Mr Nigel Griffiths (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Edinburgh South, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 56, in page 4, line 7, after `disposal;' insert—

`( ) their movement;'.

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this we may discuss Government amendments Nos. 57, 59, 60 and 61.

Mr Nigel Griffiths (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Edinburgh South, Labour)

Amendments Nos. 56, 57, 59, 60 and 61 seek to ensure that the Government have the power to introduce controls on the movement of controlled goods where there is no acquisition or disposal and there are no activities facilitating or otherwise connected with acquisition or disposal.

We need the amendments to ensure that we can implement our commitment to introduce controls on trade to embargoed destinations that are analogous to those introduced under UN sanctions and embargo orders. UN trade embargoes seek to control not only those who sell or supply goods to an embargoed destination, but those who deliver goods in their ownership to the embargoed territory. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the Government should have powers under the Bill to introduce trade controls for any embargoed destination that are as comprehensive as those introduced under the United Nations Act 1946 to implement binding UN embargoes. Adding movement to the list of activities that can be regulated under the clause will allow us to do that.

The amendments also give the Government the option of implementing trade controls imposed by EU embargoes by orders under the Bill, rather than the European Communities Act 1972. Evasion of such controls will then attract the 10-year maximum penalty allowed under the Bill, rather than the two-year maximum penalty possible under the Act. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that it is desirable for the Government to be able to implement fully under the Bill trade controls that are analogous to those introduced under UN sanctions, and I invite hon. Members to support the amendments.

Mr Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)

We support the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 57, in page 4, line 9, leave out `or disposal' and insert `, disposal or movement'.—[Nigel Griffiths.]

Mr Nigel Griffiths (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Edinburgh South, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 4, line 10, leave out subsection (3).

The removal of subsection (3) is necessary to remove a potential loophole, whereby brokers or traffickers who deliberately arranged for goods to be shipped via the UK might have been able to claim that they were immune from the controls. The subsection was originally included to ensure that brokers did not require both an export licence and a trading licence for the same transactions. However, that can be achieved in secondary legislation and the Government have concluded that that approach would be better in this case. That is reflected in the dummy orders. I hope that the Committee will share the Government's wish to tighten up the Bill in this respect, and I invite hon. Members to support the amendment.

Mr Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)

With the caveat that I mentioned earlier, that I am suspicious always of secondary legislation replacing primary legislation, and that the matter should be fully aired in consultation, I am fully prepared to support the amendment, which appears practical.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 59, in page 4, line 21, leave out `or disposal' and insert `, disposal or movement'.

No. 60, in page 4, line 24, leave out from `gift' to end of line and insert `;and'.—[Nigel Griffiths.]

Mr Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen North, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 27, leave out from `(c)' to end of line 29 and insert

`financing, transportation, freight-forwarding, or taking any other action (or agreeing with another to do so) that facilitates the manufacture, export or import of a defence article or defence service, irrespective of its origin, are activities which facilitate the acquisition or disposal of goods'.

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

With this we may take amendment No. 66, in page 4, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph 5(c) and insert—

`( ) activities which facilitate the acquisition or disposal of goods include transporting, freight forwarding, mediating, insuring, financing, advertising or promoting.'.

Mr Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen North, Labour)

I welcome the comments that the Minister made at the outset of our deliberations, to say that we must take into account the tragic events in the United States and their relevance to the Bill. In that spirit we need to examine every issue as carefully as we can. We need to show the maximum flexibility.

I welcome the news that the Government are minded to proceed in that way, and particularly my hon. Friend's statement that there would be a significant consultative period for the secondary legislation, and that the industry and non-governmental organisations would be included in extensive public consultation. I also welcome amendment No. 59, which relates to movement and thus shifts the debate towards one of the issues that I shall raise in moving my amendment—transportation. That issue is explicit in some of the draft orders and in the Bill, for example in relation to embargoed destinations, torture equipment and long-range missile technology. However, I am anxious that we should deal with it clearly in other respects.

