International Arms Trade

HC Deb 02 April 1998 vol 309 cc1435-68 4.48 pm

Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife)

I beg to move, That this House, mindful of the conclusions of the Scott Report, commends Her Majesty's Government for its efforts to obtain agreement for a European Union Code of Conduct on the arms trade; and urges Her Majesty's Government to ensure that any such code sets high common standards governing arms exports for all Member States, and, in particular, to insist that export guidelines are transparent, unambiguous and pay due regard to human rights.

A debate on the international arms trade is particularly timely today, for three distinct and important reasons. First, it is approximately two years since the publication of the Scott report. Secondly, only a few weeks ago, Britain was ready to go to war, if necessary, to eliminate Saddam Hussein's programmes of weapons of mass destruction. Thirdly, the Government are currently engaged, with the support, I hope, of all right-minded Members, in efforts to obtain an effective European code of conduct on the arms trade.

Mention of the Scott report allows us to remind ourselves of one or two features of that event. It is worth reminding ourselves that the central conclusion of the Scott report was that the Conservative Government deliberately failed to inform Parliament of Government policy on arms sales to Iraq. They survived the debate on the Scott report by one vote—as a result of persuading three Democratic Unionist Members to stay away and twisting the arm of Mr. Rupert Allason. One might think that that is hardly an expression of overall confidence in the House.

More than any episode, the arms-to-Iraq affair exposed the Tory Government for what they were. When the Leader of the Opposition goes on a circuit of the spa towns of Edwardian England saying to the collected membership of his party that the trouble was that the party allowed itself to be perceived as arrogant, the truth is that it was not perception but reality. The Conservative party was arrogant, and the Scott report underlined the extent of that arrogance and the degree of cynicism with which the Conservative Government regarded their responsibilities to Parliament.

In The Observer on 18 February 1996—about two years ago—the conclusion was reached that Britain helped to give Iraq the machine tools and the technology to wage nuclear and chemical warfare. We now know that Britain did more than that. There is now clear and credible evidence that Britain laid the foundations for not only the nuclear and chemical programmes but the biological weapons programme that was being pursued in Iraq. It was Iraq's possession of those weapons and anxiety about the threat of their use, or of their actual use, that was the cause of the United Kingdom's being willing to deploy armed forces in the Gulf and, if necessary, to put the lives of those men and women at risk to prevent Saddam Hussein from utilising these programmes.

Some of the details of the biological weapons programme are now well known. We know, for example, that British and Swiss companies exported to Iraq large quantities of the growth media in which biological weapons are cultivated. Between 1987 and 1988, 39 tonnes of growth media were exported by two companies. That was enough for Iraq to produce four tonnes of deadly bacteria. Exports of the media in such large quantities are highly unusual. Indeed, sales of growth media for sound medical reasons are usually counted in pounds and not tonnes.

In addition, Britain trained many of the key Iraqi scientists. The covert biological weapons research programme was directed by General Amer Saadi, who obtained a masters degree in chemistry from Oxford university, and Rihab Taha, who had a doctorate in microbiology from East Anglia university. The procurement of supplies was controlled by one Ahmed Murthada, a British-trained engineer who led Iraqi research into the warfare uses of ricin, a toxin that derives from castor beans.

We know that British support was not confined to training or the supply of ancillary materials. There is now evidence to show that there is an irresistible inference that some of the anthrax that Iraq obtained as the foundation of its programme originated in Britain. It has emerged that Iraq obtained much of its anthrax supply from a United States company—the American Type Culture Collection, which is known as ATCC—with a base in Rockville, Maryland.

Between 1985 and 1989, Iraq obtained at least 21 strains of anthrax from ATCC and about 15 other class III pathogens, the bacteria that pose an extreme risk to human health. It has not been reported that many of the anthrax strains were British. Extensive American investigative journalism has revealed that they had been sold to ATCC, notwithstanding the fact that the company was well known to be re-exporting pathogens without restraint, not least to Iraq.

It was pretty easy to obtain pathogens from ATCC in the 1980s. It was necessary to submit a written request on headed notepaper from a credible but not necessarily reputable institution—[HON. MEMBERS: "The House of Commons?"'] Those who suggest House of Commons paper are perhaps doing us less than justice. It was necessary to agree to responsibility for the receipt, handling, storage and use of the material, and then demonstrate in a short telephone conversation that one was scientifically literate. For the payment of a $78 fee, one could have access to deadly material. No more was required. It could hardly have been easier.

I have asked the Government recently in written questions whether any pathogens were exported direct to Iraq. I expected to receive confirmation that they were not, but in a written answer I have been told that the Department of Trade and Industry says that it has no way of telling whether any anthrax or other pathogens were exported direct to Iraq. Apparently no records are kept of destinations.

The DTI indicated that the remaining records of applications—there are records of applications but not of destinations—for licences to export to Iraq were in the Scott report. I doubt whether you will stay awake through the long hours of the night poring through the appendices to the Scott report, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but if you do it will be unhelpful and unrewarding. The appendices shed no light on any possible export of pathogens to Iraq. However, they raise other concerns about chemical weapons.

In the mid to late 1980s, Iraq made numerous attempts to purchase special chemicals from the United Kingdom, many of which are known as precursors—the vital ingredients for chemical weapons. Many of the export applications were blocked, but some were not.

In 1985, Iraq was able to import small quantities of chloroethanol and potassium fluoride, precursors for up to six different nerve gases. In 1989, an application was received for a licence to export phosphorus trichloride—a precursor to yet more nerve gas—but there is no record of whether that application was approved or refused. As far as we know, subsequent orders for these and other chemicals were refused, but the records attached to the Scott report are full of gaps. We have no way of knowing which chemicals were sold to Iraq or, more particularly, to what use they were put.

Recent events when UK forces were deployed to the Gulf—when their lives might have been at risk—show the price being paid for the failures of the Conservative Government in these matters. The country is entitled to say that we need protection against a recurrence. I think that the best protection against recurrence is domestic parliamentary scrutiny.

When the Foreign Secretary made his coruscating speech on the Scott report, one sentence summed up the strength and determination of what he had to say. He said: Secrecy made this scandal possible."—[Official Report, 26 February 1996; Vol. 272, c. 605.] The damage caused by secrecy has been acknowledged by the Government in their White Paper on freedom of information, which was published at the end of last year. The opening line reads: Unnecessary secrecy in government leads to arrogance … and defective decision-making. A little later, on page 18, it states: Commercial confidentiality must not be used as a cloak to deny the public right to know.

There is no reason in principle why Parliament should not exercise scrutiny over arms exports, or exports of dual-use technologies. It happens elsewhere. There is a system to that effect in Sweden—one of the most successful arms manufacturing countries. Commercial confidence does not appear to be breached.

If we can have parliamentary scrutiny of Government communications headquarters and the intelligence services, as we now have by a Committee whose members are drawn from both Houses of Parliament, surely we can have scrutiny of defence and defence-related equipment without any prejudice to the national interest.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman's flow. I agree with his point about parliamentary scrutiny. Does he accept that such scrutiny should also extend to information held by the UN weapons inspectorate in Iraq which, it is understood, has considerable knowledge of the individual companies that have, often in breach of the sanctions policy, exported chemical and biological material and weaponry to Iraq—yet it has maintained silence under the cloak of commercial confidentiality?

Mr. Campbell

I certainly agree with that. The hon. Gentleman and I were both in the House when the Scott report was published and discussed. He will recall that my attitude to these matters is similar to his. Transparency is the best protection against such abuse.

To be effective in these matters, Governments cannot act alone. That is why our motion commends the proposal for a European code of conduct on the arms trade, and in particular the Government on their efforts to secure such an agreement during their presidency of the European Union.

The stated objective of the code is to strengthen the exchange of information relevant to the export of conventional arms with the aim of setting high common standards for arms exports from all EU member states. Those are laudable objectives but, unhappily, there is a gap between the present text and what I believe to be the essential standards that are required for an effective code. The preamble to the code states that member states are committed to the maintenance of a strong defence industry". I do not dispute that for a moment, but in a code of conduct of this kind there should surely be a balance, or an acknowledgement, that the security of all of us in the European Union depends on the protection of human rights, the rule of law and economic and social development, and that a strong defence industry should serve those aims.

The code also proposes measures for the exchange of information and consultation. It provides that member states have to notify one another when they refuse export licences, but gives no details of the information that has to be notified, or indeed the time frame in which it should take place. To be effective, notification must surely include the type of equipment refused a licence and the prospective destination and end user, and the information should be circulated in a prescribed period.

There is a more fundamental and serious omission—there is no provision in the code for countries to notify other countries of licences that are granted. The code requires a country to intimate if it is refused a licence, but there is no obligation to intimate if it has granted a licence. That provision should lie at the heart of a code with such laudable objectives.

