---

Quadripartite Committee Reports

: I am again grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. Cleary, the question is aimed at the Minister, and I look forward to the reply. I would like an assurance from the Minister that every effort will be made to ensure that we have an effective system of end-use monitoring. As I said, end use is the only thing that matters in relation to the arms trade. There are, however, other enforcement issues. As we all know, the brokering of torture equipment is, thankfully, prohibited under the 2002 Act, but the Committee received evidence that TAR Ideal, an Israeli company, was openly advertising electroshock batons and leg irons in its brochures at last year's DSEI arms fair in London. Those items are specifically restricted under Government policy on torture equipment. Although the company was asked to leave the arms fair when its activities were exposed, it was not our enforcement authorities who exposed them, but Mark Thomas. To take another example, Mr. Thomas gave evidence that Global Armour, a South African company, was offering electroshock weapons in its brochures at the same event. Although ECO has produced guidance on arms fairs, I would be grateful if the Minister told me what enforcement measures are used in relation to such events. My understanding is that brochures had to be submitted and that somebody somewhere was supposed to check them. Why was it left to an investigative journalist to spot a breach in UK law? My general point is that I want to be reassured that the Government are putting enough resources into enforcing arms control legislation. When we tell people, ““It's a legal requirement that you have a television licence,”” it is a bit like saying, ““It's a requirement that you have a licence to export arms,”” except that it is not quite as serious. However, when we tell people, ““You must have a TV licence,”” we do not say, ““Oh, that's fine—heigh ho. We'll wait until Mark Thomas pops round and discovers that you don't have one.”” We have vehicles going up and down the roads, streets and avenues checking that people have a TV licence and that all is well. All I ask is that the Government pay similar attention to the enforcement of the requirement to have a licence to trade in arms as they do to the requirement to have a licence to watch TV, get married or hold a raffle. I do not think that that is unreasonable, although I have put it in a slightly light-hearted way. I have tried to find out how many people are employed at Revenue and Customs to enforce the legislation, but I am afraid that I received an answer to a parliamentary question along the lines of, ““I'm afraid we cannot work this out, because obviously people are multi-tasked. People are doing different things.”” It must be possible to find a full-time equivalent number. I cannot believe that it is that difficult, although if it takes a long time for the Government to reply I would hate resources to be taken away from the business of controlling the export of arms. In all seriousness, I just want reassurance that such enforcement issues are being dealt with seriously. Our Committee, the NGOs and the defence manufacturers have all raised those issues. There is one other issue: the international arms trade treaty. I welcomed earlier the fact that within 12 months of the launch by Oxfam, Amnesty and others of a campaign for an international arms trade treaty, the Secretary of State announced, in September 2004, that the UK Government were committed to that. I have referred to several instances of what I regard as loopholes in the arms export control regime, and of course one key loophole is the possibility of simply getting on a train and going somewhere else to do business. The case for an international arms trade treaty is the attempt to secure international agreement to control the arms trade. It is a difficult task, but there is a clear logic to it. Again, I welcome the fact that the Government have been leading in that field. The Quadripartite Committee strongly supports an international arms trade treaty, as our report states. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister said a little about what progress has been made. I gather that about 40 countries are involved, which is probably double the number of a year ago, so I know that the Government have made progress, but I would be grateful for clarification. I would also like some comment on whether we are likely to be at the lowest-common-denominator end of aspirations as to what the treaty might include, or nearer the UK, and indeed US, end of controls. I would appreciate any comment on how the treaty would be policed, and the Minister might want to advise us on how the emerging arms manufacturers—such as India, China, Malaysia, Brazil, South Africa and Chile—feel about signing up for an international arms trade treaty. It is important that they come along. My final point was to be about staffing in ECO and Revenue and Customs, but I think that that has been covered, thanks to the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire. This is a serious matter. Key decisions are being made, and I admire the work that people are doing, which is very important. ECO has a very difficult, arduous and important job to do and I reiterate my gratitude for all that it does, but it must have the resources to ensure that it can scrutinise licences properly. There is a fear, which I hope the Minister will say is unfounded, that there are now more open licences, because of the pressure that results from having fewer staff. If that were true, it would be a weakening of our licensing system. I want, first, assurances that resources are available for ECO effectively to consider licence applications. Secondly, I want assurances that Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, which has a policing and enforcement function, has the resources to carry it out. The Government have made enormous progress. The Committee has acknowledged that, as have the NGOs. What I have outlined are some concerns that remain, and I very much hope that when we review the 2002 Act next year, the Government allow us sufficient time and information to do a proper job so as to ensure that what many of us consider loopholes in the legislation can be plugged as quickly as possible.