With respect to embargoed destinations, certain important matters are covered. However, although Afghanistan—to take the example that we are thinking about at present—would be an embargoed destination, many of the neighbouring countries would not be. We would need to ensure that there was provision for situations in which equipment might be transported to neighbouring countries and supplied to Mr. bin Laden's organisation, or any sister organisations. Transport is not just a theoretical issue. There are allegations of British companies being involved in transporting weapons to, for example, rebel forces in Liberia, Sudan and India. Whether those allegations prove true or false, India is not an embargoed destination.

The amendment relates not just to transport but to freight forwarding, by which I mean the organisation and administration of transport, and to financing. I am encouraged by the Minister's amendments on movement, but I am concerned about the wording in the dummy order on trade in controlled goods, which states:

``Paragraphs (2) and (3) shall not apply to any person whose sole involvement in relation to the acquisition or disposal of any controlled goods is to provide or agree to provide—

(a) transportation services,

(b) financing or financial services,

(c) insurance services, or

(d) general advertising or promotion services.''

It strikes me that—especially in the context of the interview that the Prime Minister gave at the weekend, in which he said that we must control all aspects of the provision of weapons to such organisations—it is vital to ensure that we cover all such areas. It is also integral to what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in the House yesterday concerning the finance-related legislation that the Government intend to introduce. Finance is a vital part of the whole process. The purpose of the amendment is to gain an assurance from the Minister that there will be a careful attempt to close every possible loophole in relation to all aspects of the export of dangerous weapons or materials to illicit groups or to countries to which we would not want to see such things exported.

Dr Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)

Amendment No. 66 is in a similar vein and seeks to include activities that facilitate the acquisition or disposal of goods including transporting—which the Government amendments have covered—and freight forwarding, and also mediating, insuring, financing, advertising or promoting. I shall not repeat the speech that has just been made—that would be tedious—but it is important to incorporate the amendments and to ensure that the Minister intends to include all those activities, as his colleagues in the House said yesterday. It was intended that all be covered. May we have an assurance that all will be covered?

Mr Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)

I believe that the Minister will provide a satisfactory answer in this case. However, I share the concerns of the hon. Members for Richmond Park and for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge). I shall ask the Minister in a moment to clarify why, on page 37 of the Customs and Excise dummy draft statutory instrument, there is a long list of countries and destinations referred to in article 9 but then the Customs and Excise [Embargoed Destination] (Sanctions) Order—the one at the back of the dummy pack—says on page 6,

``Schedule, Controlled Goods specify the goods covered''

and there is a blank page. I wonder whether there is a reason for the blank page. Perhaps he considers that the list on page 37 is adequate. Although the Government have made a great effort to address the issue of control on movement, there seems to be a mismatch here and I shall be grateful to hear a logical explanation, if that is at all possible in the time available. I expect that if I wait for just a few more minutes, one will be forthcoming. It is extremely important. No one has suggested that it should not happen, so I do not seek to oppose the Government. Perhaps this is not the right moment and it should be done when we consider secondary legislation. However, as the Minister was kind enough to let us see the dummy orders and to start today's proceedings with some advice on them, I thought that this might be the opportunity to probe further.

Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)

I do not want to add much more, save to associate myself with the concerns that have been expressed on this point—in particular, as a lawyer, with that of the hon. Gentleman, who confesses to not being one, about the mismatch between the amendments that the Minister has tabled and the specific exclusion of transportation services in the order.

I would go further. A real cause for concern occurs within the dummy order on trade in controlled goods, page 3, paragraph 5(b), which has been referred to, concerning the financing or financial services that must back up the movement, which—it is now clear—will be included in the legislation while specifically excluded from the secondary legislation. Similarly, the advertising or promotion services that must back up the distribution and transportation are now specifically included in the primary legislation but excluded from the secondary legislation. I find it difficult to comprehend how the amendments could permit of that express exclusion, which seems to be part and parcel of similar areas of trade in such goods.

I add my anxieties to those already expressed and exemplified in those particular ways. I query paragraph 5(a) and I wonder whether paragraphs 5(b) and 5(d) are not part of what is now to be found in primary legislation.