The code also proposes export guidelines, but these are ambiguous and leave too much room for subjective interpretation. If there is any ambiguity about whether a prospective military export breaks the guidelines, there should be a presumption that the export will be denied. In the case of ambiguity, the only possible conclusion to reach is that that export should not be entitled to take place.

There are eight guidelines in the code. I shall address three in particular. The signatories bind themselves to take into account human rights and not to export equipment that might be used for internal repression. However, there is a qualification to that obligation. Indeed, it constitutes a loophole. It allows the export of repressive equipment if the end-use is judged to be legitimate, such as protection of members of the security forces from violence". Every state that has ever been guilty of repression will seize on that as a justification. If ever there were part of the code that defeated the code's objectives, it surely lies in that qualification.

Another guideline relates to regional security—there are references to regional security in the code—but the guidelines should be strengthened so that they state explicitly that arms exports will be denied where a proposed sale might have a destabilising effect on a region.

The code also talks about development. There should be an express presumption that arms exports will be denied to countries that spend more on the military than on health and education combined. There should be a presumption to deny exports that undermine the objectives of bilateral and multilateral aid.

There are additional measures that the code should embrace if it is to be effective. The code states that it is the duty of member states to "promote transparency" and the need to "harmonise export licensing procedures" is mentioned. Again, those are laudable objectives to which no one could object, but unhappily there are no measures to ensure that they are realised.

Parliamentary scrutiny, to which I have referred in a domestic context, should be embedded in a code that applies to member states of the European Union. All member states should be obliged to produce an annual report to their Parliaments of the arms export licences that have been granted or denied.

There should be a common system of end-use controls. End use is often the means by which transactions, which on the face of it are legitimate, are rendered illegitimate. These agreements should have the status of legally binding contracts and there should be a follow-up system to check that the end user is the one that was first proposed.

Brokering should be controlled. Member states should establish a central database of arms brokers. It should not be possible for people to create £100 companies with two £1 shares paid up and set themselves up in the United Kingdom, or anywhere else in the European Union, as arms brokers. If people want to practise that trade, they should be obliged to register so that we may know precisely who, in this dark and rather subterranean world, is active. It was perfectly plain that, throughout his inquiry, Lord Justice Scott was often thwarted because of inadequate details of some of the companies that were operating in this area.

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle)

The hon. and learned Gentleman called for transparency in these matters. Would that extend to commissions? As he will know, in some arms exports, some 25 per cent. of the value of the export is siphoned off to commissions. That must cause him concern.

Mr. Campbell

I hope that it would cause all hon. Members concern. There are newer Members to whom the hon. Gentleman's point may have been more expressly directed than those present this afternoon. He is absolutely right. Transparency in these matters is essential.

The Council of Ministers of the European Union should review annually the code's implementation and make recommendations for its development or alteration. The results of any such review should be reported to national Parliaments and to the European Parliament for debate.

European Union states are among the leading arms exporters in the world. In 1996, they had 40 per cent. of the world market in arms exports. That entitles us to say that they have a special responsibility to promote restraint and transparency in the transfer of conventional arms and technologies for military use. The aim of setting high common standards for arms exports from all EU member states is one to which I hope all hon. Members find it easy to subscribe.

In our recent history we have seen the consequence of the indiscriminate export of defence and defence-related equipment. Nothing would cause the public more concern, apprehension and even anxiety than the knowledge that there might be a repeat of the circumstances that obtained during the Gulf war—that British forces might find themselves on the wrong end of equipment or of materials, the ability to manufacture which had been provided in a profligate and wholly unrestrained way by the previous Government.

I commend the code as a common EU action that is entirely worth while and much more likely to be effective on a collective rather than an individual basis. The Government deserve the support of the House in their efforts to ensure that such a code is effective and meets the laudable and praiseworthy objectives set out in its preamble.

5.10 pm

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tony Lloyd)

I am not sure whether I have been damned with faint praise or praised with faint damns, but I strongly welcome the motion tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I thank the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) for his courtesy in making me aware of one part of his speech to which I otherwise would not have been able to respond.

Clearly, the Government do not oppose the motion. We welcome the Liberal Democrats' support for our work on the EU code of conduct for arms exports. The proposals which we and the French have tabled will set genuinely high common standards for exports from all EU member states. In so doing, they represent a break from anything that has existed in this area in the past.

Let me set the EU code of conduct on arms sales in a wider context. It is an important measure but it is only one part of the story which the Government have to tell on the regulation of strategic exports. When the Government came to power we were determined to add an ethical dimension to British foreign policy. That, inevitably, has implications across the range of international relations, from greater readiness to raise human rights in bilateral dialogue to support for ethical trading standards.

When talking about ethical trading standards, it is inevitable that they should apply specifically to arms exports. The hon. and learned Gentleman was right when he said that we do not recoil from the idea that we have a strong defence industry. The industry's recent export performance, which has increased under the Government's tight export regime, is one of Britain's success stories. The International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates the United Kingdom's share of global arms exports in 1997 to be 22 per cent. of the global total, about half as much again as that of France and second only to that of the United States.

That is a tribute to the competitiveness of British industry. But it gives us—a point made by the hon. and learned Gentleman—a particular duty to manage arms exports responsibly. We need to ensure that arms exports are in line with UK interests and that jobs and prosperity, although important, are not bought at the cost of human rights abuses or international instability.

The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the Scott report which partly inspired the Government's policy. There can be no doubt that that report revealed a scandal at the heart of the previous Government. I hope that, with time, that will become the common framework within which Britain judges the matter.

We are also aware that that was not the only scandal at the time. There were other areas in which arms exports were at best lax and at worst simply unacceptable. We were, and are, determined to ensure that the situation described by the Scott report does not happen again.

In February 1997, on the first anniversary of the Scott report's publication, the then Labour Opposition committed themselves to a range of measures designed to achieve that. In our election manifesto we said that we would not permit the sale of arms to regimes which might use them for internal repression or international aggression.

On taking office, one of the Government's first foreign policy priorities was to put that commitment into practice. We initiated a review of the criteria used in considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms and dual-use goods. In July last year, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced the outcome of that, which was that the new criteria would give full weight to the UK's economic, commercial and financial interests. The Government are keenly aware of those.

The defence industry is a strategic part of the UK's economic base. It supports more than 400,000 jobs. Its ability to export is crucial to the viability of the defence industry and to the preservation of those benefits. Defence exports help the national balance of payments and reduce the unit cost of equipment for UK forces. They can also contribute to security and stability by helping to strengthen bilateral and collective defence relationships.

But the criteria—this is the important point about balance—also deliver in full on earlier commitments by stating that licences will be refused where there is a clearly identifiable risk that proposed exports might be used for internal repression, aggressively against another country, or to assert by force a territorial claim. Those are important changes in previous criteria and an important step forward in ensuring that Britain can claim to be staking out a position that balances national interest in terms of jobs and defence with national interest in terms of the promotion of human rights.

On the same day that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced the new criteria for arms exports, he also announced another important step forward—a ban on the export or trans-shipment from the UK of weapons of torture, including such choice items as electric-shock batons and shields, stun guns, gang chains, leg irons, shackles and electric-shock belts. There is clear evidence that such equipment has been used to inflict torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment on our fellow citizens in the world. Thus, another of our pre-election commitments was fulfilled by my right hon. Friend.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill)

A firm in my constituency was involved in the sale of weapons of torture, allowing their manufacture to go on in Mexico while the paperwork was done in Britain. How might the Government be able to tackle such a problem?

Mr. Lloyd

My hon. Friend raises a genuinely important point. As with the EU code of practice on conventional arms exports, we are trying initially to work towards a European framework for the banning of sales and exports of weapons of torture, but it is our ambition to internationalise those processes. My hon. Friend may be more aware than I am of the state of legal proceedings in the case to which she refers. I do not know what stage it has reached in the Scottish judicial process, but such prosecutions should have the support of the House. We are considering ways of preventing third-country traffic and the use by British firms of offshore activities as a means of avoiding the impact of British legislation. My hon. Friend will probably recognise that there are serious legal difficulties in enacting such a frame of reference, but she raises an important point.

Similarly, the Labour Government quickly delivered on their commitment to ban the export of anti-personnel land mines. Britain was among the first to sign the Ottawa convention banning anti-personnel land mines internationally. As soon as the parliamentary schedule allows, we aim to introduce legislation that will allow us to ratify the convention.

Having spoken of national controls, I now want to turn to the reasons why the EU code of conduct represents a significant step forward. I note the points raised by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, but he will appreciate that, in trying to break new ground and internationalise a process for the first time, inevitably we have to work at a pace that is acceptable to all our partners and allies.

Our primary concern was to make sure that national action would not prevent certain regimes from acquiring certain equipment, as we experienced when Britain was undercut by other countries. That would do our own industry a disservice but, more importantly, it does a fundamental disservice to the human rights values in the national code of conduct. Our intention to work for a European code was another of our February 1997 policy pledges and it was reconfirmed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he announced the new criteria.

