---

Strategic Export Controls

It is a pleasure to follow again in the wake of the hon. Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry). Once again, with much efficiency and great capability, he has taken the Committees on strategic export controls through another year of scrutiny of this complex but extremely important policy area. I shall deal with just two policy areas, one of which he referred to and the other of which he no doubt did not have time to include in his remarks. I shall start by putting the issue of extra-territoriality into simple terms. It is the key issue of how far the UK criminal law should be extended overseas to ensure that British traffickers and brokers of arms transactions do not escape British criminal law by carrying on overseas transactions what would be criminal offences, if they were carried out within the UK. The principle of extraterritoriality is no longer contentious. While we were working to produce the latest report, the Library kindly researched the issue, and the fruits of that research are published in the annexe to our report. Hon. Members will see that there are 25 separate items of existing legislation that extend extraterritoriality in one sphere or another. Interestingly, that legislation goes back some 150 years. Our distinguished Victorian predecessors, when they passed the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, apparently became the first Parliament to extend extraterritoriality to bigamy, which I am sure hon. Members will endorse as an excellent decision. That has continued through 24 other separate pieces of legislation, right up to the Terrorism Act 2006. The difference between the Committees and the Government is therefore no longer one of principle; indeed, the former Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Leicester, West (Ms Hewitt) conceded the principle of extending extraterritoriality to the trafficking and brokering of arms five years ago. Sadly, although she conceded the principle when she introduced her legislation, she did not concede about 99.9 per cent. recurring of the substance. At one end of the scale, she extended extraterritoriality to instruments of torture, while at the other end—certainly in terms of range—she extended it to long-range ground-to-ground missiles with a range of more than 300 km. As we all know, however, virtually all trafficking and brokering of arms takes place in other categories of weapons and munitions, all of which escaped the initial provisions that the Government laid down five years ago. I acknowledge that the Government have made some significant progress, and I applaud them for that, but we have not gone as far as the Committees would wish. We made our consistent position quite clear in a previous report, when we said:"““We conclude that the Government should bring forward proposals to extend the extra-territorial provisions of the export control legislation to encompass trade in all items on the Military List.””" In the document that they published in February, entitled ““Review of Export Control Legislation (2007): Government's Initial Response to the Public Consultation”” the Government extended extraterritoriality to small arms, light weapons, man-portable weapons—MANPADS —some but not all cluster munitions and unmanned air vehicles or UAVs. Given that the Government have made those concessions, the Minister may feel that it is somewhat churlish to press for more, but I have no hesitation at all about doing so. As I see it, the Government have ended the anomaly of conceding the principle without offering anything of substance, but they have ended up with an even more glaring set of anomalies, given the weapons that have now been brought within the ambit of extraterritoriality and those that have been left outside. I have combed through the initial decision document, and I want to highlight some of those anomalies. Extraterritoriality will, for example, be extended to man-portable weapons, but it will be excluded from vehicle-portable weapons. Extraterritoriality will be extended to dumb cluster bombs, but it will be excluded from smart cluster bombs. Extraterritoriality will be extended to mortars up to 75 mm in calibre, but it will be excluded from mortars over 75 mm in calibre. Extraterritoriality will be extended to unmanned military aircraft, but it will be excluded from manned military aircraft, both helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. Extraterritoriality will be extended to surface-to-air missiles, which are primarily defensive, but it will be excluded from air-to-surface missiles, which are primarily offensive. Extraterritoriality will be extended to surface-to-surface missiles of more than 300 km in range, but it will be excluded from surface-to-surface missiles of less than 300 km in range. I will not take up more of hon. Members' time by going through the anomalies, but hon. Members will understand—certainly if they go through the document—that it is not difficult to compile a list of scores more of the anomalies that are being created by the Government's position. Like the hon. Member for Kingswood, I ask the Minister why the Government have not accepted the Committees' recommendation. What is the case for not doing so? The Government have got themselves hooked on a most appallingly difficult series of anomalies by proceeding in the way in which they have. I cannot believe that they do not accept the desirability of the principle that we advocate of extending extraterritoriality so that the arm of the British criminal law can reach British traffickers and brokers overseas who are involved in transactions that would be criminal offences in the UK. Surely the Government believe that that is an immensely desirable principle, and I cannot believe that they do not understand the desirability of extending it in that way. I do not for one moment believe that they want to connive in British persons evading criminal jurisdiction, so why do they not accept the Committees' recommendation? The case is overwhelming. The Government have published what they say are their initial decisions, but they have not reached their final conclusions, even at this late moment. Again, I urge the Minister and his colleagues in the Government to accept in full the recommendations of the Committees on strategic export controls. The second issue that I want to raise is the continuation of the EU-China arms embargo. The hon. Member for Kingswood said that this was not the day for controversy over anything relating to the EU, but there are slight differences within the EU on this issue, and I have no qualms about raising it even today. The Committees' position is extremely clear. In our report, we said:"““We reaffirm the recommendation we made in our last Report that the Government work within the EU to maintain the arms embargo on the People's Republic of China.””" Those in the EU who campaigned with considerable vigour last year for the lifting of the EU-China arms embargo must be extremely relieved that their campaign has not been successful. If it had been—given what has happened in Tibet over the past two or three weeks—they would be subject to considerable criticism and derision, which would fully justified in the light of the events that have been reported to us.