Mr Nigel Griffiths (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Edinburgh South, Labour)

I believe that we all share the concerns that have been voiced in respect of the amendments. However, I must tell the Committee that, by listing precise activities, the amendments may narrow our powers. It is important to maintain the broad scope of the powers contained in clause 5.

I confirm at the outset that, under the clause, the Secretary of State would be able to impose controls on financing, transportation, freight forwarding, insuring, mediating and advertising or promotion activities in relation to trade between overseas countries. The dummy orders make it clear that we intend to use the powers in clause 5 in full to control the supply or delivery, or any acts calculated to promote the supply and delivery, of arms to embargoed destinations. We intend also to introduce controls on the supply or delivery and acts calculated to promote the supply or delivery of torture equipment and long-range missiles to any destination.

Those controls are intended to catch financing, transportation, freight forwarding, insuring, mediating, advertising or promotion activities. Indeed, we consider that those activities are already caught by orders made under the United Nations Act 1946, which implement binding UN arms embargoes, on which the new controls are modelled.

The powers provided in clause 5 are deliberately couched in general terms. Clause 5(2)(b) refers to

``activities which facilitate or are otherwise connected''

with trade in controlled goods, including their acquisition or disposal. Those general terms are necessary to ensure that the powers granted are broad enough to cover the activities that we may need to be controlled in the orders.

It is important to maintain the broad scope of the power in clause 5. However, we consider that the wide-ranging controls that we plan to impose in relation to embargoed destinations, torture equipment and missiles are justified. Our aim is essentially to prohibit involvement in that sort of trade. A licence would be provided only in the most exceptional circumstances, such as for the supply of equipment to peacekeeping forces.

However, it would not be appropriate for the controls on trafficking and brokering of all military equipment to any destination to apply to those whose sole involvement is in finance, transportation, insurance or general advertising or promotional services. That would impose an unjustified and heavy burden on those sectors. Imposing controls on the advertising or general marketing of military equipment would be difficult to justify and impractical to police. It would not be practical to operate such a regime. However, the regime does apply to those who mediate or broker such deals. In learning from other countries, which claim to have tough arms-control regulations but which have failed for one reason or another to enforce them, we are driven to make the legislation as practical as possible. We believe that it does so without the amendment.

Ms Vera Baird (Redcar, Labour)

The Minister spoke about the danger of narrowing the ambit of clause 5(2)(b) by specifying the activities in the amendments. That could easily be dealt with. Clause 5(2)(b) reads:

``activities which facilitate or are otherwise connected with their acquisition or disposal''.

If that is intended to cover the activities mentioned in amendments Nos. 2 and 66, there seems no harm whatever to be derived from stating that the provision will include, although not exclusively, those activities and so listing them. If the Minister intends that those activities should be covered, listing them would greatly reassure hon. Members. Will he further consider that possibility?

Mr Nigel Griffiths (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Edinburgh South, Labour)

No, I do not believe that I can reassure my hon. Friend of that. The intention is clear. We must not allow ourselves, or any Government or their agents, to be bogged down in chasing individual financing or individual insurance. That would divert vital arms-monitoring resources from the illegal and immoral arms dealers, those who are in breach of United Nations embargoes or other embargoes or will be in breach of the terms of the Bill. Such brokers and traffickers are the people on whom we want to focus our attention.

As I have said, if the experience of other countries is anything to go by, the more a country has talked tough, the less enforcement there has been. Such countries are trying—not very successfully, as we know from the trade in illegal arms—to crack down on problems that are not at the core of what we are trying to tackle in the Bill. The Bill is crafted to give us among the toughest, and certainly the most practical and enforceable legislation. That is why it is so framed.

Mr Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen North, Labour)

I said that the amendment was a probing amendment so I did not intend to press it. Obviously, one would want the clause to be as broad as possible, and I totally accept that I would want it to be enforceable rather than simply to appear tough.

