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.

By replacing ``may'' with ``shall'', the Amendment would impose on the Secretary of State the legal requirement to make orders for the imposition of export controls of any description. It would remove the Secretary of State's discretion to take action or refrain from doing so when the United Kingdom's national interest might be at stake and when international obligations allowed such national discretion.

It is essential to recognise the fact that export controls may be imposed to comply with the UK's obligations under various international export control regimes. Such obligations would normally result from agreements between the UK and other sovereign states, in an EU or other international context. However, export control orders may be made for reasons determined by the UK itself, in the form of unilateral action in exceptional cases, such as export controls on broadcasting equipment to Yugoslavia, or in the timing or manner of introduction of orders to comply with international obligations.

In the absence of international agreement, it will be for the UK to decide whether to take action. In such cases, the Secretary of State must be allowed to have discretion to propose export control orders for parliamentary approval, or the discretion to decide not to do so, depending on the circumstances. The imposition of an obligation, as required by the amendment, would remove the Secretary of State's essential discretion to act or refrain from acting in the UK's interests when a choice had to be made. It is important that he or she has some discretion, so I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

In view of the Minister's clear and concise response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 1, line 2, after `order', insert

`, after consultation with the relevant industrial organisations,'.

The amendment is extremely important. As we know from our discussions, and as the Minister has just acknowledged, Clause 1(1) is wide-ranging. There is no limitation on the scope of the goods that could be subject to export control. It could therefore cover virtually any manufactured or traded good in the United Kingdom. The powers are extremely wide. Our amendment would impose on the Government the obligation to consult the relevant industrial organisations. Naturally, the Govt would want to do that, and I am sure that the Minister will tell us that that is their intention.

The Bill deals principally with defence exports, although it is much more comprehensive than that. Defence exports are, however, the key issue. I am aware that the Government have had lengthy negotiations with, for example, the Defence Manufacturers Association, the Society of British Aerospace Companies and the National Defence Industries Council. I am not suggesting that the Government have brought the measure before Parliament and the country without consulting the relevant organisations.

However, it would be tactful of the Government to acknowledge the concern that has been expressed about the haste with which the Bill is being advanced through Parliament—the fact that it is being pushed through without the relevant secondary legislation being made available to us for scrutiny. It would mitigate the Government's embarrassment if they were to accept the amendment because, by doing so, they would be showing that they understood such concerns. They would demonstrate that, although they have not been able to bring forward for the Committee the ``dummy orders'', as the Minister described them in his letter to us, as evidence of their good will they are prepared to accept a provision in the Bill that obliges them to consult the relevant industrial organisations.

I am sure that that would be welcomed by the Defence Manufacturers Association and the Society of British Aerospace Companies, for whom the Bill has serious implications. From speaking to the DMA, I know that it accepts the need to update the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939. I know that it has had meetings with the Minister, and I think that the Minister would accept that those meetings were cordial. There was not much dispute about the general principle. However, in advance of bringing the orders before Parliament, the Government should accept that they have an obligation to consult with the relevant industrial organisations.

That is fine as regards the defence industries, but the Bill deals with industries well beyond defence. It would be to the Government's advantage, given the sweeping powers conferred upon them by the Bill—which re-enact sweeping powers already available under the emergency legislation of 1939—if they included in the Bill the obligation to consult. The Government and any future Government would be emphatically bound to that obligation. In the case of industrial or commercial activity that is not subject to export controls, but could be in future, there will be a reassurance in the Bill that the Government will consult such industries before bringing orders before Parliament.

Logic and reason militate in favour of the amendment, and the Government would be well advised to accept it. They would lose nothing by that; their powers would not be materially circumscribed. By accepting the amendment they would acknowledge that before enacting sweeping powers, they should consult those who would be affected. They would also advertise to industry and commerce that they desire partnership and do not want to rush measures through without appropriate consultation.

