Proceeding contribution from Ian Lucas (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 5 November 2009. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Arms Export Controls.
Arms Export Controls
I understand that it was a joint proposal from the NGOs and the industry. Secondly, on brokers and a register of brokers, it is helpful to make it clear that there is no difficulty in producing a list of individuals who have made applications in respect of export controls. We have a database from which those individuals could be identified. The issue is whether, if one produced a register, one would, in those circumstances, apply criteria to enable individuals to go on it. It is not simply about having a list, but about the importance of the list indicating, perhaps, some measure of respectability. Therefore we have to consider closely how the Government deal with the issue. We looked closely at such a list in 2007, but concluded at the time that it would not be right to introduce a full registration system, because it is not just a list, but a full registration system. However, we are happy to consider it once again when we see how other initiatives work, such as clamping down on people who misuse open licences and focusing our awareness and activity on traders. We need to take into account the burdens that any pre-licensing registration system could impose on legitimate business. I am not sure to what extent the Committee has considered the type of system that may be needed to create a proper register of arms brokers. I do not think that simply producing a list would be an adequate way to address matters. We would have to think carefully about the process. Thirdly, the Government's position on no re-export clauses was originally set out in some detail in a letter dated 19 February 2009, which was sent to the Committee by the Economic Secretary. We do not favour making export licences for supply to licensed production facilities subject to the condition that the underlying supplying contract has a clause preventing re-export without the permission of the UK authorities. That would impose an administrative burden on both us and the exporter and, because both the goods and the re-exporting entity are outside the UK, it would be difficult to enforce in practice. The Committee stated that such a requirement""would send a clear message to both parties to the contract that re-export to certain countries is unacceptable."" That may be so, but it would not necessarily increase our real-world powers to prevent such transfers. I was grateful to the Committee for its kind offer to protect my interests in the event of my responding to a hypothetical situation when something went wrong with a re-export case. However, the purpose of such a clause would not be to provide a fig leaf for Ministers. We need to think about what it would achieve. For example, we need to look at the situation in relation to a contract including a clause for a British company to export to a company from, say, Poland. In those circumstances, if there was a breach of the clause by the Polish company, what action could be taken by any party? It is unlikely that the original party, having included the clause in the contract, would make a voluntary decision to enforce action against the Polish clause.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 498 c342-3WH
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- Westminster Hall
- Subjects
- Accountability Corruption Arms control Arms trade Enforcement Exports Regulation Weapons
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-05 23:20:58 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_592708
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_592708
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_592708