I stress, however, that I mentioned that I recognised the fact that provision of the type for which I asked was specifically included in relation to missiles, torture equipment and embargo destinations. I am still puzzled as to why we should therefore definitely rule it out in relation to other material that could be dangerous. In light of the events of 11 September, it is crucial that we show the maximum flexibility possible.

My gravest concern is not on the clause, but on the dummy orders and whether the exclusion should be so explicit. I feel strongly that the conscious and knowing financing or transportation of materials is a serious issue. That seems precisely in line with comments made by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others. I hope that it can be thought about carefully, especially in consideration of the final terms of the dummy orders and in the consultation that the Government will have with organisations. I recognise that the concerns of industry and the finance world would have to be reasonably protected, but we have properly recognised in the past few weeks that control of financing and transportation can be a vital part of the fight against terror and the appalling dangers that may face us in coming decades.

With those appeals to the Minister, I will be content to withdraw my amendment.

Mr Nigel Griffiths (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Edinburgh South, Labour)

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. We are, of course, working with the Home Office on the emergency legislation and we will ensure close co-operation to get the proper legislation to prevent and deter terrorism.

My hon. Friend makes an important point when he says that the orders are dummy orders and the matter has been put out to consultation. His arguments and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and other members of the Committee have been noted, and I expect that we shall receive submissions on the matter. I have set out clearly my desire to produce workable and practical but tough legislation. I look forward to reading the considered views of others on the dummy orders.

Dr Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)

I should like to echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North. The remarks that were prepared for the Minister so that he could respond to our questions this morning seem to have been drafted before 11 September. I get the feeling that those who wrote them have not thought, ``Hey, this is a whole new ball game; we've got to think about this in broader terms.'' As the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North said, the purpose of amendments Nos. 2 and 66 was to encompass remarks that had been made by the Secretaries of State of other Departments, and by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister. I am slightly reassured to hear that the Minister understands that, and that the issue will be incorporated in the consultation, which is becoming very technical. However, I want to impress it on him that the Committee represents a perfect opportunity to tighten things up and introduce legislation that is relevant to the current situation, for which we would otherwise have to wait months. It seems a pity to lose this opportunity. I will not press amendment No. 66, but I hope that the clause will be strengthened later in the Bill's passage.

Mr Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen North, Labour)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 61, in page 4, leave out lines 26 to 29 and insert—

`( ) For the purposes of this section (without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2)(b))—

(a) the making of an agreement with another to acquire, dispose of or move goods, and

(b) the making of arrangements under which another person—

(i) acquires, disposes of or moves goods; or

(ii) agrees with a third person to acquire, dispose of or move goods, are activities which facilitate the acquisition, disposal or movement of the goods.'—[Nigel Griffiths.]

Dr Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 67, in page 4, line 30, leave out from `controls' to end of line 32 and insert—

`shall be imposed on all acts committed by persons in the United Kingdom and on all acts committed by United Kingdom persons wherever located.'.

The subject of arms brokering and the activities of arms traffickers is very dear to Liberal Democrat hearts. It seems to us that, using modern technology such as laptop computers and mobile phones, it is now the easiest thing in the world, if a person's activities as an arms broker are banned in, say, Surrey, for them to nip across to their house in the Caribbean or in mainland Europe and carry on their activities there.

It seems extraordinary that the Government should not want to include the activities of arms brokers—wherever they are—in the scope of the Bill. Indeed, the Government's manifesto commitment was to control the activities of arms brokers and traffickers wherever they were located. There was no intention, in the Labour party's manifesto, to limit the legislation to these shores.

If the legislation does not cover such activities, those who conduct them will simply step out of the country to conduct the brokering deals and they will be perfectly safe. German controls suffer from this weakness, applying only to people who conduct their activities on German territory. Brinley Salzmann, exports director of the Defence Manufacturers Association, in his evidence to the Quadripartite Committee, said that the German system

``catches the good guys and the bad guys have moved to Cyprus.''