These days, sadly, too few Members of Parliament have commercial experience, too few represent the core of the outside world, and too many have arrived here by the route of being special advisers and political activists. However experienced Members of Parliament may be, Parliament no longer has the breadth of experience that it once had. Therefore, hon. Members may not have suitable experience on which to draw in assessing the possible impact of export control orders on industry and commerce.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall with pleasure give way to the former pupil of St. Edward's school, Oxford, who is now the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, which used to be represented by the fantastic Enoch Powell.

Will the hon. Gentleman specify four industrial organisations that relate to objects of cultural interest, as the Bill also covers such matters?

The hon. Gentleman makes a useful maiden Intervention. I recognise that it will be difficult in some circumstances to define which industrial organisations are the relevant ones. The Bill ranges so widely across every aspect of industrial and commercial life that naming all the relevant organisations would produce a list much longer than the Bill itself. It is not sensible to specify all such organisations. I accept that an element of discretion would be introduced by the word ``relevant'' and that deciding which organisations were relevant would be a matter of interpretation. I am trying to think of an organisation that might represent cultural interests. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can assist me. What organisations does he have in mind?

I can think, for example, of the Arts Council, although I remind the hon. Gentleman that he moved the Amendment. I do not suggest that the Bill should specify bodies such as the Arts Council. I merely wanted to point out that it is not an industrial or commercial organisation—those are the two adjectives used by the hon. Gentleman in connection with relevant organisations—and to ask the hon. Gentleman to specify four such organisations relating to cultural matters.

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I am not sure that the Arts Council, a Government organisation, is necessarily a cultural organisation of the kind that might represent the owners of historic works of art or other historic artefacts such as vintage aircraft, in which I have a keen interest. I take his point that the use of the word ``industrial'' might be limiting. I would welcome an Amendment from him to delete that word. I apologise if the amendment is not perfect—as both he and the Minister know, the Bill has been so rushed that there has been precious little time since Second Reading for proper scrutiny or for the preparation of amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire, who leads for us, was busy in the Chamber on Friday—when the amendments had to be tabled—debating the important matter of small firms.

In a spirit of good will, I am happy to accede to the helpful suggestion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), and to accept his minor change, as is my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire. I am sure that the Minister will accept the amendment in principle, but will note that the terms in which it is couched are defective. If the Government consider that the amendment is worthwhile but that the terminology is not correct, will the Minister undertake, if the amendment is withdrawn, to have it redrafted by officials to ensure that it complies with legislative requirements so that it can be considered on Report?

I see the Minister smiling. He clearly has enormous sympathy with my point. That is a good start, as it will do nothing but good for his second advancement in Government, and there is a strong argument in the Government's self-interest to include a properly worded amendment.

I wonder whether the hon. Member for Aldershot was born with a silver bullet in his mouth, rather than a silver spoon. We all know that he is thinking about the arms industry. The Amendment to consult with relevant industrial organisations is intended to give the arms industry an added advantage—a little more consultation, a little more contact with the Secretary of State—so that it can put its oar in early. That is unacceptable. We could say that all industries, not simply the arms industry, are relevant, but would we ever get anywhere? Who is to say what the relevant organisations are? Some might say that the Church of England should be consulted too, and that cultural relevance should be considered, as well as the relevance of the arms industry. Certainly the non-governmental organisations would have to be considered, and we all know how many of those there are.

The amendment is totally impractical. It would not work. I suggest that it was tabled simply to advantage the arms industry. We could not support it unless it included all other relevant organisations, but no one would ever be able to determine which were relevant and which were not, and far too many organisations would be involved.

I want to echo my hon. Friend's remarks: there is a wider issue about other organisations. For instance, if we were dealing with an arms export control order to a politically sensitive country, would it be possible for Amnesty International to have prior consultation alongside the arms industry? I do not think that the hon. Member for Aldershot envisaged that question. If his interpretation of the Clause is sufficiently elastic, he may sympathise with it.

