indicate whether or not his original concern over competence still
existed.
Minister's letter of 13 November 2003
4.4 In his letter of 13 November 2003, the Minister
confirms that, whilst the UK accepts that the Community has competence
to regulate which goods are subject to control, it should be for
national licensing authorities to take decisions on individual
applications on a case by case basis, and that the aspect of the
proposal which would confer such an ability on the Commission
is unacceptable. He adds that the Government will seek in the
forthcoming negotiations to amend this point, and that officials
are working with other Member States to draw up alternative proposals,
such as a mechanism based on the Community Code of Conduct on
Arms Exports, which he suggests would achieve a measure of transparency
leading to a greater convergence between Member States' policies
whilst still retaining national discretion over export licensing
decisions.
Conclusion
4.5 We are grateful to the Minister for this further
information, and would be interested to know whether it proves
possible to devise an arrangement which would avoid day-to-day
decisions of this kind being taken by the Commission. In the
meantime, given the competence issues involved, we think it right
to continue to hold the document under scrutiny.
|