By contrast, United States legislation controls brokering activities by US persons who operate overseas, and US officials believe—I hope that they still believe—that that has significant deterrent effect. Precedent exists for the exercise of such extra-territorial powers in the UK. For example, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 applies to people abroad, as do the Chemical Weapons Act 1996, the Sex Offenders Act 1997 and the Landmines Act 1998, so why should legislation on arms brokering not do so?

There is international consensus on the fact that arms brokering is a reprehensible activity in most cases, and that concerted action is needed involving the take-up of extra-territorial jurisdiction. The negotiations in the lead-up to the July 2001 United Nations conference on illicit trade in small arms and light weapons demonstrate growing international consensus to suggest that brokering is in urgent need of international regulation, with the UK taking a lead in pushing for a legally binding convention on arms brokering—so why has the loophole been allowed to stay in the Bill?

I hope that the Minister will take the subject seriously. It calls into question the passion and seriousness with which the Government take the control of arms. I do not know why they have left out arms brokers who operate abroad. I feel passionately that the subject should be part of the Bill, and I hope that he gives us an adequate answer.

Mr Gerald Howarth (Aldershot, Conservative)

I explicitly understand what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve. She made her case clear; she wants to ensure that UK citizens, subjects of Her Majesty the Queen, wherever they may operate, will not be able to escape the effect of the proposed law. However, I am not clear about what the clause will do to meet the hon. Lady's objectives and to deal with Her Majesty's subjects.

The clause states:

``Trade controls may be imposed on acts done outside the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man, but only if they are done by a person who is, or is acting under the control of, a United Kingdom person.''

``United Kingdom person'' is a defined term. Acts done by a UK citizen will clearly be caught, I should have thought, and I am sure that that is what the Minister will argue. However, I wonder what will happen to a person who acts under the control of a UK person.

In many military defence contracts, much of the negotiation is carried out using consultants and agents in foreign countries. I can think back many years to a country such as Nigeria, for example, where Britain had some important defence contracts in the 1970s and 1980s. As I recall, agents were often employed. I would like to know from the Minister whether the measure would apply to agents acting on behalf of the UK, even though they were not UK citizens. That raises rather important constitutional points. I am not sure how, constitutionally, we can exercise control over foreign nationals who carry out legitimate activities on their own territory outside the United Kingdom. It is important for the Minister to clarify whether the Government intend the Bill to extend to foreign nationals operating in their own country. If not, what is meant by

``a person who is, or is acting under the control of, a United Kingdom person''

where that person is not a citizen of the United Kingdom—not, indeed, a subject of Her Majesty?

Mr Nigel Griffiths (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Edinburgh South, Labour)

The amendment would require trade controls introduced by the Secretary of State to apply to all acts carried out in the United Kingdom and all acts done outside it by UK persons. No exceptions would be made for particular types of activities. The Government's proposed controls under clause 5 would apply to acts carried out in the UK and to the activities of UK persons overseas. The wording that the hon. Member for Aldershot raised is intended to ensure that a United Kingdom national cannot get round the controls by instructing a foreign national overseas to act on his or her behalf. However, the controls that are being set up apply to trafficking and brokering to embargoed destinations. It is intended that they should apply to activities capable of being controlled under the clause.

The real issue is what would happen if a UK national nipped across to the Caribbean and took part, to use the example given by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, in illegal trafficking or brokering. The answer is that the minute such a person returned to Britain they would be arrested. It could not be plainer than that. I shall give another example. If that person, perhaps a UK national by birth, was living in North Korea and was trafficking or brokering in arms between North Korea and another regime in that part of the world, under the hon. Lady's amendment there would be an obligation for us to request extradition, to send someone to interview the person concerned, and thus to tie up people in a way that would be impractical.

I notice that the hon. Lady praised the United States system, and I draw her attention to the comments of the Campaign Against Arms Trade against that system. It states in one of its most recent briefings:

``The US has one of the strongest export control regimes in the world, with legislation making the `diversion of technologies to unauthorized uses and prohibited third parties' illegal.''