Progress has been excellent. We started off by talking to the French. The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife referred to the size of the European market, which accounts for some 40 per cent. of global exports. However, Britain and France account for some 80 per cent. of European exports. As nearly one third of global exports are from Britain and France, the House will understand the logic of beginning the process by talking to the French.

We have received enthusiastic responses from the rest of our European partners and that has been important in generating the will to take the process forward. We have been able to agree on a joint draft text with the French, and it is now being circulated among our other European partners. It is still our aim to achieve agreement during the United Kingdom presidency.

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead)

I am delighted that the code of practice has received a positive response from other European Union countries and I congratulate the Government on promoting it. However, certain loopholes have been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), among others. Even if the code is signed, will my hon. Friend, together with our European partners, ensure that there will be an on-going process so that those and any future loopholes can be closed?

Mr. Lloyd

I am aware of the specific point to which the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife and my hon. Friend referred, but we do not believe that it is a loophole as we find it acceptable to provide protection for security forces. However, the sale of certain equipment is acceptable only when it does not infringe the more important criterion that the equipment is not used for the purpose of internal repression. We do not believe that internal repression should be permitted to pursue what might be described as legitimate security operations. We take the opposite view—that legitimate security operations should not take place if they involve internal repression. Our national criteria upon which the European code is based allow for no such loopholes. We shall always look at the form of words and the practice to see whether improvements are required, but it is not our view that there is such a loophole.

Mr. Corbyn

I am glad that my hon. Friend has reached this point. Does he believe that the EU code, when it is fully operational, will prevent Britain from selling arms to Turkey? After all, we provide 10 per cent. of Turkey's armaments. Does my hon. Friend accept that the Turkish army is waging a civil war against the Kurdish people in eastern Turkey and that the most appalling violations of human rights are taking place using equipment manufactured and sold by Britain and almost every other EU country? Does he accept that an arms embargo on Turkey would have a dramatic effect on improving human rights there?

Mr. Lloyd

Neither the national code nor the European code introduces the concept of arms embargoes. As my hon. Friend will be aware, arms embargoes apply to certain countries. For example, the United Nations Security Council recently announced a global ban on arms sales to the former Yugoslavia.

The EU code would not provide a blanket ban. However, it would make our national framework operate on an EU-wide basis that would prevent the sale of arms to any country that fell foul of the criteria in respect of internal repression or external aggression. That is a test which, properly brought to bear, has a material impact on the sale of arms. It already has an impact on the way in which Britain has been conducting such affairs internationally and it will have the same impact at a European level.

The code that will operate at a European level is an elaboration of the common criteria agreed in 1991 and 1992, in line with UK national criteria that are already well defined and well understood. It is also designed to prevent undercutting—the specific point raised by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife. It includes a consultation mechanism providing for partners to circulate to other partners information about denials of export licences and requires a partner to consult the denying partner before deciding whether to issue an export licence for essentially the same goods to the same client. That will bring pressure to bear to prevent undercutting in arms sales that has allowed would-be purchasers to shop around. It gives European defence sales new and increased strength.

Agreement on the code will be a major step forward in the effective international regulation of arms exports. The consultation mechanism that we have proposed breaks significant new ground. Never before has such a mechanism been applied to conventional arms exports and the Government deserve credit for initiating work on the code and pursuing it so vigorously.

Agreement on the code, however, is not the be all and end all. Many complex issues such as strengthening end-use controls cannot adequately be addressed in a document such as the code. We are continuing to work on them at national level as it is important that we get our national framework right. They arise out of the Scott inquiry and, as the House knows, we have not yet received its final report. We want to take those matters forward in international forums. No one is pretending that an EU code of conduct is the final wisdom. We want to internationalise all the processes in which we are engaged and include such issues as end-use control in that European framework. When we have experience of how the code works in practice, we shall to consider what further measures are needed to improve its operation.

We are continuing to work on issues wider than the European framework. A good example is what we are doing in respect of the Wassenaar arrangement on export controls for conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies. That international framework has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the promotion of responsibility and transparency in transfers of arms and dual-use equipment.

The United Kingdom has been at the forefront of efforts to develop the Wassenaar arrangement so that it can fulfil its potential. We continue to press for an expansion of the reporting categories for conventional arms transfers and we have volunteered to notify export licences denied on grounds of regional stability. Regional stability is an important criterion. It is a totally open reporting system and, in one case, we have already made such information available. We have played a leading role in work on what makes transfers destabilising. As a result, we have firmly established the United Kingdom as one of the most constructive and active players within the Wassenaar arrangement.

The United Kingdom remains determined to strengthen the UN register of conventional arms. That is not an easy process; last year, the UN panel of experts produced a disappointing report, although we endorsed it because we wanted to build on the consensus. The United Kingdom will continue to work individually and with European Union partners to persuade more countries to contribute to the register and to broaden the categories of weapons covered.

The biggest issue on which we want to make progress is illicit trafficking, especially in small arms and light weapons, which were the dominant weapons in virtually all the 49 large-scale conflicts that took place in 1995—the most recent reference point. It is estimated that over 55 per cent. of small arms are traded illicitly, and are often recirculated from one conflict to another. In southern Africa in particular, there is no doubt that weapons were passed from one country to another and used in different conflicts at great human cost.

Graca Machel, widow of the former President of Mozambique, has campaigned on a range of issues, especially illicit arms. She recently told me that the effects of the glut of cheap, easily available small arms have been devastating, not only on her country, but throughout huge parts of the African continent and worldwide.

We are determined to play a role in the fight against small arms proliferation and illicit trafficking, and during our presidency of the EU we have taken forward vigorously work under the EU programme to combat illicit trafficking in conventional arms. The programme could achieve progress for the world.

In February, Britain hosted an international conference on the problems of arms trafficking within and into the EU. The United Kingdom believes that, outside the EU, the programme should focus initially on southern Africa. In May, the Department for International Development will fund a seminar in South Africa that will be run by Saferworld, a British non-governmental organisation, in co-operation with a South African NGO. It should identify practical ways of helping affected regions and, we hope, produce project ideas for funding by donors.

We are also supporting work outside the EU programme. We have previously expressed support for the work of the Government of Mali to secure a moratorium on the import, export and production of light weapons in the Sahara-Sahel region, and are putting money into the project.

At a conference in Oslo yesterday, £300,000 was pledged on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development to the United Nations Development Programme project to co-ordinate and assist security development for the implementation of the moratorium once it is agreed. Those are practical steps.

The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife spoke about Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programmes. The House was rapt in its attention to recent events, and there can be no doubt about the British Government's present commitment to ensure that the UN inspection system works. We demand the destruction of Iraq's capacity to deliver weapons of mass destruction of any kind—nuclear, biological or chemical.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to ask how those programmes came about. He asked about a number of issues, but I cannot give him answers because events took place under the previous Government—we are as tied as Scott was in pursuing them. We must ensure that we move to a regime that stops such events happening again and staining the honour of this nation. That can be achieved in a number of ways—for example, by examining controls of dual-use technology. I shall look carefully into the transfer of equipment to the American Type Culture Collection. We have made inquiries, but I hope that he will forgive me for saying that there was not enough time to provide a substantive answer. We will look into the matter.

The control of dual-use technology is an important and difficult issue, but although national controls are important, we can do better. The Government are determined to make progress on a convention for biological weapons; it would mirror the convention for chemical weapons, which allows for challenge inspection, and could provide a framework within which biological weapons production would be controlled in the same way as chemical weapons production and would ensure that it could not take place. We are working on it, and already have agreement at EU level. We are determined to pursue the matter as far as we can and to bring to the world the benefits of a convention that would ban biological weapons.

I have discussed the matter with the Indian Government through their high commission, and we shall take every opportunity to move the agenda forward to rid the world of these vile chemical and biological weapons.

The handling of defence exports raises difficult questions for foreign, industrial and defence policy. Inevitably, passions are aroused, and there is controversy. Striking the right balance between protecting the United Kingdom's prosperity and ensuring that British exports can be used only for legitimate purposes is important to the Government, who have given a clear commitment that their foreign policy is based on humanitarian principles.

Britain can be proud of the record that we are establishing. I have outlined a record of achievement and of progress in significant areas on which we are building the basis for a much more rational and much more acceptable frame of reference for arms controls. The story, across the board, is of commitments achieved or in hand, and of progress and responsible management of our exports in line with the United Kingdom's interests.

There was a significant break with the past when the Government took power, and I hope that hon. Members will endorse it.

5.36 pm

Mr. David Faber (Westbury)

I, too, congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on raising this matter. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not follow him down every avenue, but I shall agree with him later in my speech on loopholes in the European code of conduct.

I shall continue the quotation from which the hon. and learned Member derived one line. The first paragraph of the declaration that forms part of the draft code of conduct states: EU member states are committed to the maintenance of a strong defence industry which is a strategic part of their industrial base as well as their defence effort. They recognise that defence exports can contribute to international stability by strengthening bilateral and collective defence relationships in accordance with the inherent right of self defence recognised by the UN Charter. I endorse those views.

