(1) Identify the enabling power for the ambulation in the definitions of “military goods” and “military technology” in regulation 6(7).
(2) If the enabling power is paragraph 21 or 23 of Schedule 1 to the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, explain why the relevant paragraph is not cited in the preamble.
2.The FCDO is grateful for the Committee’s consideration of this instrument and responds as follows.
3.No vires in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (‘SAMLA’) are relied on, or required, for the ambulatory definitions of ‘military goods’ or ‘military technology’ in regulation 6(7). These references are ambulatory by reference to things specified in another enactment (Schedule 2 to the Export Control Order 2008).
4.Those references have effect in accordance with section 20(2) of the Interpretation Act 1978 (as read together with section 23(1) of that Act): “Where an Act [or subordinate legislation (in accordance with s23)] refers to an enactment, the reference, unless the contrary intention appears, is a reference to that enactment as amended...].”The use of the term ‘for the time being” in the definitions of “military goods” and “military technology”, serves only to displace any argument that Parliament may have had a ‘contrary intention’ when using those terms, and that they are intended to refer to the Export Control Order as amended, rather than as specified in the Order at a fixed point in time.
5.The powers in paragraph 21 or 23 of Schedule 1 to SAMLA are not relevant vires for this provision. The vires contained in Schedule 1 to SAMLA relate only to ‘trade sanctions’. The definitions of ‘military goods’ and ‘military technology’ as used in regulation 6(7) are not related to trade sanctions. They are instead included as general interpretation provisions in order to determine whether a person meets the criteria for designation under regulation 6(1). The Schedule 1 SAMLA powers are not therefore cited in the preamble.
22 September 2020
Published: 2 October 2020