However, it states that

```inadequate enforcement' means that there are frequent abuses''.

We plan through the Bill to crack down on the abuses and abusers within our jurisdiction, to our maximum ability.

Dr Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)

I am a little mystified about an earlier remark by the Minister that extradition would be required to get at a British national who was living abroad and acting as an arms broker. I thought that we believed in extradition and wanted people who were guilty of crimes to be extradited to this country, if necessary. Surely there is a basis for that in international law.

Mr Nigel Griffiths (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Edinburgh South, Labour)

I am not sure whether I chose the right example, as I do not know whether we have an extradition treaty with North Korea. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, South (Mr. Pearson) has informed me that we do not. There are many other such countries. That brings me back to remarks that I have often made in the Committee and in the Chamber, to the effect that the best way to control arms is to ensure that the maximum number of countries adhere to UN, EU and other international embargoes. That is why we devote efforts to ensuring that all countries subscribe to the sort of tough arms regime that will allow the enforcement of UN and other embargoes and will de-escalate world conflicts that have brought such misery. The tracking down of UK nationals who may be involved in illegal activities and who are either based in Britain or trading abroad and returning to Britain is one of the core aims of the Bill.

However, as I know from the briefings that I have received from NGOs, we are dealing with resourceful, cunning and deceitful people trafficking illegally in such arms and the technologies associated with them, in breach of UN embargoes and in a way that leaves behind little trace. Under the legislation, if such people swan back here from the Caribbean or, as in the example that I have provided, from North Korea—if they set foot in Britain—they can be arrested. It is important to ensure that such practical measures, which have not hitherto been available, are put in place and that such people are tracked down and dealt with. That is the important reason why we have framed the Bill as we have.

I will repeat the criticisms that have been made by others—I have no knowledge of them—of the United States. In the words of the Campaign Against Arms Trade, it is pointless having a regime such as that of the US, which includes everything that people are calling for such as extradition of nationals wherever they are and prior parliamentary scrutiny of measures, if the enforcement regime is weak. The Bill contains the necessary steps to give us among the toughest and most practical regimes in the world, so that the sorts of criticisms that are made of regimes in other countries do not apply to us.

The amendment is not practical and would not help to further the aims of the Bill. Rather, it would divert resources that I and, I believe, the Committee and the public would much prefer to be focused on and channelled into intelligence on the arms brokers and traders who may be operating offshore and using other devices to avoid being caught by existing legislation. They will be caught in an effective manner.

Mr Gerald Howarth (Aldershot, Conservative)

May I ask the Minister to deal with a point that I raised? I am not sure whether he has addressed it. What is the status of someone who is not a British subject, but who is nevertheless instrumental in facilitating this trade of which we disapprove? Is the Bill intended to encompass such people?

Mr Nigel Griffiths (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Edinburgh South, Labour)

Yes, my understanding is that the intention is to encompass them. If they came to the United Kingdom for any purpose, they would be caught.

Let me be clear on that—I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman's point and would like to retract what I just said. It is the UK citizen who is instructing that foreign national who would be caught by the legislation, not the foreign national himself or herself.

Dr Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)

I am pretty disappointed by what the Minister has said. It sounds as though he is saying that it is all too difficult and would not really work. The implication is that we cannot introduce a law that might not be efficient, even though the United States of America—

Mr Nigel Griffiths (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Edinburgh South, Labour)

Has an efficient one?

Dr Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)

We are living in times when we need all sorts of measures to tackle these problems, and it seems to me that we are not trying hard enough.

Dr Phyllis Starkey (Milton Keynes South West, Labour)

Clearly everyone agrees that we need to take the action necessary in response to the 11 September attack. However, is the hon. Lady not in danger of suggesting that we should make a meaningless gesture that we know will not be effective, just to demonstrate that we are doing something?

Dr Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)

No. I am thinking about the comic sketch—does anyone know it?—in which they say, ``Now is the time in war to make a futile gesture''. This is not a futile gesture; it is something that I feel very strongly about. If United Kingdom citizens are trafficking arms or drugs anywhere in the world, they should be covered by this law and we should do something about them. I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Nigel Griffiths (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Edinburgh South, Labour)

