| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank all noble Lords who have given me unqualified or qualified support. That was very helpful. I thank my noble friend Lord Brooke for his very good history lesson, which was amusing and instructive. I also thank the Minister for his comprehensive answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 15:
- Page 3, line 23, leave out "in relation to goods" and insert "and technological assistance controls in relation to goods and technical assistance"
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 16 and 17. Amendment No. 15 is a probing amendment intended to clear up an anomaly, or what I imagine is an inadvertent omission from the Bill.
Clause 3 deals with technical assistance and technical assistance controls, which are defined in subsection (2). However, the definitions are set out in two long sentences of 28 and 29 words respectively and the definition of "technical assistance" is rather unspecific.
Clause 4(2) sets out the definition of "trade controls" in clear and concise terms. Amendment No. 17 would carry that method of definition over to the definition of "technical assistance".
Having two different methods of defining two very similar activities could cause confusion, give rise to inconsistencies in administration and enforcement and hence provide a fertile field for evasion and a feast for lawyers. Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are merely paving amendments to facilitate the principal one.
I acknowledge that if the Government accept the amendments, further consequential amendments to Clause 3 will be required. We can deal with those at a later stage if necessary.
I trust that the Government will accept this as a constructive amendment to clarify the Bill, not alter it. I beg to move.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the amendments would provide the Secretary of State with the power to impose controls on acquisition, disposal and movement of technical services and with the power to control activities facilitating or connected with the acquisition, disposal, transfer or supply of those technical services.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this matter. It is very important that the issues should be covered. However, Clause 3 already allows the provision of technical assistance between overseas countries to be controlled. Circumstances in which technical assistance was acquired, disposed, moved, transferred or supplied between third countries overseas would include a UK national based abroad providing technical assistance in a different country overseas or a UK national in the UK or overseas arranging for another person to provide technical assistance in a third country. All those cases are covered by Clause 3(1) and (5) through which the Secretary of State can control the provision of technical assistance outside the UK or the making of arrangements under which another person provides technical assistance outside the UK. The amendments are therefore unnecessary. The issues are covered in Clause 3 and there is no need for them to be covered again in Clause 4, which deals with the different issue of trade controls. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I understand exactly what the Minister is saying. I was simply trying to point out that the definition of "trade controls" is much clearer than the definition of "technical assistance". I would have thought that the Minister might be pleased to agree to one of the amendments, which would not in any way alter the Bill but simply
make it easier to understand. He has time to think about that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Lord Razzall moved Amendment No. 18:
- Page 4, line 13, leave out "may" and insert "shall"
The noble Lord said: The fact that this is a one-word amendment of a somewhat Delphic, and possibly even serpentine, nature does not mean that we believe that the point that it raises is unimportant, as the Minister will be aware. I suspect that this is the first of several occasions on which we shall not at present find accommodation with the Government on the Bill.
We welcome the clause, which is primarily aimed at the activities of arms brokers. The point of the amendment is to deal with the extent to which the extra-territorial activity of arms brokers should be regulated.
On Second Reading I referred your Lordships to the classic text book on the subject, which is John Le Carré's novel The Night Manager, dealing with the activities of Mr Richard Roper. His activities show why we believe that the Government's provision does not go far enough.
The Government made clear in another place and in our discussions with the Minister before Committee stage that they intend to apply the provisions extra-territorially in three cases with regard to armaments: first when a transaction involves a transfer to an embargoed destination; secondly, in the case of a transfer of equipment used in torture; and, thirdly, in the case of long-range missiles. I understand that the Government propose that the extra-territorial nature of the prohibitions should extend only to those three categories.
My party believes that that does not go far enough. We base our argument on a number of factors, the first of which relates to six criteria we understand have often been laid down by the Home Office on whether it is appropriate for regulations and laws to apply extra-territorially. The first is that the offence is serious. One has only to look at the activities of Mr Richard Roper to realise how serious such offences can be. The second is that the witnesses and evidence are likely to be available in UK territory. That is probably a more difficult one in this case. The third is that there is general international consensus that conduct is reprehensible. The fourth is that the vulnerability of the victim makes it particularly important to be able to tackle the issue. The fifth is that creating the offence extra-territorially seems to be in the interests of the standing and reputation of the UK in the international community. The final criterion is that there is a danger that the offences concerned would not be justiciable.
It seems to us and to a number of the NGOs that have been involved in the discussions that at least five of those six criteria would apply to arms brokering transactions that go beyond the three categories that
the Minister will say the Government propose to deal with. Other noble Lords will want to come in on this issue.The Government's major objection to taking the issue further is that it would result in the possibility of UK citizens who happen to live abroad committing an offence even though their actions were permissible under the laws of the country in which they were living. The Government's major argument is that persons might not be aware that particular activity requires an export licence in the United Kingdom—and in certain cases, they might have obtained a licence had they applied in the UK.
Under UK law, illegal arms broking carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison. I find it difficult to believe that a UK citizen who is an arms broker living in Australia would not be aware of the seriousness of the offence in the UK and that it attracts up to 10 years' imprisonment. It is perfectly reasonable for the Government to expect people who want to retain the rights attaching to UK citizenship to understand and respect British traditions and laws—together with the principles on which UK society conducts its affairs. I urge the Government to think again and to extend territoriality.
Lord Judd: Earlier today, we heard in a Statement from the Home Office about citizenship that the Government will in future require people seeking British citizenship to take an oath of allegiance. At a time when we are taking such a step, it seems odd to suggest that it may not be necessary to require allegiance to something central to British commitment and law by persons who happen to be abroad. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, referred to the Home Office criteria. It would not be at all difficult for a businessman to operate in a country where there was no UN embargo and, in that context, to supply weapons to terrorist organisations. I can think of specific examples but I am not sure that it is helpful to name countries. We can all think of countries where that is true.
Noble Lords in all parts of the Committee believe that it is imperative to stem the flow of weapons to terrorists. Some of us feel that the Bill provides a good opportunity for tightening up the arrangements. How can that be done if the Government do not have full extra-territorial controls? I should like to hear my noble friend the Minister agree that extra-territorial controls would serve as a deterrent and prevent us just driving an illegitimate trade overseas.
There are sceptics, if not cynics, who are anxious to say that there is a lot of rhetoric in the campaign against terrorism but not much muscle. The Bill is potentially part of the muscle but it seems that it is not being applied.
The Prime Minister has just embarked upon his important mission in Africa, demonstrating our commitment to that continent. During my time as director of one of Britain's great humanitarian agencies, Oxfam, I became deeply perturbed that whereas we wanted to get on with long-term
development, 70 per cent of our work on the African continent was dealing with the consequences of conflict. If we really want to demonstrate our commitment to Africa, there can be few higher priorities than taking every possible step to demonstrate our determination to prevent the flow of arms—sponsored and facilitated by the merchants of death—that is aggravating the continuing disease of conflict on the African continent. I ask my noble friend the Minister to take seriously the way in which Amendment No. 18 has been moved.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |