---

Strategic Export Controls

It is a pleasure to introduce the latest report of the Committees on arms export controls and the Government response under your chairmanship, Mr. Williams. I think that this is the first time that I have spoken when you have been in the Chair. I hope that it will happen on many more occasions. The Committees on arms export controls used to be known as the Quadripartite Committee or, more familiarly, the Quad, but we have rebranded in an effort to be more transparent. At least when we say that we are the Committees on arms export controls, the public, the media and perhaps even hon. Members have a clearer idea of what we are about than was the case when we were called the Quad. Obviously, we are four Select Committees—hence the Quad—which come together to consider arms export policy. May I start with a few thanks? First, I thank my colleagues on the Committees for yet again securing a unanimous report. I thank the staff of the Committees for all their efforts. I give particular thanks to our Clerk, Glenn McKee, for his excellent service to the Committees. Finally, I thank all those who gave written and oral evidence to the Committees, and the officials of Departments who had responsibility for preparing answers to our many extremely interesting questions. I am grateful to them all. In the course of the inquiry for the report, we held evidence sessions with the UK Working Group on Arms—a coalition of non-governmental organisations, including Amnesty International UK, Oxfam GB and Saferworld—the Export Group for Aerospace and Defence, which rejoices in the acronym EGAD and is often known as the defence manufacturers; officials from Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the Revenue and Customs Prosecution Office for their expertise on the enforcement of export controls; the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett); and last, but certainly not least, my hon. Friend the Minister, who was at the time an Under-Secretary of State for International Development. I think that he has now been rebranded and is the Under-Secretary of State for trade and development. I hope that I have got that right. I am delighted that he will respond to the debate today. I thank all those who gave evidence to the Committee in one form or another. Self-evidently, our work would have been impossible without their efforts. The Export Control Act 2002 in effect came into force in 2004 and, in accordance with best practice, the Government announced that they would review the legislation last year. That review is under way. There has been the public consultation process. The Government have published their initial response to that consultation, and the debate continues. Inevitably, given the time at which it was published, much of our report is concerned with reviewing the legislation and making proposals that we hope the Government will take up in relation to that review. As I said, we have had an initial response from the Government. I would be grateful if the Minister told us when the Government's final response will be published and when drafts of any secondary legislation will be made available to the NGOs, EGAD and the Committees. There is good news. Let me start with torture equipment. It might sound odd to say that there is good news in that respect, but for the past 10 years, since 1997, there has been a ban on the export and transhipment from the UK of certain equipment designed for the purposes of torture—for example, electric shock batons, stun guns, leg irons, gang chains and electric shock belts. In our previous report, as a result of evidence supplied by Mark Thomas and Amnesty International UK, we called for the immediate banning of additional instruments of torture, including sting sticks. For those who have not seen them, sting sticks are metal rods about 2 to 3 ft in length with barbs sticking out of them. There is not much that a person can do with one of those things other than hit somebody. I am delighted that the Government have announced that they intend to add sting sticks to the list of restricted goods. The Export Control (Security and Para-military Goods) Order 2008 was laid on 10 March and comes into effect on 6 April—I will probably for ever regard it as the Mark Thomas order. Introducing that order is a good thing to do. Sting sticks are another instrument of torture on the restricted list. As the Government say in paragraph 2.2 of their initial response to the consultation,"““Sting sticks are not a general purpose item that could be used in acts of torture. They are designed for the purposes of torture or similar inhumane acts and have no other legitimate use.””" I am not sure about the choice of the word ““legitimate”” there, but I think that we all know what the Government mean. I commend them, as do my colleagues on the Committees, for taking that decision. I also congratulate the Government on their decision to introduce an end-use control on torture equipment. Again, the Committees had been pressing for that. It will enable the UK to license, and therefore refuse, the export of any goods from the UK designed for use in torture or similar acts. For the first time, those who knowingly trade in torture equipment, whether or not it is on the specific list of controlled items, will be covered by the law. The Government need to be congratulated on that. It is a very welcome development in our system of arms export controls. I understand and welcome the Government's intention to introduce that control at EU level. The arms trade, like business generally, is global, and political institutions struggle to catch up with that. One reason why I have a strong interest in international affairs is that I think that, increasingly, countries have to co-operate to arrive at sensible solutions. I therefore welcome the fact that the Government are seeking to introduce the control at EU level, but I would like to make the obvious point about what would happen if by any chance the UK were to be rebuffed by our colleagues in the European Union, and that sane, sensible and long-overdue proposal were not to be agreed by other member states—admittedly, today is not a day to be talking of disagreements in the EU. Will the Minister commit the Government to introducing such a control unilaterally, as they have done in other areas, because that is the right thing to do and would set a good example? I hope that we do not have to do it, but we have to address the need for a general end-use control on torture equipment. Arms brokering and extraterritoriality is another issue that the Committees have been exercised about for many years. We welcomed the extraterritorial controls introduced in the 2002 Act, but we have consistently argued that they should be extended to cover all items on the military list, not just some. Today, UK persons abroad are subject to control only if they trade in long-range missiles—missiles with a range of more than 300 km—or torture equipment, or if they trade to an embargoed destination. It seems to us that any UK person who seeks to avoid UK arms export controls by the simple device of leaving the country should be subject to extraterritorial controls. I am delighted to see that the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) is nodding vigorously. He is right. Labour's 2001 manifesto said:"““We will legislate to modernise the regulation of arms exports, with a licensing system to control the activities of arms brokers and traffickers wherever they are located.””" It does not say control ““some”” activities and it does not exclude some of the most damaging activities. What were excluded, until the Government's recent announcement, and what are excluded until this provision is introduced through secondary legislation, are small arms, light weapons and man-portable air defence systems. Small arms and light weapons kill a person every minute in the world today; 500,000 people—men, women and children—are killed by small arms. Small arms are the current weapons of mass destruction. As of today, they are excluded from our extraterritorial controls. I am delighted—as are the Committees—that the Government have now proposed that UK persons who broker small arms, light weapons and MAN-PADS are to be controlled no matter where they are operating. That is absolutely right. I have to confess that I cannot understand why all conventional weapons are not controlled in that way. The Committees have consistently pressed for that. May I ask the Minister why all items on the military list are not to be listed under the new category 2 and subject to extraterritorial controls? Also, will components, small arms, long-range missiles and MAN-PADS be included in the category 2 controls?