A more important point concerns the role of Members of this House. One of the most important debates on the Bill will be about prior consultation of Parliament and, alongside our amendments, some helpful amendments have originated on the Labour Benches to try to entrench prior consultation.

The hon. Member for Aldershot envisages a situation in which arms manufacturers would have prior consultation, but elected representatives who represent the work force would not. From what I remember of his comments on Second Reading, he was not well disposed to prior consultation through Parliament, which is crucial. If he were willing to support the grass roots feeling from several parties for prior parliamentary consultation, a request for industrialists to be part of the consultative process would be fairly anodyne and I would not feel too strongly about it. However, we would find it difficult to sympathise with a serious suggestion that only the manufacturer should be consulted, cutting out from the process not only NGOs but elected representatives.

I have some problems with prior consultation, but my remarks were not solely about the defence industries. The hon. Gentleman is out of date to suggest that I am in favour of the consultation of the management but not the work force, given that these days the work force work so closely with management in our major defence industries, especially through trade unions. They have a common interest, so management speaks for the work force on such issues. As regards the narrow interests of the defence industries, there is no question of them and us.

I am wounded, because I was responsible for the drafting of the Amendment. The cavalier abandonment of its purity by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot has wounded me. I expect nothing less from the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge); that is the way life is. On reflection, I admit that the amendment may not be the perfect, polished jewel that I originally envisaged, and it may need a little professional polishing before it becomes as it should be and is added to the Bill.

I see no problem with views such as those of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West being accommodated in a suitable adaptation of the amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot said, I think that the Minister will say that he will table suitable amendments on Report, especially after he has heard the compelling and rational arguments that I shall advance. If so, I should be only too happy to withdraw my amendment.

On Second Reading, the Government made considerable play of the extent of the consultation that they had undertaken since the publication of the white paper and the draft Bill earlier this year. I welcome that; I would like such consultation to happen more often, so that when legislation reaches Committee, most areas of doubt and query are ironed out. Of course, the big area of doubt with this Bill is that we do not have the secondary legislation, so we cannot fully examine the impact and direction of the Bill. However, we are where we are.

The Secretary of State claimed that business had had the opportunity to comment on the draft Bill before it was formally presented to the House. The Government said that they had listened to what people said and made several important changes. I welcome that; it is a correct and legitimate route for drafting legislation. However, as a former DTI Minister, with part of the portfolio now held by the Minister, I am aware that the word ``industry'' goes wider than the arms industry. I invite every member of the Committee to read subsection (1). It states:

``The Secretary of State may by order make provision for or in connection with the imposition of export controls in relation to goods of any description.''

That includes everything—food, medicines and any form of small business that can be exported for the first time. It gives the Minister carte blanche to introduce orders on goods of any description. The Committee will surely agree that that is a fairly wide and extensive remit.

The Secretary of State's rather roseate view of the Bill is not completely appreciated by all parts of the defence industry—which probably pleases the hon. Member for Richmond Park. On 29 March, the Defence Manufacturers Association told the DTI that it was not convinced that the draft Bill would do much to improve the performance of the export licensing system, a change that the defence industry regards as important. I agree with that view. The way in which the existing system works is nothing short of disgraceful, and it affects not only the defence industry. For instance, I have declared interests in the export of machine tools, and the handling of export licences for that industry is not of the quickest.

The Defence Manufacturers Association also said that there should be adequate consultation on the proposed secondary legislation promised by the then Secretary of State, and said:

``It is essential that all such detailed consultations do take place on all aspects of the proposed secondary legislation, and that industry is given an adequate opportunity to play a part in this process.''

The Society of British Aerospace Companies told me on 5 July that it wished to

``reiterate . . . just how essential it is that industry is thoroughly consulted before the introduction of secondary legislation.''

I would be prepared to bet the Minister 10p—I do not want to make the bet too large, or he might take me up on it—that he will say that the amendment is unnecessary, that we have a really lovely Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and that she is a genuine lady who will, of course, talk to everyone and not rush forward with an order. He will tell us that there will be proper consultation and that it is unnecessary to include a provision in the Bill. He will put his hands somewhere near his wallet and say, ``Trust me because I am a politician.''