Article 51 of the UN charter clearly states the right of all nations to self-defence, and Conservative Members respect the right of other countries, as sovereign states, to protect their independence and exercise their right to self-defence. That is why I believe that a properly regulated arms trade is entirely legitimate. The responsible exporting of defence equipment to our friends and to our allies makes an important contribution to world peace and stability. It deters the expansionist aspirations of unfriendly and aggressive regimes.

As we have heard from the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife and the Minister, the latest instance of the need for defence equipment was during the recent United Nations operation, which was reinforced so well by British forces in the Gulf and elsewhere, to secure Saddam Hussein's agreement over weapons inspections in Iraq. Hon. Members saw only a few weeks ago the impressive range of military technologies that is at the disposal of our troops in the Gulf. It is a tribute to them and to the British defence industry that they were and remain so well prepared for military action.

Britain's defence industry is a success story. It is the second largest exporter in the world—second only to the United States. It takes the largest world market share of any British industry, and supports more than 415,000 jobs, 140,000 of which are directly dependent on defence exports.

The industry is the biggest contributor from exports to the Treasury—70 per cent. of defence production is for the export market.

In 1995, against stiff competition, the United Kingdom won export contracts worth some £5 billion, and in 1997 the figure rose to £5.5 billion, a record of which we can be justly proud. The value of our exports means that the cost of equipment for UK forces is reduced, and that the nation's essential technology base is secured. Most of the equipment supplied to Britain's armed forces comes from Britain's defence industry. The Ministry of Defence has estimated that British arms exports save it £300 million a year on what it needs to buy.

That is the constructive view of the Ministry of Defence, but we sometimes wonder whether it is also the view of the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office. When the Foreign Secretary came to power, he initially tried to improve his standing in his party by refusing a couple of small export licences to Indonesia: a decision which apparently infuriated the President of the Board of Trade. Other Foreign Office attempts to restrict arms exports to Indonesia have been stopped by the Ministry of Defence. As a result, the Foreign Secretary has understandably directed his efforts towards Europe, and much has been made of his efforts to persuade our European partners to sign up to the code of conduct.

What does the Ministry of Defence make of these machinations at the Foreign Office? I am sorry that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar), has had to leave the Chamber, because it would have been interesting to hear from him. Only last month, the MOD issued a press release boasting of a 10 per cent. increase in Britain's arms exports, and published a Green Paper, "Defence Diversification: Getting the most out of defence technology", which contained proposals for a defence diversification agency. Has the Foreign Secretary had a chance to read it? Paragraph 3 states: The Government said in its election manifesto: 'We support a strong UK defence industry, which is a strategic part of our industrial base as well as our defence effort."' The Opposition agree with that. The Green Paper also states that the Government believes in a strong defence against the new security challenges that face this country and its Allies in the post-Cold War world". We agree with that, too. It says that whatever changes emerge as a result of the strategic defence review, one underlying reality is that a strong defence will continue to require a strong defence industry. Paragraph 5 states: This country derives great benefits from a healthy defence industry—not only from being able to meet most of the equipment requirements of our own armed forces from domestic sources, but also from the wider industrial benefits including the economic and employment advantages that derive from the export of defence equipment. The Minister of State touched on that at the end of his speech. I understand that that is also the view of the recognised organisations within the trade union movement.

Paragraph 10 of the Green Paper states: However, it is widely recognised that the defence industries of Europe must restructure if they are to meet the fiercely competitive challenge posed by the very large corporations that have already formed as a result of a series of mergers of US defence contractors. The impact of this process on the UK defence industry is yet to be seen, but our defence industry is highly competitive and is in a strong position to play a leading role in the restructuring process. The Government are right to be concerned. While we have 25 per cent. of the current world market, the United States, with an industry 10 times the size of ours, already has 38 per cent., and that is before it has begun to flex its muscles in the export market, having always relied heavily on its internal market.

What role does the Foreign Secretary envisage his ethical foreign policy will play in helping the Ministry of Defence and the defence industry to meet the growing competitive challenge from abroad? The Green Paper says that one of the roles of the new defence diversification agency will be to encourage companies active in servicing defence needs … to exploit potential new opportunities for their products and technologies in the UK and overseas military and civil markets. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will do what he can to achieve that aim.

The Green Paper contains six half-page reports describing the success that arms manufacturers and the MOD's Defence Evaluation and Research Agency have had applying military technology to civilian uses. In fact, the entire Green Paper is one big advertisement for Britain's defence industry.

There is, therefore, conclusive proof that the Ministry of Defence has largely ignored the Foreign Secretary's push for a so-called ethical foreign policy, and that he has little influence in the Government and especially in Departments that should be working closely together on Foreign Office-related business. [Interruption.] The Government Whip, the hon. Member for Doncaster, North (Mr. Hughes), tut-tuts, but an article in The Spectator informed us last week that George Robertson has gone completely native at Defence. He talks about 'his boys', and Robin Cook doesn't have a clue what's going on half the time, because the Foreign Office only knows what the MoD chooses to tell it.

This may be a good moment to mention the £2 billion arms deal that the Government are planning with South Africa, which we read about at the weekend. It is primarily for submarines, but is part of a wider arms deal involving aircraft, frigates, tanks and helicopters. Will the Minister confirm that the Government have agreed to repay the purchase price of the submarines—some £200 million—as "industrial participation"? Is that not a clear example of an arms-for-trade deal such as the Foreign Secretary opposed vociferously when he was in opposition? Is this the same Foreign Secretary who said that aid or trade should never again become entangled with arms sales?

The Green Paper says that, within the new criteria to be used in considering arms export licence applications, the responsible export of defence equipment will continue to bring benefit to the British economy. In fact, little could be further from the truth. In reality, the Government have failed to process hundreds of export licence applications from British companies that are responding to perfectly legitimate orders from abroad, at a time when the Government's defence export service predicts that international demand will decline by 15 per cent. in the next two years. That is bad news for British business, most notably the defence industry.

The Select Committee on Defence heard only yesterday that the industry is gravely concerned that the policy reviews have created a backlog that is resulting in delays of up to nine months in some cases. That could allow foreign competitors to steal business that would otherwise have gone to British companies.

Export licences to export strategic goods are issued by the President of the Board of Trade: the export control organisation in the Department of Trade and Industry is the licensing authority. They are issued under part III of schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order, otherwise known as the "military list". The ECO either deals with applications direct or circulates them to other Departments with an interest—most notably, the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence or the Department for International Development.

I shall give the House an idea of the number of applications involved. Between 3 May 1997 and 6 March 1998, 6,918 applications were circulated to the Foreign Office, 8,673 to the Ministry of Defence and just 783 to the Department for International Development. That is a great number of potential orders for British manufacturers on which a great number of British jobs depend.

In response to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) on 25 March, the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry confirmed that, on 6 February 1998, 1,586 applications were outstanding, some going back to 1 September 1998. The ECO measures its performance against two stated aims: to provide a substantive response to applications that are circulated to other Departments within 20 working days, and to provide a response within 10 working days to those that are dealt with internally by the DTI.

When the Government took office on 1 May, the ECO was successfully hitting those targets. A remarkable 97 per cent. of non-circulated applications were dealt with within the 10-day period, and 69 per cent. of circulated applications were dealt with within 20 days. Since the Government came to power, and particularly since the DTI has had to consider the criteria set out by the Foreign Secretary on 28 July, that record has plummeted. By 6 February—which is the end of the last four-week period for which the DTI has been able to give me figures—the success rate for non-circulated cases had fallen from 97 to 61 per cent., and for circulated applications from 69 to 52 per cent. In the previous month, the latter figure had been as low as 41 per cent.

That is a disgrace. It represents an administrative logjam of scandalous proportions, and is a kick in the teeth for exporters already under pressure from the high level of the pound, as presided over by the Government. That is not the fault of those working in the Departments, but they have been thrown into a state of administrative confusion by the so-called ethical dimension of the Foreign Secretary's new policy.

The greatest irony is that, according to the little evidence we have, there is no noticeable rise in the number of applications that have been turned down in that period. For all the Government's rhetoric, there has been virtually no change in the number of applications being refused since 1 May. It is not surprising that the Government refuse to publish the figures on the number of licences that have been refused. The Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry was only too happy to publish figures of licences refused by the previous Government up to 1 May, but from now on, she tells us, rather grandly, the Government will report annually on the state of strategic export controls and their application since 2 May."—[Official Report, 12 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 722.] We can be sure that actual figures will be noticeable by their omission.

When I asked the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development how many applications they had recommended for refusal, I received a standard reply from all three, which included the sentence: The advice that is given by these departments to DTI falls into the category of internal discussion and advice, the disclosure of which would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion and which is being withheld under exemption number 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information."—[Official Report, 27 March 1998; Vol. 309, c. 310–11.] How very convenient. So much for open government.

