| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 17B to which I have added my name. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, will consider pressing the amendment as he has worked extremely hard on it to make it acceptable to the whole House. He has in particular addressed the concerns raised by the Conservative Front Bench at the previous stage of the Bill.
The issue that is at stake is the wording "if any". I hope that the Minister does not mind my saying that I consider that that is an appalling piece of drafting which is wide in its scope. Those two words enclosed by brackets cause much disquiet.
The noble Lord, Lord Joffe, rehearsed the arguments comprehensively—including on issues affecting the air traffic control system in Tanzania. Organisations such as the United Nations Development Programme, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, when considering grants, view the absence of sustainable development as a bad deal—so one wonders why the Government went ahead. That decision places question marks over whether there should be a much stronger push for the expression "sustainable development".
The Minister mentioned the European Union code of conduct but that leads to minimum criteria. Considering the excellent work done by the DfID in pushing hard for sustainable development and its incorporation into almost every aspect of policy, the Government could have used the opportunity to give a definition of "sustainable development" in the Bill.
The noble Lord mentioned many of the legal points and the opinion given by Matrix Chambers, which I will not repeat. The Minister said that the amendment will not meet with favour this evening but I hope that the Government will examine increasing the role of sustainable development in future.
When will the Government publish their internal review of the application of criterion 8 to export licensing? That will have some impact on the Minister's assertions.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I too am concerned with Amendments Nos. 17A and 17B. I understand the problems that government Amendment No. 17A seeks to address but the primacy of sustainable development in any dealings with the developing world is a very serious matter. I am not sure that the Bill as amended by the Government takes full enough account of that. Amendment No. 17B of the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, certainly does—while leaving the Government with flexibility.
My noble friend the Minister maintains that the government amendment makes it impossible to wriggle out of taking proper account of sustainable development. I hope that he will clarify that specifically.
Lingering doubts—I express my thanks to a DTI official, Jane Whewell, for her help in trying to allay them—are felt by many experts and pressure groups, as well as by noble Lords. I ask my noble friend to fulfil his undertaking in Committee on 4th March, to which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referred, to review criterion 8 dealing with sustainable development.
Will my noble friend say when that review will be completed? Will it be published—and will it, in the process, make the standards for judging the sustainable development impact of an export licence identical with those of the Export Credits Guarantee Department so that there will be truly joined-up government in this most important area? Among other things, that would obviate snarl-ups such as the BAe contract with Tanzania.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned that these Benches supported sustainable development at an earlier stage, it is only right that I should explain our current position.
The Minister spoke about the need to strike a balance. My colleagues in another place have reached the conclusion that government Amendment No. 17A to the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Joffe and Lord Redesdale, has taken the Government a long way. Given that the Government will always take sustainable development into account, we would not oppose Amendment No. 17A. While we accept that both noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, feel strongly about the matter, we believe that the Government will deal with it in an appropriate and balanced way.
Lord Judd: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Oxfam Association and a trustee of Save the World—two organisations that have taken a close interest in the Bill's subject matter.
Amendment No. 17B must be taken particularly seriously in light of the Government's recent decision to change the criteria in relation to the delicensing of component parts for F16s destined for Israel. On 8th July my right honourable Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs announced changes to the guidance on the sale of arms
components that are incorporated in larger arms systems. Although the status of the consolidated criteria is deemed to be unchanged, five other criteria will also be considered. That disturbing precedent creates a contradiction at the heart of UK policy whereby the export of arms systems from the United Kingdom must be examined carefully against ethical principles enshrined in the consolidated criteria. At the same time, a new fast-track approach is to be taken to UK arms components.The amendment is concerned with strengthening the Bill's guidance section, which is crucial in light of recent developments. My right honourable friend recently defended the decision to change the guidance on the basis of the importance of UK links to the United States and the defence industry, rather than on the basis of the consolidated criteria. That is worrying. I am concerned that despite government assurances that the new Bill will contain tough new provisions to ensure that British arms do not contribute to internal aggression or undermine regional stability and sustainable development, the Secretary of State can issue new guidance that changes licence decision-making as and when that Minister sees fit.
The Government have assured the House that the inclusion of the words "if any" would not allow the current or a future government to issue guidance that would ignore sustainable development. The Government argue that public pressure and the media would prevent future governments making any change that would weaken the role of sustainable development or any other consequences in the schedule—but the new guidance issued by my right honourable friend does precisely that, so I am concerned about the extent to which we can accept the Government's assurances. We have clearly seen that guidance can be rewritten and refocused at will to reflect changing priorities.
The Government have frequently argued that the European Union code of conduct has light and shade aspects and is open to interpretation. It is precisely the need for clarity that makes the amendment so crucial. Clause 1 is about guidance. Government claims about a need for total flexibility are unfounded. Guidance, by its very nature, is fluid. Surely any of the Government's concerns—be they about definition or policy—can be put before Parliament.
Notwithstanding many important debates on the Bill, many key decisions can still be taken without clear consultation with Parliament. The Bill states that guidance can be published in such a manner as the Secretary of State sees fit. In response to previously proposed amendments to ensure that any guidance is published as soon as possible or after consulting Parliament, the House has repeatedly been assured that such amendments are unnecessary. The Government have made great play of their commitment to consultation. We were told that they would always issue guidance immediately it was decided, as licensing decisions based on unpublished
guidance would be open to legal challenge. Yet the timing of the Foreign Secretary's surprise statement on 8th July, in which he set out how the Government,
- "will in future approach licence applications for goods where it is understood that the goods are to be incorporated into products for onward export",
- "its response to a number of applications for the export of parts, subsystems and components to the USA for incorporation into equipment eventually destined for other countries. These include Head Up Display units (HUDs) for incorporation in F-16 aircraft scheduled for delivery to Israel in 2003".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/7/02; col. 651W.]
Clearly, that consideration—and, at least in the case of the components for the F-16s, the decision to issue a licence—took that new guidance into account before it was published. Indeed, if we are to believe some reports, the decision about the F-16 was taken some time ago. If that is the case, the implications involving the Government's earlier reassurances regarding extensive consultation and timely information bear some scrutiny.
Finally, the Minister referred—we do nothing but applaud his personal good will and commitment to all of these issues—to potential conflicts with the European Union. Has he seen the advice given by Matrix Chambers earlier this month? The advice was:
- "The government's assertion that wording such as that suggested . . . would conflict with its international legal obligations and EU law is incorrect. If there are overriding considerations such as an international or European obligation, then this is a valid reason for deciding to comply with them and for disregarding the UK guidance. There is no conflict".
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |