New Clause 1 - End-use monitoring
Export Control Bill
10:15 am
Mr Robert Key (Salisbury, Conservative)
The issues raised by the hon. Gentleman occupy a great deal of time and concern among a wide range of people in our constituencies. I am sure that all hon. Members present have received correspondence on the matter from individual constituents and groups—pressure groups, non-governmental organisations and others.
I quote two examples of such representations, one of which was forwarded to me by my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) from the St. Mary's justice and peace group in Chippenham. Mr. Edmund Johnstone writes that there
``is no mention of overseas development in the Schedule. A clause is required which takes into account negative effects on overseas development. Such a clause did appear in the draft Bill published earlier this year.''
I should be very grateful for a brief explanation as to why that clause disappeared from the draft Bill and whether Mr Johnstone is correct. Like the St. Mary's justice and peace group, many people are encouraged by much of the Bill. However, they are concerned about the manufacture of products overseas, which is the subject of new clause 2, and about the general lack of controls.
I have read an interesting letter from Hilary Fenten on behalf of the Settle Northern Friends peace group, which the Quakers in Settle founded to support the work of the Northern Friends Peace Board. It refers to the need to control production under licence overseas, and to unilateral arms embargoes. In its helpful answer to a parliamentary question by the hon. Member for Elmet (Colin Burgon), which has been circulated to members of the Committee, the Department states:
``The Government will press for international embargoes to be imposed on countries in conflict''
as a result of the consultations that they have undertaken. That is important.
On the substance of new clause 1, we are surely all in favour of monitoring. That is exactly what Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff do at diplomatic missions overseas; they are aware of what is going on. Journalists, pressure groups, NGOs, tourists and remote sensing from space all help the Government to monitor end use up to a point. The intention is there.
Occasionally, mandatory monitoring is imposed by the United Nations. The inspection regimes for weapons and production facilities in Iraq are an ideal—perhaps I should put that word in quotation marks—answer to the problem posed by the hon. Member for Twickenham. We try hard to monitor end use; it is in everyone's interest that we should.
As to the United States' policy on extraterritoriality, there were fierce arguments in the House a few years ago about extraterritoriality and its unintentional impact on third parties. The United States' insistence on imposing extraterritoriality was not popular and impacted on our constituents and their jobs for the strangest reasons. There were incidents involving Cuba, with which the United States has always had a delicate relationship. There were bad consequences for British companies and their work forces, so I am not happy with the concept of extraterritoriality.
The hon. Gentleman came up with the old canard about Hawks in East Timor, but he does not have to take my word on the issue. Whenever the then Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Robertson was challenged from the Labour Back Benches, he reminded the House that Hawks were not operational in East Timor. Indeed, the manufacturers said that they did not have the range to get there from their base.
One of my major problems with new clause 1 is that it would be impractical without building in contractual obligations on the part of the exporting company to insist that the end user provided for inspection by a British company. I am not sure how that would work in practice; indeed, I do not think that it could be done. The new clause would also place another expenditure burden on the Government, and I would prefer that those resources were made available for other commitments, including international aid.
Although new clause 1 encapsulates the worries of many people, it is impractical, and we shall have to hear what the Minister says. If he cannot convince us, we shall have to consider what to do.