I respect the hon. Lady's sentiments. However, is she telling us that the chief constable in her constituency should divert police resources to a wild goose chase—round the world to North Korea, for example—to arrest someone who, perhaps, left Britain with her or his parents when aged one or two, has never been back and never intends to come back? My constituents and, I suspect, most other constituents would not want that to be done when the outcome is likely to be resistance by the other country to extradition, and fruitless and expensive court battles. We would divert attention from those who might—as the hon. Lady suggested in her example—be nipping off to the Caribbean and coming back. First and foremost, those are the people we want to get hold of. Under present legislation, we have been unable to do so effectively.

I am sorry that this intervention is slightly lengthy. Surely we should have in place the practical measures that many of us have longed for for many years, rather than a raft of completely impractical ones that cause us to end up with a regime that is criticised by key NGOs concerned with the issue as being hopeless and ineffective.

Dr Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)

I simply ask the Minister why this can be operated in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, the Chemical Weapons Act 1996, the Sex Offenders Act 1997 and in landmine legislation but not in the Export Control Bill. Answer comes there none.

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

Order. The Minister was intervening before the hon. Lady came back with a further question. Is it the hon. Lady's wish to press the amendment?

Dr Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)

Yes.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 1, Noes 10.

Mr Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)

We have aired several concerns about the clause and will not oppose it. However, I want to flag up worries that have been expressed to us by industry, especially by those most directly affected by the clause. They are concerned, again, at the vague words used, such as ``acts'' in line 30 of page 4. What is an act? They are worried that it might mean anything from placing an order to making a sales pitch, or simply agreeing to go to a trade exhibition. The word is extremely vague and I am not sure that the problem will be dealt with in secondary legislation either.

I give the example to flag up the fact that although the industrial concerns affected by the Bill by and large accept the need for clause 5, they have some reservations that it is right for the Opposition to express.

Mr Gerald Howarth (Aldershot, Conservative)

I wish to support the reservations that my hon. Friend expressed. I also want to reassert the point that the Committee must be under no illusions: however tightly the Government try to draw legislation to encompass those who traffic in illegal weapons and so on, there is a grave risk that the people caught and hampered will be engaged in legitimate activity, and that those who are the targets of such measures will still get away with impunity. As the hon. Member for Richmond Park suggested, they will be beyond the reach of UK law.

The Minister accepted that such people would not be touchable until they came back to UK soil. He is right, and I do not think that there is another way around it. Look how long Ronnie Biggs was capable of sweating it out in Brazil after the great train robbery. We have a limited opportunity to deal with the criminals, and I am concerned that the controls on trade in controlled goods will impose considerable burdens on industry.

The dummy orders, which were delivered to us at the end of last week, are relevant as they set out the controlled goods. To be perfectly candid, having glanced through them, I have no clue what azidomethylmethyloxetane is and nor, I suspect, does 99.99 per cent. recurring of the population of the UK. We are simply incapable of interpreting the documents. Do Ministers feel that they have covered the ground comprehensively? I am sure that some wretched chemical has been omitted, probably because someone cannot spell it. The documents are extremely extensive.

Like my hon. Friend, I have spoken to the Defence Manufacturers Association, which has not had the chance to go through the dummy orders. It did not even know that they had been published. Throughout our proceedings on the Bill, we have criticised the Government about the fact that we have debated controls on the trade in controlled goods without having a definition of what controlled goods were. We now have those definitions, but only at the end of the summer recess, and no one has had a chance to go through them.

I am disappointed that the Government have failed to produce the dummy orders—that is probably a good description of them—until now, and that they do not appear to have made them available to industry in time for it to comment. The Committee has not had time to receive such comments, so we have not been able to feed them in and hold Ministers accountable for the orders on the concerns that are certain to be raised by industry.

