Committees on Arms ExportsLetter to the Chair of the Committees from the Rt Hon Vince Cable MP, Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills
FURTHER FOLLOW UP TO ORAL EVIDENCE TO THE COMMITTEES ON ARMS EXPORT CONTROLS
In my letter to you of 13 February, which followed up on points made about Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEi) 2011 during my oral evidence to the Committees on 7 February, I said that I would write further on the issue of whether the fact that the display of brochures related to “Category A” goods was not necessarily illegal represented a “loophole” in the law. I have looked into the matter and would like to take this opportunity to report back to you.
As things stand, I am not persuaded that the law should be changed. The Government’s intention is to work through the organisers of the DSEi conference to make clear to all exhibitors, especially those who have displayed unacceptable material in the past, that we will not permit them to exhibit material relating to “Category A”, goods. If unacceptable material is found on display, we will ensure that the exhibition stand in question is closed down. I think that this, and not criminal prosecution, is a fair and proportionate response.
As I said in my previous letter, there are two issues: firstly, it is necessary to prove a link between the display of the brochure, and the eventual movement of the goods between two overseas countries; and secondly, the fact that HMRC must act in a way that is proportionate and in the best interests of law enforcement when deciding what, if any, action to take. In all the cases of this type that have come to light, HMRC have concluded that closure of the exhibitor’s stand by the event organiser was proportionate and that no further action was appropriate. We could legislate to widen the scope of the controls on advertising and promotion, in order to remove the link between the act of promotion and the movement of goods between overseas countries, but the additional test of whether a criminal prosecution was in the public interest would still need to be met, and I am not convinced that in practice it could be.
It is important to consider the scale of the problem. DSEi attracts around 1300 exhibitors. Despite the best efforts of officials from several Departments and of the organisers in ensuring that exhibitors are aware of relevant UK law, it is of course a matter for regret that one or two exhibitors simply do not get the message. But it must be emphasised that such infringements have been relatively limited, with only one or two incidents of this kind occurring at each event.
As an alternative to regulation, I have however asked my officials in the Export Control Organisation to work even more closely, alongside colleagues in other Government Departments, with the organisers of DSEi both in advance of, and during, the next DSEi event in 2013 in order to prevent such occurrences and to be even more diligent in our policing of the event.
26 March 2012