Slowly but surely, anecdotal evidence is being replaced by hard facts, as increasing numbers of companies find that they are missing out on legitimate orders. The Minister may recall the case raised recently by my right hon. and learned Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary, involving a British company that lost an order to its competitors in Scandinavia for the supply of blue helmets to UNHCR personnel in Kabul. That firm has received no further approaches for equipment from the UNHCR.

Perhaps the Minister can confirm that a small company was approached to supply four machine guns to a Spanish shipyard, which were in turn to be fitted to four patrol boats and then to be sold to the Colombian navy to fight the drug barons in that country. That involved a thorny ethical decision, to be sure; but did not the Minister refuse the application, only to be overruled by the Foreign Secretary?

How ironic it is that, only last night, the Foreign Secretary made a welcome statement about resources for mine clearance. The money is certainly welcome, but it would appear that United Kingdom companies will not be allowed to participate in the mine clearance campaign. Recently, because of the inordinate time that it took to process its application, one of the leading mine-clearing device producers in the country lost a substantial order for mine-clearing equipment to its principal Scandinavian competitor. More ironically still, its competitors in Sweden and Finland do not even have to apply for such a licence, as the machinery is dealt with under the heading of agricultural machinery. So much for a level playing field throughout Europe.

On the issue of licensing, I am sorry that the Minister was not able to enlighten us about when the promised White Paper—which we hope will lead to primary legislation to reform the 1939 legislation—will be published. There is clearly a will in the DTI to proceed with such legislation as soon as possible, but I believe that the Minister himself recently confirmed that there would be no legislation in the current Session. It would be helpful to have an indication of the timing.

Let me now deal with the proposed EU code of conduct, of which the Minister gave details. It was constantly referred to by the Foreign Secretary when his party was in opposition, and, as we have heard, is now a central plank of the Government's EU presidency. As has been said, we already have eight EU common criteria for arms exports, the first seven of which were agreed at the Luxembourg Council in June 1991; the eighth was added at Lisbon in 1992. The previous Government were instrumental in drawing them up, and always supported them.

Some say that the criteria are too lax. At the risk of delaying the House, let me remind hon. Members of some of their contents. They refer to:

• "The respect of human rights in the country of final destination.
• The internal situation in the country of final destination, as a function of the existence of tensions of internal armed conflicts.
• The preservation of regional peace, security and stability.
• The national security of the member states …
• The behaviour of the buyer country with regard to the international community, as regards in particular its attitude to terrorism, the nature of its alliances, and respect for international law.
• The existence of a risk that the equipment will be diverted within the buyer country or re-exported under undesirable conditions."

Those criteria are clear and forceful; the only way in which to improve them is to introduce a means of enforcement. We now have a new United Kingdom code, and we are to have a new European code as well. The Minister recently referred to developing the EU criteria, and today he described the new code as an elaboration of them.

In a written answer on 2 February, and again today, the hon. Gentleman made much of the so-called "no undercut" mechanism. Having read the draft code carefully, however, I must disagree with him, and agree strongly with what was said by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife. At the beginning of my speech, I quoted the first paragraph of the declaration by EU member states. Opposition Members heartily support the Government's commitment to a strong defence industry, and to countries' right to self-defence, but many outside the House must be bitterly disappointed, having been given the impression by the Government that the code would sound the death knell of the European defence industry.

The draft code is considerably weaker than the Minister has suggested when it comes to undercutting. The relevant part of paragraph D of the declaration states: Before any member state grants a licence which has been denied by another member state for an essentially identical transaction within the last three years it will first consult the member State which issued the denial. If following consultations the member State nevertheless decides to grant a licence, it will notify the member State issuing the original denial giving a detailed explanation of its reasoning. Although the code is supposed to introduce a common standard in the assessment of whether an arms export order should be processed, there is nothing in it to compel member states not to take up contracts previously turned down by others.

If a member state decides to undercut another, there will be a confidential bilateral meeting between those concerned. If the undercutting state decides to go ahead with the export contract, all it will have to do is confirm to the other state its reasons for so doing. Such a statement would remain confidential between the states concerned. Clearly, once a fellow member state has informed its partners of a decision to refuse a licence, it must then trust to the integrity of its partners. That is in stark contrast to what the Foreign Secretary told my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) on 10 February at Question Time. He said: I assure the hon. Gentleman that if any country proposed to take up a contract that we had denied, we would pursue the matter through all 14 member states."—[Official Report, 10 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 127] We might well do that, but there is no provision in the draft EU code for other states in Europe to do likewise. Indeed—ironically—if undercutting becomes commonplace, member states are less likely to turn down arms contracts in the first place.

No one doubts the integrity of our partners, but different countries have different priorities for their defence trade and national interests. France's defence industry is heavily state-subsidised, and we should bear in mind the fact that almost universal public condemnation of its decision to carry out nuclear tests did not stop it doing so.

As well as issues of transparency and lack of ambiguity—rightly mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife—the Liberal Democrat motion refers to human rights. As I said earlier, that issue featured strongly both in the last Government's guidelines and in the common criteria agreed in Luxembourg and Lisbon. The draft EU code, however, is ambiguous at best, and at worst weak. Paragraph 2 is full of caveats concerning internal repression. I will not repeat the section already mentioned by the Minister, but a later section states: In some cases, the use of force by a government within its own borders does not constitute internal repression. The use of such force by governments is legitimate in some cases, e.g. to preserve law and order against terrorists or other criminals. However force may only be used in accordance with international human rights standards. That is undoubtedly true, but, whether the Minister likes it or not, it is a loophole in what the Government claim they are trying to achieve.

Most astonishingly of all, the next section states: The attitude of recipient states towards relevant human rights instruments should also be taken into account although non-adherence should not preclude countries from receiving arms.

Mr. Tony Lloyd

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government should not fight terrorism, or is he saying that, if they do, they should have no recourse to international law? In either case, the Government disagree fundamentally with the position of Her Majesty's Opposition.

Mr. Faber

Of course I am not saying that; I am saying exactly the opposite. I entirely agree that, in many instances, it is necessary to sell such arms. As the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife pointed out, many countries have traditionally used that as an excuse, and will continue to do so. However, there is no instrument in the draft code of conduct to enforce the code, as such. Contrary to what the Minister says, it does not represent a step forward in terms of enforcement from the EU common criteria agreed in Luxembourg and Lisbon. The final statement that non-adherence should not preclude countries from receiving arms strikes me as an open invitation to many countries to use the excuse available to them.

I and, I am sure, the House look forward to the Foreign Secretary's report, which is due in the summer, on the impact of his policy on arms exports. I hope that it contains an apology to the hundreds of contractors whose exports have been stalled in the past few months, and I hope that he remembers to mention the exports to South Africa and Indonesia that he has approved. I hope that the Government and the Foreign Office, in particular, will give serious thought to a sensible balance between support for our own industry and the crucial need, agreed by all hon. Members, to uphold basic human rights throughout the world.

5.59 pm

Ms Tess Kingham (Gloucester)

In debating the international arms trade, it is important not to engage in sterile discussions about profit and loss statements, balance sheets and technicalities. We should consider not the recipients of arms—the military—but the civilians—the ordinary women, men and children who are most touched by the arms trade. Some 84 per cent. of all casualties are civilians, and they are the people on whom I should like the debate to focus.

I should make it clear at once that I am not a pacifist. I believe in a country's legitimate right to self-defence, and I have no difficulty with countries purchasing arms for such use. The area in which my constituency is situated relies greatly on the defence industry. I stress "defence industry". Before being elected to Parliament, I worked for 10 years for international aid agencies. Much of the work centred on areas in conflict, and I witnessed, or was told about, weapons that were sold by European countries and used not for defence but to wreak havoc and terror on civilian populations.

With War on Want in Mozambique, I saw people with their noses and lips cut off by the Renamo rebels who had shot, raped and looted, using weapons that had been supplied through South Africa and Europe. With Oxfam in El Salvador, I spoke to survivors of the Rio Sul Lempa massacre. That was a horrendous atrocity in which more than 200 women, children and old men, with nowhere to flee, were massacred on the banks of a river. I am told that, on that day, the water ran red. The El Salvador army was implicated in that massacre, and the previous British Government had given it military assistance. I was ashamed. European countries have continued to supply arms to Morocco, which illegally occupied Western Sahara in 1974 and used napalm on its people, attracting the condemnation of the international court and a UN resolution against the occupation. Those experiences motivated me to become involved in politics and today's debate is close to my heart.