Of course I trust the status quo, but Secretaries of State at the DTI have a pretty poor record in terms of survivability—not only under this Government, but under previous Governments. We are now on our fourth DTI Secretary of State in four and a half years, and during their glorious and successful 17-year reign, Conservative Governments managed to get through about 11 or 12. Becoming Secretary of State at the DTI is, therefore, a high-risk strategy. As the wheel turns, the Secretary of State will move to bigger and better things and will be replaced. As it turns even further and the Conservative party comes back into government, there could be a Conservative Secretary of State. Being a Conservative, he might not be so kind and generous; he might be ruthless, hardnosed and unfeeling. Unfortunately, Hansard cannot record irony or sarcasm properly, and my comments at this point should perhaps be put in inverted commas. None the less, despite the ministerial assurances that are no doubt coming, it is right that the Bill should provide for consultation with the correct industrial organisations.

May I posit the possibility that arms manufacturers might sometimes be ruthless, hardnosed and uncaring? Would not the Amendment give their lawyers the opportunity to drive a coach and horses through any export control? They could claim that a relevant industrial organisation had not been consulted and that they could therefore challenge any legitimate use of the export control. The Government would have to consult with the most improbable organisations in case there was a challenge.

The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point, but provisions for such a consultation process have been written into Bills that have been enacted and are, therefore, possible. I freely admitted that the Amendment was not a polished jewel, and I would not want members of the Committee to pick it apart on the basis of its literal sense. The Minister will no doubt do that and try quite adequately to destroy it. However, the principle behind my argument reflects what industries are saying, and I am talking not only about defence industries. Subsection (1) relates to goods of any description. We are an exporting nation, and the provision could apply to anything, including foods and medicine.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) is that subsection (1) refers not to particular export licences, but to the Secretary of State's ability to make provision for their introduction? It would therefore be perfectly reasonable to consult the relevant industrial organisations before such provision was made in secondary legislation. We are talking about statutory instruments, not licences.

My hon. Friend is right. I was trying to answer the specific concerns of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, but my hon. Friend has given the broader view, which is correct.

We are an exporting nation, and subsection (1) refers to goods of any description. A provision should therefore be inserted in the Bill to compel direct consultation. There is a useful and powerful section of the DTI that deals with trade associations. It is absolutely right that when an order is being considered, a relevant trade association should be consulted. That is what we want to achieve through the Amendment.

The amendment will also ensure that the assurances given to the House during consideration of the draft Bill last spring are translated into reality. So much of the Bill's importance hangs on the content of the orders to be made by the Secretary of State. It would be invidious of the Government to resist the amendment, unless the Ministers wish to obstruct their declared aims. I would like the Minister to say that the amendment is not well drafted, but that he will ask for it to be withdrawn and will produce his own polished jewel of an amendment on Report.

I have studied the seven words in the Amendment with great care, and despite digging deep into my lexicography I cannot find seven other words, or indeed any other words, that would make the amendment sensible or practical. The hon. Gentleman showed great wisdom in limiting his bet to 10p. I am not a betting person—I am one of the probably very few people who have stayed in Las Vegas without betting a cent. However, it is not just a question of whether the amendment is necessary.

I thank the hon. Member for Aldershot for his perceptive description of the consultation that has taken place so far, and which industry has valued. I am sure that he has given the industry some wise advice on that. We have a commitment to making consultation a key part of the legislative process. Members will remember that the Bill was published in draft form in March and that, before that, in 1998, the consultation paper was the subject of comments from a wide range of valued contributors, from industry through to non-governmental organisations and others. The draft Bill was the subject of full, public consultations. Comments have been made by the Quadripartite Committee and the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in Another place.

