---

Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Amendment No. 21, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Redesdale, is in this grouping. I can speak briefly to it, because a great deal of the ground is common to the other two amendments in the grouping and has already been covered. The power to revoke any licence granted under the first four clauses of the Bill is a crucial one.

I understand that the dummy order contains a revocation provision. The amendment would place on the face of the Bill an explicit right for the Government to revoke if, subsequent to the granting of a licence, there is any development which will bring into play the consequences set out in the schedule; namely, adverse consequences as a result of the export of arms or dealing in arms.

The points are simple. The Quadripartite Select Committee recognised the Government's dilemma in granting such licences; namely, the dilemma between the needs of the exporters on the one hand and the needs of arms control on the other.

It is also fair to say that the legal position in relation to licences can become quite tricky. The UK Working Group on Arms, which has done a huge amount of work in relation to the Bill and which has helped many of us in understanding some of the finer points, has taken advice from Matrix Chambers, which has given an opinion to the effect that it would be safer and better for the licence conditions to be set out on the face of the Bill in terms of a power for the Government to impose the conditions set out in Amendment No. 21.

If there is any doubt about someone being able to wriggle out of those conditions because they are imposed not by dint of a power in Clause 6 but as a unilateral imposition by government in their licensing role, any amendment which prevents litigation around that point and enforces the Government's discretion in this regard must surely be to the good. Therefore, the amendment should be considered on those simple grounds.

Lord Haskel: When my noble friend the Minister considers the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, I hope that he will bear in mind that, although some may consider the use of arms against the Palestinians to be warfare, others consider it to be a means of dealing with terrorism. The noble Earl said that Israel was using arms for certain purposes, but most people believe that those arms are clearly being used to deal with terrorism.

9.15 p.m.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: I accept that the amendments are somewhat tricky to interpret, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, said. I shall be most interested to hear what the Minister has to say about Amendments Nos. 20 and 21. I was pleased to hear

7 Feb 2002 : Column 833

what the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, had to say about Amendment No. 49, because had he not said it, I would have done so equally forcefully.

Lord Rea: It has been suggested that one of the Government's positions on the follow-up of end-use certificates is that it would waste very limited UK government resources. To quote Nigel Griffiths, the Minister in another place:

"it could send people off on wild goose chases and divert our officers from monitoring properly what is happening".

Such follow-up of arms sales would be a proper role for military attachés in our embassies overseas. One of the roles of military attachés has been to promote arms exports from Britain to the countries in which they are stationed. It seems logical that they should follow up what happens to those arms after they reach the countries concerned.

It would be wrong to say that every arms export must be monitored. Those countries where arms transfers are in most danger of diversion or misuse should be prioritised. If we do not have a military attaché in those countries, there is a good case for appointing one.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: The amendments would insert two new clauses about the related issues of end-use monitoring and licence revocation, together with a proposed addition to Clause 6 about licence revocation. The position on both issues is clear. The amendments are not necessary for the simple reason that the Government already have the power to revoke licences and to carry out end-use monitoring and they will continue to have that power under the Bill. I shall expand on those two points.

Under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939 and secondary legislation made under it, the Secretary of State has the power to revoke any form of licence, whether open or individual. Article 7(1) of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994 refers to the power of revocation. Such revocation might take place when there is clear evidence that an undertaking given by the end-user is likely to be broken, or when the situation in the recipient country has changed significantly after a licence is issued. Revocation might also apply if new information comes to light after a licence has been issued that would have led to the refusal of the application.

We exercise that power. I refer noble Lords to our annual reports. For example, the annual report for 2000 shows that 16 licences were revoked in that year. The appropriate reference can be found on page 15.

Under the Bill, the Government will retain the power to revoke licences. Again, specific provisions will be set out in secondary legislation. The dummy draft orders made available to Parliament last October contained revocation provisions. The dummy draft order on export of goods, transfer of technology and provision of technical assistance—all issues mentioned in the amendment—provides for the revocation of

7 Feb 2002 : Column 834

licences in Article 10(5) on page 10. The dummy draft order on trade in controlled goods provides for revocation under Article 5(2) on page 4. The example that we have provided of a dummy draft order giving effect to an embargo includes revocation in Article 4(2) on page 2. The circumstances in which revocation will be considered are the same under the Bill as under existing legislation. All the matters to which the amendments relate are already fully accommodated within the dummy draft orders on the basis of the power contained under the Bill.

We do not need a specific legal provision to allow end-use monitoring of defence exports. Officials already systematically consider whether our overseas posts should make checks on the final customers of controlled goods. That is done as an integral part of the licence application process. Officials will also consider whether follow-up monitoring of certain exports is required. The procedures already in place makes use of best practice in risk assessments. They include standing instructions to posts overseas to be alert to and report on any misuse or diversion of UK-origin defence equipment. Any information from overseas is fed back into the licensing process for use in assessing new licence applications.

We take into account all reliable sources of information about end users—including external organisations, other governments, international bodies and non-governmental organisations. We will be able to continue conducting follow-up monitoring of end-use under the Bill.

We have no evidence that equipment or components manufactured in the UK and licensed for export were used by Israeli forces against civilians in the occupied territories during the recent violence. If any such evidence came to light, we would of course consider it carefully. I reiterate that we are not aware of any such evidence.

None of the three amendments is required because we have the necessary powers and use them in revoking licences. In light of that explanation, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Judd: Before the Minister sits down, I am totally convinced of his personal commitment and have no doubt that we are concerned about the same humanitarian issues. But in this particular context, does my noble friend agree that his answer sounded complacent? For a number of years, a deafening chorus of NGOs—and I was part of it—complained about the misuse of arms in East Timor. The time it took for that to be recognised requires some justification. That occurred under a previous administration but none of us is scoring party points tonight. There is a need to take Amendment No. 20 seriously. The issue needs to be addressed. We have to show more rigour and muscle.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: We do share a common view but the Government have all the legislative powers that they need. If there is an issue, it is to do with implementation—which will not be changed by any legislation. There may be a debate about whether

7 Feb 2002 : Column 835

any particular administration implemented the measure properly but nothing will change by giving the present Government the power to undertake end-use monitoring.

The Earl of Sandwich: Among the reasons for revocation listed by the Minister was information coming to light over time—which must imply a form of monitoring. We know there is monitoring but it is not systematised. The amendment only asks the Government to look once more—as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, splendidly said—at the present position. The Minister has simply restated the position of some time ago. Discussion among officials before the next stage would be helpful.

Lord Redesdale: I shall look closely again at the draft dummy order. The issue causes great concern. As the right reverend Prelate correctly pointed out, it would have been easy to check whether Hawks were being used in East Timor for military purposes. A monitoring system mounted on the wings could have clearly shown whether the aircraft had been used in East Timor to repress human rights. That case would have been covered by this amendment.

I do not wish to score party points, but there is a difference between intention and action. The 1997 Labour manifesto contained a commitment to strengthen,

"the end-use of defence exports to prevent diversion to third countries and to ensure that exported equipment is used only on the conditions under which the export licence has been granted".

The Government may now feel that they have sufficient powers, but they did not believe so in 1997. I hope that the Minister will be able to look again at the issue. We certainly intend to raise it again at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 [Control powers: supplementary]:

[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]

---