I am well aware of the role of European countries and their arms export policies in conflicts such as those that I have outlined. In my work before I came to Parliament, I came to realise that, as the Minister has said, small arms do much damage throughout the world and cause much instability. The small arms industry is not of major economic significance to Europe. It has a low value and few jobs depend on it, but small arms cause devastation. I was in Albania for last year's elections, and at that time a rifle could be bought for $15. The proliferation of small arms makes that country volatile. I have recently returned from Rwanda. During the outbreak of genocide in 1994, people were killed with machetes and hoes but small arms were used to corral people, to contain them, before they were killed. It was mechanised, systematic murder.

It is estimated that 6,500 people a week are killed by small arms, and I welcome the Minister's statement about their control. There is no doubt that the irresponsible sale of arms to unscrupulous regimes costs civilian lives. It also takes a vast amount of public money to clear up the mess that is left by conflicts. There are currently more than 30 conflicts in the world, and the resulting damage consumes billions in international aid, and the donors include Britain. Such money is used for emergency relief, post-conflict reconstruction and peacekeeping. In 1995, the estimated cost of that was £2 billion.

There is no doubt that stricter controls on arms transfers are long overdue. That is why I am proud to be a Labour Member. My Government took action on this issue soon after they came to power. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced an ethical code for arms sales in July, just two months after Labour came to power. Our new ethical code is to staunch the flow of weapons to countries that use them for internal repression or external aggression. The Government are also committed to an EU code of conduct on arms transfers. The Minister outlined much of that code, which I welcome, but I want to make sure that it has teeth. I am reassured by the Minister's statement, but several areas must be addressed and tightened up if the code is to have an impact.

The first issue is parliamentary scrutiny. As we have heard, the Scott report concluded that, if exports to Iraq had been subject to such scrutiny, they would not have been approved. European Union countries should produce annual reports on arms sales, and we should press for a comprehensive EU register of arms.

Ms Julia Drown (South Swindon)

Should annual reports cover just strategic arms exports or should they cover all arms exports? Furthermore, in examining such annual reports, should we not assess the whole cost of arms, including public investment in research and matters such as export credits and offsets, because the absence of such costs makes arms and defence appear much cheaper than they are?

Ms Kingham

I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention. Annual reports should be comprehensive, but I am sure that the Minister will respond to that. Perhaps we should look at those matters in more detail. I should like to see such reports and a register of arms being debated in the House, but Parliament should at least be notified of proposed exports to sensitive countries. As we have heard, that happens in Sweden and it does not seem to cause much difficulty in the parliamentary process there. Perhaps the matter could be investigated under freedom of information proposals.

The second area of major concern relates to end use and brokering. There is a major loophole and an urgent need for arms brokers to be subjected to national and European Union scrutiny. EU countries could establish a central database of arms brokers with all proposed transactions subject to licensing. The EU should also have a common system of legally binding procedures on end use. There are too many loopholes, some of which are to be found in the Channel Islands, and they must be closed.

Many arms deals by companies and individuals in the EU involve the transfer of arms via third countries. The weapons never pass through the EU. In 1994, the company Mil Tec in the Isle of Man sent arms from Israel and Albania to Rwanda. That was in defiance of a UN arms embargo and those weapons were used at a time of genocide when up to 1 million people were butchered. There was blatant contravention of the embargo. There must be an EU agreement on a standard mechanism for implementing EU, Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and United Nations arms embargoes because, at the moment, there is no such mechanism.

Much of the small arms trade is conducted outside the EU. The Minister has spoken about illegal trade so I need not cover that ground again. I was encouraged by his statements on that issue. I hope that the Government will press hard for an international code of conduct on arms transfers and that they will support the Arias initiative. We should also use our persuasive powers on countries that wish to join the EU or to enter into formal agreements with it so that they are responsible in their legal arms exports and will clamp down on the many illegal arms sales in their territories, especially those of small arms. The UK is the second major exporter of arms. We have already taken the lead in Europe by pushing for an EU code of conduct on arms, which I fully support.

With the memory of the victims of conflict whom I have seen and spoken to over the years ever fresh in my mind, I sincerely hope and believe that the new Labour Government will address the concerns that I have raised today. A strong and bold code of conduct on arms transfers will leave a legacy of hope and peace for millions around the world whose lives are blighted by the fear of conflict. As we enter a new millennium, I can think of nothing more appropriate or worth while for the Government to do.

6.9 pm

Mr. Nick Harvey (North Devon)

I start by congratulating my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on the characteristically lucid and precise way in which he opened the debate on a subject which, for too many years, has been dark and shadowy in terms of parliamentary scrutiny. I agree entirely with him that we can and must recognise the change in attitude on the part of the British Government on the issues since the change in regime last May.

I join my hon. and learned Friend in paying tribute to the Foreign Secretary in coming forward with an ethical foreign policy—a worthwhile initiative, which will be judged over time by what it is able to achieve. The initiative was welcome and it struck a different tone and headed in a different direction from that to which we had become accustomed under the previous regime.

Government Back Benchers, such as the hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham), can bring to the subject not only personal knowledge, but a different point of view from those we have seen and heard from Government Back Benchers when the Conservatives were in power. A combination of the initiative on the part of the Foreign Secretary and Back Benchers with a different perspective will, over time, bring about a significant change from what we have seen in the past.

My hon. and learned Friend said that it was now two years since the Scott report was published and debated in this House. Anyone who was there that afternoon will recall clearly the drama of the occasion, and the fact that the Foreign Secretary—who was then in the Opposition—and my hon. and learned Friend had, I think, three hours in which to digest several volumes. None the less, they were able to pinpoint some key facts which, after two years, have not been treated as seriously as they should have been. I wish to refer to the matter of accountability to this House—a matter that I hope that the new Government and the Leader of the House will address. We must make changes to ensure that such things can never happen again.

For the benefit of those who were not here, and as a reminder to those who were, let me say that particular condemnation fell on the head of the former right hon. Member for Bristol, West, William Waldegrave, who was found by Scott and the inquiry to have wilfully misled this House. In particular, it was said that letters that he had written did not seem "to correspond with reality". His claim that the answers he had been giving to questions and in letters and public statements, in which he denied that any change in the Government policy's towards arms exports had taken place, was so plainly inapposite as to be incapable of being sustained by serious argument. This was misleading to anyone who does not know the substance of the decision.

I recognise fully that Ministers in this Government are not likely to find themselves engaging in the same sort of activities, but it is a point of procedural and constitutional necessity that changes must be made to prevent any member of any Government ever getting involved in that sort of concealment and subterfuge.

As Members of Parliament, we depend on certain things, such as straight answers to parliamentary questions. Occasionally, one does not put the right question and one may not receive an informative answer, but one expects a straight answer. It was found that answers to PQs, in both Houses of Parliament, failed to inform Parliament of the current state of Government policy … This failure was deliberate and was an inevitable result of the agreement between the three junior Ministers who had set out on a policy of concealing from both Houses of Parliament the truth about what had been going on. There was specific condemnation of what they had done. The giving of answers to parliamentary questions, the report said, is not simply a part of the game … played for the benefit of and under unexpressed rules understood by the Parliamentary players. The answers are also an important medium by which information about government and its activities is made available to the public. It is to be noticed that the respects in which the answers to the PQs about Government policy on defence exports to Iraq were inadequate and misleading were also respects in which some of the letters written in response to correspondence from members of the public were inadequate and misleading.

The report concluded: In the circumstances, the Government statements made in 1989 and 1990 about policy on defence exports to Iraq consistently failed … to comply with the standard set by paragraph 27 of the Questions of Procedure for Ministers and, more important, failed to discharge the obligations imposed by the constitutional principle of Ministerial accountability. That was a damning condemnation of the previous Government and members of it who, acting in deliberate and wilful collusion, had concealed from the House the details of what they were doing.

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall)

My hon. Friend is performing a helpful and important function for the House. Does he share my disappointment that, apart from a political eunuch—a Whip who cannot speak, or even listen to this attack—there is not a single Conservative Member in the Chamber? Is there some way that we can be sure that those very important lessons for the Conservative party are taken back to those who should be listening?

Mr. Harvey

I agree that it is shocking, but by no means surprising, that there are precious few Conservatives here to defend the record of the previous Government, but I hope that we shall be able to channel back to them the opinion of the House on their performance at that time.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife is known to have been a sportsman of some note, and it was characteristically sporting of him not to lay about the Conservative party because he felt that it was not here to answer. I shall show no such restraint. I have bitter recollections of a number of campaigns in which I have engaged over time on those matters which seem to bear out precisely the account of the Conservatives' activities that the Scott report highlighted.

I have been involved for some time in the campaign to prevent the export of Hawk aircraft to Indonesia. I listened with some astonishment to the words of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) on this point. [Interruption.] I welcome the hon. Gentleman's return to the Chamber. It was astonishing that he condemned the Government for the export of arms to Indonesia since the election last year. While I would not wish to query the validity of what he said, had I been wearing spectacles, I would have wiped them to check who was speaking. It was almost as astonishing as listening to Conservatives lambast the appointment of councillors to quangos or listening to the Conservatives' environment team complain about the construction of houses in the countryside—a policy that they started.