I can assure the Committee that when draft orders are submitted to Parliament and published, they will be made available to the Committee as soon as possible, and certainly before it scrutinises clauses 2, 4, 7, 10 and 15. We welcome comments from all interested parties on the orders. The Government's record on consultation is already good. The care that we have taken to consult industry throughout has been reflected in the comments that we have received. The DTI and others have a valuable on-going dialogue with industry on the operation of our controls, and there is a joint working group with the CBI that examines a range of issues, including forthcoming legislation.

If indeed the Minister's record of consultation with the industry is as good as he describes, what could possibly be wrong with accepting the Amendment? It would simply oblige the Government to do what they claim to be doing already.

Accepting the Amendment would have a number of unfortunate consequences. Most important, European Community law on export control often takes direct effect in the United Kingdom. Although the UK may sometimes need to make orders to implement such law—for example, to set out the enforcement provisions—it would mislead industry and make a pretence of the consultation process if the Government were obliged to consult on orders that implement legislation on which there is no room for change. In addition, we must take account of our obligations to other international bodies as quickly as may be, which would not necessarily allow consultation.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North made a good point about the wording, but it would be difficult to find a wording to which his comments about culture and who should be consulted did not apply. The amendment would require my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to consult industrial organisations about the process of drawing up an order concerning objects of cultural interest—including items of historic or scientific interest—and that would not be appropriate. For all those reasons, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be willing to withdraw the amendment.

We have had an interesting debate. I shall not disappoint the hon. Member for Richmond Park. I am unashamedly supportive of the military in this country. It is one of the few institutions that commands continuing respect throughout the nation and I am proud to represent the home of the British Army. If that is the kind of brigade that I represent, perhaps the hon. Lady will be happy to represent the bleeding heart brigade as the Committee's spokesman for NGOs. Despite my trenchant remarks about her, the hon. Lady and I are perfectly amicable outside the Chamber and the Committee Room. I think that the profound political disagreements that exist are extremely healthy.

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the interests of the military are always wholly at variance with those of NGOs? For example, does not he accept that in conflict prevention the interests of many NGOs and the military tend in the same direction?

I entirely agree, and military personnel at Aldershot who have been involved in conflict zones, with whom I have discussed such matters, have been only too anxious to work with NGOs. The reservations of the military concern the extent to which their role is that of peacekeepers as opposed to peace enforcers. However, that is a matter for another debate.

Order. May we kindly return to the Amendment?

Indeed, Mr. Benton. I had anticipated that you might intervene, but was unable to prevent it. You are right to bring me back to the point.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park suggested that the Amendment was intended to provide advantage to defence industries. She spoke with near contempt for those industries. People should know about her attitude—particularly those Hampshire people who are represented by a Liberal Democrat. They should know that that is what the Liberal Democrats think. They have contempt for our defence industries, which are hugely successful. Defence exports run at £5 billion a year. The arguments for defence exports were well rehearsed on Second Reading and I do not intend to rerun them now. However, I think that people in the Hampshire constituencies that are currently represented by Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament will be interested to know that at least one hon. Member from that party has such a disparaging attitude to our defence industries.

The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I have no contempt for defence industries, but that I frequently wonder aloud why they receive such special treatment from Government. I do not see why they should, and in the present context I see no reason to give them prior consultation with priority over the other organisations concerned.

I am sure that the Committee is in agreement with the hon. Lady. However, when I wounded my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire, my purpose was to show that we did not want to restrict the Amendment to the defence industries, and that we were interested in broadening its scope. That is why my hon. Friend was able to say that he acknowledged that a little polishing here or there would be advantageous. He especially mentioned the food and pharmaceutical industries, which could be covered by the Bill in due course. We have acknowledged the need to consult them. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West made a valid point about cultural matters. There is no question of special treatment for the defence industry, but the Bill is principally geared towards defence exports. We do not want to give defence special advantages, but want to point out that it plays an important role in the Bill and that consultation with those who speak on its behalf is important, as the Minister acknowledged.