I hope that you will agree, Mr. Benton, that it is entirely appropriate that my criticisms of the Government should be levelled now, and that Ministers should make themselves available to answer them. They cannot make themselves available to the Committee now because of the 12-week consultation process. In my view, that is constitutionally improper.

The dummy orders came out on Friday. They are an integral part of the legislation. The Committee has had an opportunity to assess the dummy orders, yet they are couched in language that most of us will fail to comprehend; and the industries to which the orders will apply, and against which substantial and draconian penalties will be imposed if they transgress the orders, have been unable to comment or to let us have their views. We are therefore about to give the Government a blank cheque on the control of trade in controlled goods provided under clause 5.

Mr. Ian Pearson (Dudley, South) indicated dissent.

Mr Gerald Howarth (Aldershot, Conservative)

It is no good for the Whip to shake his head. It is constitutionally outrageous that we should have come to this pass. The Government have had the whole summer in which to bring the dummy orders forward. The Opposition made it perfectly plain—I believe that if they had any concern or respect for Parliament, Labour Members would feel the same—that we were to debate the Bill in advance of having the meat of it. That is why we dealt with the clauses in the order set by you, Mr. Benton, because it enabled us to deal with those matters last.

I register the strongest possible protest that we should have been dealt with in that way. I realise that the Government now have other things on their mind, but they could have brought the dummy orders out long before now, allowing industry to consider them during the summer so that we would now have its comments. As it is, we have been presented with 50 pages of detailed regulation that most of us are unable to understand and over which we cannot hold the Government to account. I must tell the Minister that that is not acceptable.

Mr Nigel Griffiths (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Edinburgh South, Labour)

I warmly commend the clause to the Committee. It allows for the introduction of controls over trafficking and brokering. At present, we have no power to impose controls on trafficking or brokering except when they are needed to implement binding commitments to the UN. It is vital that the Government should have the power to control trafficking and brokering in goods the export of which is subject to control, particularly to help prevent the supply of arms to regions of instability or conflict.

We intend to use the power first to impose controls on the supply and delivery by persons in the UK, or UK persons abroad, of arms to any embargoed destination. We intend to impose similar controls on the supply and delivery of long-range missiles and equipment for which we have evidence that they are used in torture, the export of which we have already banned to any destination.

Secondly, we intend to introduce controls on trafficking and brokering between overseas countries of all military and paramilitary equipment the export of which is controlled. That will involve a major expansion of the licensing regime. We believe that it is justified to help prevent the UK being used as a base from which to supply weapons to regions in or on the brink of conflict, while allowing legitimate trade by British defence companies to continue. I assure the hon. Member for Aldershot that whatever his postal arrangements, the dummy orders were available on Wednesday, and my officials were, rightly, in contact with the Defence Manufacturers Association on that day to alert it to that fact, having ensured that Members of Parliament had access to the orders first.

Mr Gerald Howarth (Aldershot, Conservative)

The Minister knows perfectly well what his parliamentary colleagues' arrangements are. The House was not sitting. We were, mostly, in our constituencies. The orders arrived on the Friday, so I got them on the Saturday. I did not have the chance, because I had other commitments over the weekend, to examine them, so the first real chance that I had to do so was yesterday. It is disrespectful to Parliament to present this detailed document of 50 or 60 pages a couple of days before the Committee is due to meet. In respect of the Defence Manufacturers Association, I spoke to the director, General Alan Sharman, and he said that the first that he knew of the matter was when he was alerted to it by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury. He had to look up the orders on the website. There is clearly a difference of view between the Minister and General Sharman.

Mr Nigel Griffiths (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department of Trade and Industry; Edinburgh South, Labour)

I do not know what the General's internal communication arrangements are, but I can assure the Committee that my information is that the DMA was informed on the day that the orders were published. The hon. Gentleman made a legitimate point about how dense, detailed and complicated the orders are, but that is why we supplied him with advisory notes as well. We hope that they will be helpful in formulating his response and the Opposition response to the orders, as part of the consultation process that I outlined in my initial statement to the Committee.

I know that in spite of some slight differences, the whole Committee recognises the importance of being able to take action on trafficking and brokering, so I urge the Committee to agree that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 13, Noes 3.