Clause 1 - Export controls
Export Control Bill
11:00 am
Mr Richard Page (South West Hertfordshire, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 1, line 2, leave out `may' and insert `shall'.
In keeping with my comment that I do not want to delay the Committee, I shall be remarkably brief. Hon. Members who have served on a number of Committees will know that ``shall'' and ``may'' are old friends. We have cantered over considerable ground and taken up considerable time debating their relative values, so I shall not spend much time expanding on them.
The purpose of the amendment is to probe the Government's intentions and to ask the Minister to define them a little more closely. That is because we have no secondary legislation against which to evaluate them—that phrase might come up once or twice during the Committee's deliberations. The Minister has been remarkably helpful and has pointed to a pile of legislation in the Room, but that is the old legislation, and we want to see the new legislation.
When the Secretary of State came to the Dispatch Box on Second Reading on 9 July, she stated that the Bill would introduce
``new powers to control the arms trade'',
and we all say amen to that. She said that it would offer
``greater democratic accountability for the exercise of those powers'',
and we all say amen to that. She added that it would ensure that
``Britain cannot be used as a base for''
the illicit
``trafficking and brokering of arms to conflict zones and areas of instability.''
Again, the whole Committee would agree with that. Finally, the Secretary of State noted that the Bill would provide
``one of the most effective and comprehensive export control regimes in the world.''—[Official Report, 9 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 542.]
I want that to happen, because I would like to think that where this country leads, others will follow. Such a development would mean the gradual tightening of control over those who trade illicitly in arms, making it harder for them to operate. That will make the world a safer place. I would like to think that we are as one in moving towards those aims. In all that, there is also the intention to introduce a general licensing system for arms trafficking and brokering.
The terms used by the Secretary of State on Second Reading were unambiguous, and she supported them with moving examples of the suffering caused to individuals and families when arms reached the wrong hands. She drew to our attention some of the terrible circumstances in Africa. In newspapers and other media, we have all seen horrendous scenes; some of them turned my stomach. On Second Reading, she said:
``When we consider the Bill, therefore, let us remember what it will mean to people throughout the world.''—[Official Report, 9 July 2001; Vol. 371, c. 542.]
We would all echo that sentiment.
Clause 1(1) gives the Secretary of State, in a permissive sense, power to make orders to impose controls on the export of any goods, and to make provision about matters connected with the imposition of export controls. The word used is ``may''. It is a logical possibility that he or she, depending on who is Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, may decide not to make orders imposing such controls in general or specific terms. If he or she failed to do so, the commitments made on Second Reading would not be honoured. That would breach a promise. Through the amendment, my hon. Friends and I invite the Government to convert the promises into an obligation to the House and the country to meet the general and specific needs.