I was disappointed that the Minister did not rise to the bet offered by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire, but he made some interesting points. He said that unfortunate consequences could arise if the amendment were made, citing one on European Community law about which the wider public should be aware. He said that, in many cases, European law has immediate effect and we have no power to amend it. People who are not accountable to the British public could enact a European law on artistic or defence exports. Any United Kingdom Government and Parliament would be powerless to change such a law, so the Minister cannot give any guarantee to be able to consult. The British people, Government and Parliament would be presented with a fait accompli that they would have no power to change. That was a serious admission for him to make, and on that basis I feel that the matter should be considered on the Floor of the House.

My hon. Friend is making a good point, but should he not go further? The Minister has suggested that European organisations of some sort can impose law on the export of weapons from this country without consultation. If so, should the consultation on those Laws not be even greater than on laws passed by this place? If those Europeans have some say over our exports, my goodness, we must consult with the industries concerned.

I entirely agree. Therefore, it is even more important that the Amendment is made, so that we send the clearest possible message to our European partners that we will brook no overbearing superiority by the European institutions, especially the European Commission, on our actions on the subject, and that we will not accept the limitation on Britain's freedom of movement.

As the Minister has made such an extremely important announcement about what he calls an unfortunate consequence of accepting the amendment, and as that consequence severely limits the rights of the British Government or Parliament to pass Laws as we think fit, it is important that the House should consider the matter. On the basis that we will revisit the matter on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 1, line 3, after `description', insert

`and shall have the powers by order to revise existing controls on the export of goods'.

If I thought that the previous amendment needed polishing, I fully admit that amendment No. 35 is a little rough. It is intended to give the Minister the opportunity to explain and expand on the position taken by the Government on this aspect of the Bill. The explanatory notes make it clear that they intend that

``existing controls on the export of goods will be reviewed and (where necessary) revised under this power.''

The notes are most helpful on that point.

The Department apparently intends to use the powers to consolidate existing secondary legislation on export control—especially, as the Minister mentioned in his letter to the Committee, the Export Goods (Control) Order 1994 and the greater part of the Dual-Use Items (Export Control) Regulations 2000, made under the European Communities Act 1972. The secondary legislation thus envisaged will specify the goods or classes of goods that will be subject to export control. Further secondary legislation on strategic export controls should be made under powers contained in the Bill.

The power to review and revise those existing controls is important. As we have said so many times, those provisions are the teeth of the Bill. The framework before us is simply the stage on which the players will operate. The Committee should therefore be extremely concerned with that power. I believe that it would be better for the Secretary of State's power to review and revise existing controls to be explicitly stated in the Bill. Indeed, the Quadripartite Committee stated:

``We recommend that Orders under the Act should be first exposed in draft and in confidence to the Quadripartite Committee and, if then made and laid, the Government should undertake to use their best endeavours to find time for a debate if the Committee so recommended.''

That would broaden the examination and inspection of the orders that are to be made. I have heard no objection or complaint about that from the industries involved, but the huge problem is that vast areas of industrial and commercial activity have no idea just how far the Bill's powers will stretch. As much as possible should be done to ensure that the orders are relevant and that they take account of the particular interests of industries concerned.

The amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State took a consistent approach to the duty of controlling the export of goods and to reviewing and revising existing controls. The obligations to be imposed on exporters by the new secondary legislation and the provisions of the old should be consistent and uniform with the provisions of the old.

The Amendment simply seeks to provide the Secretary of State with powers to revise existing export controls. Under subsection (1) the Secretary of State may revise existing export control orders, and in making new export control orders under that provision he must, of course, have regard to the provisions of the schedule.

Clause 3(3) provides that the schedule does not apply to orders made under clauses 1 or 2 that revoke or amend provisions of earlier orders, or that re-enact provisions of earlier orders, except when existing export controls on goods and technology are being strengthened or when controls are being imposed on goods or technology not previously controlled. Put more simply, the powers available to us enable the Government to make changes to existing export controls. Given that the Bill already contains provisions for changes to be made in new and existing export control orders, the amendment is not required and I invite the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire to withdraw it.