Mr. Faber

It is probably not the hon. Gentleman's glasses which need wiping—perhaps he needs to turn up his hearing aid. I pointed out that, when in opposition—with the notable exception of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who took a more pragmatic view—the Labour party was vigorously opposed to arms sales to Indonesia. Since they came to power, the Government have changed their mind and have endorsed the very same sales—presumably because they have access to the same information and security advice at the Foreign Office as we had when we were in government.

Mr. Harvey

I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but two wrongs do not make a right. The new Government are wrong to have sanctioned those sales of Hawk aircraft to Indonesia, and any other sales that have taken place. They have argued that the contractual position bequeathed to them by the Conservative party meant that it would have been extremely expensive to cancel the sales, but I still say that they should have done it.

The hon. Member for Westbury looked at the international competitive market in arms and argued that, if we did not get stuck in to make sure that we got our share, others would take the market away. That is exactly the same argument used centuries ago about slavery—we could not possibly afford to get out of the slave trade because others would take the market.

Sale of weapons to Indonesia cannot be justified. Under the Conservative Government, I attended meetings between representatives of Tapol, the campaign for human rights in Indonesia and East Timor, and Ministers from various Departments. The discussions were, frankly, farcical—despite being shown photographs of tanks that had been built in the midlands being used to quell crowds with Hawk aircraft flying overhead, Ministers argued that arms exported from Britain had not been used directly to suppress the citizens of Indonesia. Water cannon from this country have been used for the same purpose.

I could barely believe the discussions—the Ministers seemed supremely indifferent about whether it could be proven that British arms had been used. I believe that the fact that the regime was capable of such acts, and willing to use arms no matter where they had come from, renders Indonesia a market in which we should not be interested and to which we should not make any endeavour to sell.

Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam)

Is it not precisely such issues that cause so much concern about loopholes? The use of water cannon or armoured cars for crowd control could be justified on the ground of security force self-defence, which would enable such sales to continue.

Mr. Harvey

My hon. Friend is right. Such arguments can be constructed precisely to justify the circumstances that I have been describing. I echo the appeal of other hon. Members that the Government closely consider that point, perhaps giving the legitimate use of self-defence argument an alternative form of expression.

In reflecting on the record of the previous Government, one cannot help but recall the Pergau dam saga, in which the confusion between aid, trade and arms sales was exposed most horribly. We must take such issues into account in establishing whether the Government's ethical policy is a success.

Mr. Menzies Campbell

Does my hon. Friend remember that the decision about the Pergau dam was the subject of a successful application by a non-governmental organisation for judicial review in the High Court? Does that not reflect the bankruptcy of the previous Government's policy?

Mr. Harvey

It certainly does, and it emphasises the point that Parliament must have an effective means by which to consider those issues. I know that Governments have sometimes felt that some issues are so sensitive and confidential that it is not appropriate or possible for Parliament to discuss them, but I do not believe that that argument should be tolerated in those matters.

The Prime Minister has appointed a Committee comprising Members of both Houses of Parliament to scrutinise very sensitive issues of national security, so I believe that an equivalent mechanism can and must be found to consider arms sales. Moreover, as has been suggested, there must be detailed reports to Parliament.

During the previous Parliament, I tried on several occasions, as trade and industry spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, to pursue at oral questions the matter of the export of electric-shock batons. I can still hear the bland responses of Ministers, who said that my questions were irrelevant, impertinent and not a matter of legitimate interest. They claimed that nothing untoward had taken place, and refused to give informative answers or recognise the fact that Britain could in any way be condemned for its part in helping brutal regimes to suppress civilians.

I also recall that, in the Argentinian conflict, there was considerable evidence that British troops were confronted by enemies bearing arms that had come from the United Kingdom and France—such was the mess into which the previous Government's policies inevitably led us.

I do not pretend that the Foreign Secretary has set himself an easy task in mapping out an ethical policy. For example, all trading nations are guilty in their attitude towards China, which represents a huge, appetising and lucrative market. All those countries proceed with great caution, not wishing to offend China and imperil their chances of exploiting the future market—

Mr. Allan

Including newspaper proprietors.

Mr. Harvey

Most assuredly including newspaper proprietors. By treating the regime in China with kid gloves, we shall make it increasingly difficult to take a stand in the future. Unless we take a strong line at the outset, it will become more and more difficult, as contracts are signed and supply arrangements are made, to intervene.

When the period between 1979 and 1997 is written about in the history books, many facts that were hidden or misunderstood will begin to emerge. When people in this and other countries tell their stories, it will be not only Mr. William Waldegrave who will stand condemned, but many others, including prominent individuals from the Conservative regime. It will be seen that, for all its proud claims about its achievements, the Conservative party collectively acted in a very untoward way. The House and the public would not have wanted or approved of some of the diplomatic efforts to secure trading advantages for this country. There will be a stain on the Conservative party and this country when the world comes to understand what the previous Government presided over and, in some cases, actively colluded in, and gained profit from.

I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife on raising this matter. We encourage the new Government in their efforts to build a meaningful ethical policy and in their work on the code of conduct. Serious warnings have been given, which we urge the Government to address. I hope that the message will be taken to the Leader of the House that our procedures need to be reformed, so that the House can, in some way, get to grips with those issues. We must ensure that no Government of any colour can carry on as the previous Government did—there must be a mechanism for preventing what went on then.

6.28 pm

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey). I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) on what he said, and on choosing this subject for debate.

Times have assuredly changed. If such a debate had occurred a year ago, Conservative Ministers would have obfuscated, refused even to consider the human rights implications of arms sales, and become hysterical at any mention of the Scott report and sales of arms to Iraq, Iran or anywhere else.

I welcome the Government's initiative in stopping the export of weapons of torture, in moving so rapidly to eliminate anti-personnel land mines from the world stage, and in at least making a start down the road to the European Union code of conduct on arms sales. That code rightly mentions human rights, parliamentary scrutiny, end-use control, implementation of embargoes, brokering and legal status, all of which are important issues.

We should be slightly careful when we talk about controlling what happens to arms sales. I have a vivid memory of 11 September 1973, when British-built planes and Land Rovers and British-made equipment were used by the Chilean army to murder the elected President. All that equipment was sold to democratically elected Governments: the Christian Democrat Government of President Frei before 1970, and the Popular Unity Government of President Allende after that.

Those weapons would have fitted in with any of the criteria that we have discussed. The Chilean army was not willing to accept the democratic will of its people, and staged a coup that was successful in the sense that it murdered the President and ushered in a reign of terror that lasted for a very long time and cost the lives of very many people.

We must remember that arms are made to kill people, and if they are used to abuse human rights anywhere in the world, those who have made them and those who have caused them to be made and exported should consider their role carefully.

Last night, the House of Commons was invaded—in the nicest way possible—by more than 750 people who came to an Amnesty International-sponsored meeting on the situation in Algeria. The meeting was so successful that we had to organise two overflow rooms.

What is going on in Algeria is absolutely horrific. I do not pretend that an arms embargo on Algeria would solve the whole problem there, but the monumental arms sales have exacerbated the situation. Someone, somewhere along the line, promoted the sale of the weapons that are now being used in probably the most horrific conflict anywhere in the world. The percentage of Algeria's population that has been killed in the present conflict is higher than that of Britain's civilian population killed in the whole of the second world war, from 1939 to 1945.

On 8 March, we held a memorial meeting, in Committee Room 10, on the 10th anniversary of the chemical bombardment of Halabja. We showed a film, survivors spoke, and people described the continuing loss of life in Halabja as a result of the use of chemical and biological weapons. The film was deeply disturbing. We must recognise that the precursor chemicals that were used to manufacture the weapons, the manufacturing ability, the delivery systems and the aircraft, all came from western Europe.

Many Members of Parliament at the time constantly asked questions about those sales and exports, and about the denial that anything was going on. The United Nations inspection team in Iraq apparently knows the identity of all the companies that manufactured and exported fertiliser-making equipment, which much of the offending material was sold as before being used for the foul purposes to which it was put.

A veil of secrecy is being used to protect those companies and the people who work for them, but I am not sure that they should be protected. The people of Halabja were not protected: they are still dying, and the pollution continues. The least that we can do is to give what support we can to humanitarian and medical agencies that are trying to get help there to deal with the cancers and the many deaths from other causes.

Arms exports to Nigeria have gone on for a long time, despite the endless military coups, the abuse of democracy and the execution—more like state murder—of Ken Saro-Wiwa and other Ogoni activists. The United Nations seems none the less to condone and support Nigeria in a quasi-peacekeeping role elsewhere. We should be careful. The weapons embargo on Nigeria is important, but so is Nigeria's recognition, or lack of it, of human rights.

I have in front of me a picture with the caption "Butcher of Jakarta comes to London", inviting people to a protest rally this weekend. President Suharto is visiting Britain at the moment. I have before me an Amnesty International report on East Timor, where 200,000 people have been killed.