I thank the Minister for his answer. I appreciated that the Amendment contained either duplication or tautology, but I was seeking to draw out the background to his position, which I am grateful to have had. He did not respond to the recommendation in the report of the Quadripartite Committee that draft orders be given to it for examination in confidence and, if necessary, debated in the House or in Committee.

I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the Government's response to that suggestion. It said that the Government were content to show draft orders to be made under the Bill to the Committee whenever time allowed.

I thank the Minister for that answer. I did not go down that route because the qualification about time allowing means that we would be drawn into debate about whether there is sufficient time. The Bill already suffers from the problem of insufficient time—there has been a rush into Committee, followed by an unnecessarily long break. The Government have had several years in which to prepare it, yet we are now pushing it forward.

If a similar situation were to occur at this stage, the Government would argue that there is no time available to prepare secondary legislation. How many times will the Government argue that there has not been sufficient time for the Quadripartite Committee to look at draft orders in confidence? That is why I raised the matter. I hoped that the Minister would be able to provide a fuller and more generous response to that recommendation. Nevertheless, half a loaf is better than none, so I welcome the acknowledgement that orders will be put in draft to the Committee. It will then be up to the Committee to press the Department to examine the draft orders as soon as possible. In the light of the Minister's response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

The Clause is a vital part of the Bill. Subsection (1) gives the Secretary of State powers to make orders imposing controls on the export of any goods, and to make provisions about matters connected with the imposition of export controls. Without clause 1 it would be impossible to repeal key sections of the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939. We all agree that the 1939 Act is seriously deficient in its approach to the control of exports. However, without it, or without clause 1 in its place, it would be impossible to control the export of military goods, which can cause so much damage in the wrong hands.

The clause is also essential in that it provides powers for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to reproduce and update the provisions for the control of export of cultural objects. This control ensures that all such objects manufactured and produced more than 50 years before the date of exportation are controlled to all destinations. The effect of that is to allow for ``national treasures''—objects of major cultural significance to the UK—to be identified, and to provide the opportunity to retain them in the UK. In due course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will lay before Parliament an order to replace the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1992, which currently controls exports of cultural objects. The new order will not significantly change the controls, but will consolidate and update provision for the control of export of cultural objects under a new Act.

Subsection (2) defines export controls as meaning, with respect to goods,

``the prohibition or regulation of their exportation''— including objects of cultural interest—

``from the United Kingdom or their shipment as stores.''

The powers set out in subsection (3) allow controls to be imposed on the export of goods wholly or partly on the grounds of the uses or possible uses to which the goods may be put, as is done at present under the Dual-Use Items (Export Control) Regulations 2000, as amended, which apply the EC Council regulations known as the dual-use items regulations. That also extends to information recorded on or derived from the goods to be exported. The provision therefore has the effect of patrolling the export of technology in a physical form, such as a computer disk, or on paper. Under the 1939 Act, controls are imposed on certain technology, including the technology needed to develop, produce and use military equipment, and that power is replaced by the clause. It also reflects controls already directly applicable under the EC dual-use items regulations.

It is our intention to use the clause to consolidate existing secondary legislation on export controls, namely the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, as amended, which was made under the 1939 Act, and the greater part of the Dual-Use Items (Export Control) Regulations 2000, made under the European Communities Act 1972. That is why subsection (4) makes provision for supplementing controls imposed by Community regulations on the export of goods, for example by providing for the enforcement of such regulations. That should ensure that all future secondary legislation and strategic export controls can be made under powers contained in the Bill rather than under different pieces of legislation. We anticipate that the resulting legislation will be easier to understand for those who must comply with it. This subsection will also enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to supplement any directly applicable Community measures that control the export of cultural objects.

Subsection (5) clarifies the nature of the goods subject to export control, including vessels, vehicles and aircraft, whether or not they contain cargo or passengers.

I urge the Committee to agree that the clause stand part.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.