Time after time, when hon. Members raised the issue of the sale of Hawk aircraft, anti-personnel weaponry and other equipment, Tory Ministers told us that they were being used not for internal repression but for external defence. Where is the external threat to Indonesia? Suharto bought the weapons to continue the illegal occupation of East Timor. I am disappointed that the new Government cancelled only some of the export orders for Indonesia that were in train at the time of the general election.

The imposition of a total arms embargo on Indonesia would make a significant difference, but above all it would be seen as a signal to those who have lost friends and relatives in East Timor and are being overflown and bombed by Hawk aircraft that somebody, somewhere in the world, cares about them. It is all very well applauding Jose Ramos Horta and Bishop Belo and awarding them prizes, but if we carry on selling arms to the regime, what is it all for? They want not awards but peace and self-determination.

The situation in Turkey has not been good since the coup in 1980. There is brutal repression of trade unions and human rights organisations, with imprisonment and executions. A major conflict is taking place in Kurdistan, with aerial surveillance, bombardment, the rasing of villages and constant incursions into northern Iraq by the Turkish army.

Human rights abuses in Turkey are well documented, and, indeed, legion. The least we can do is examine the criteria that we apparently support on the sale of weaponry to other countries, and measure Turkey's record against them. Where are the democratic controls, the parliamentary scrutiny, the respect for human rights? Where is the right of the Kurdish people to self-expression, let alone self-determination?

We are keen on banning arms sales to some countries because we are worried about human rights, but we seem perfectly happy, for other geopolitical or commercial reasons, to sell arms to other countries with an equally appalling record. For example, Saudi Arabia is a major purchaser of British arms and equipment, but there is not much discussion about it, even in the media, because we do not want to upset the oil barons of the middle east.

If we are to follow an ethical foreign policy, we must look in the long run at the whole industrial base of the arms trade. In promoting his ethical foreign policy immediately after the general election, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary probably understood very well that there would be tensions among the arms industry, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Foreign Office and others.

The policy enabled those of us who are passionate in the interests of human rights at least to raise the subject, and that is important in itself, but I would prefer it if we could aim for the longer-term objective of ensuring that we have a proper arms conversion agency, to allow the brilliance and skill of those who manufacture weapons of mass destruction, high-quality aircraft and other military equipment to be put to use manufacturing goods for the benefit rather than the destruction of humankind.

We could not achieve a transfer of that entire manufacturing base overnight, but we have to start somewhere.

Ms Drown

Does my hon. Friend agree that there is some tension in the House, because there is much agreement today about the need for an ethical arms trade policy, but, when another debate comes up about jobs, hon. Members will defend jobs in the arms industry in their constituencies? Does he agree that, as a strong part of the new Government's developing policy, the first part of money released through defence diversification should go back into the areas concerned, so that the skilled people there can find jobs in more constructive areas of employment?

Mr. Corbyn

My hon. Friend reads my mind. What brilliance; no one else can. Her point is important. I do not seek to make enemies or to criticise people who work in the arms industry. That is not my purpose, or that of anyone else concerned about human rights. I am concerned that a diversification agency should reduce Britain's dependence on arms manufacture and export. It must invest so that, instead of the market madness of the Tory Government, we examine rationally how to reduce the volume and value of the arms industry and its exports, and put the money into socially useful products.

The subsidy to the arms industry is enormous. About £5,000 per job is subsidised every year. The subsidy on exports is more than £300 million a year. The Export Credits Guarantee Department's exposure on arms exports is vast. Following the collapse of the south-east Asian tiger economies, I understand that £800 million is still unpaid by Indonesia. The figure is duplicated in many other countries.

The British taxpayer is to be asked to pay for the weapons that are going to be used to kill people in Indonesia and many other places. It is a ludicrous business to depend on. If we are concerned about human rights, we cannot at the same time promote arms exports knowing full well that Governments such as Suharto's will use them against the poor people of East Timor and many other places.

Since the second world war, conflicts have arisen all over the globe. They were sometimes cold war conflicts by proxy, sometimes demands for self-determination, and often arguments about oil and natural resources. The common thread is that, in every one of those conflicts, in which 40 million people have died since 1945, someone along the line has made a great deal of money from the export of the weapons that helped to fuel them.

What always sticks in my mind is visiting a scrap metal yard in northern Iraq after the Iran-Iraq war. I walked around and saw the manufacturer's labels on the shell casings and aircraft remains, and thought of all the money made all over the world from that appalling and useless conflict in which 500,000 people on each side were killed. We pay that price in our conscience, but other people pay it with their lives as a result of the arms export industry and the competition of arms dealers around the world. Why not instead look ahead to something a bit bolder than the diversification agency proposed in the Green Paper, to a time when the skill and brilliance involved in producing arms produces goods that benefit humankind rather than killing it?

6.42 pm

Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park)

It has been an interesting debate, but Her Majesty's Opposition are conspicuous by their absence. Earlier, they challenged the Leader of the House to give them time for debates on defence and foreign policy, but they cannot be bothered to turn up to a debate on the international arms trade. A plague on them.

Mr. Faber

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dr. Tonge

No, I will not, because I have very little time. The hon. Gentleman took more than enough time.

We had a detailed response from the Minister. There were a lot of words, but they must be matched by action. I urge him to more action and a few less words. I agree with the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) that there was a lot of rhetoric, and that nothing much seems to have changed yet. We shall see.

The hon. Member for Gloucester (Ms Kingham), my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey), and, of course, the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) brought passion to the debate. We heard about the effects of the international arms trade.

We live in an unstable world, because the end of the cold war left us with a paradox. There is less threat, but also less peace. Of the major armed conflicts in the world today, not one is a classic war of one state against another. Typically, wars today are violent, and ethnically or religiously oriented. Almost all are in poor countries. For those embroiled in such conflicts, the dominant threat is not nuclear arsenals but small arms controlled by warlords, as so aptly noted by the hon. Member for Gloucester.

Civilians suffer 90 per cent. of casualties, of whom more than 40 per cent. are children, as the hon. Member for Gloucester and I saw illustrated vividly in Rwanda— something we will never forget. Such violence, ethnic cleansing and mass rape undermine the values on which depend human relationships and respect for human rights. A little bit passion in the debate would have been appreciated.

As civilised nations with human rights, we call on the world to do something. However, those called upon to do something are the men and women in the military who once protected us from a single threat. I am grateful for that, as one of the generation that was protected and given a good life as a consequence. They are now called on for peacekeeping, and, more often, peace enforcement.

I hope that the defence review—which, it was promised, would be policy-led—reflects the strategic change, while recognising the continuing need for a well-equipped military. The hon. Member for Westbury was very hot on the importance of a strong defence industry.

Mr. Stephen Hesford (Wirral, West)

The hon. Lady mentioned the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber). Does she agree that speeches such as his make the Government's position very difficult, in an area which is already difficult? There was no support from Conservative Members for an ethical foreign policy. The Opposition said virtually nothing about human rights.

Dr. Tonge

I agree. I remind the hon. Member for Westbury that a strong defence industry that is good for the economy comes at the expense of the lives of women and children and the torture of people all over the world. In the next century, that cost must be taken into account.

Mr. Faber

Does the hon. Lady accept that most of my quotations in defence of the British defence industry were from last month's Government Green Paper?

Dr. Tonge

I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out, but I stick to what I said about his remarks.

If we are to promote an ethical foreign policy, it must be backed by a code of conduct for arms sales, as ably argued by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). My first major concern is the matter of licences not being granted if there is a risk of arms being used for internal repression.

I still have no idea who or what decides what internal repression is. I should be grateful if the Minister would explain it. Baroness Chalker spoke in terms similar to the Government's about internal repression, but still licences are granted. Not much has changed. Since 1 May, there have been 22 to Indonesia, 16 to Kenya, 86 to Turkey, two to Algeria, and so on. That is why full parliamentary scrutiny of arms sales in advance is imperative.

Arms broking was also mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife and the hon. Member for Gloucester. It is essential that all EU residents and registered companies comply with the European policy on arms exports. We must stop the scandal of brokerage. The hon. Member for Gloucester told us about the scandal in Rwanda and Mil Tec's involvement. The issue must be cleared up and included in the policy.

On the subject of scrutiny in Parliament, I ask the Minister to consider carefully Sir Richard Scott's suggestion of a standing interdepartmental committee. The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible at the same time for promoting and for restricting exports. The Scott report questioned whether the DTI should continue to be the licensing authority when the material reasons for refusing export licences were usually the preserve of other Departments such as the Department for International Development.

A standing committee would facilitate communication between the DTI, the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, and concerns could be raised. It would enable parliamentarians to scrutinise sensitive export licences in advance.

Several hon. Members mentioned annual reports, but they allow only retrospective debate after the exports have been licensed. In Sweden, a parliamentary committee scrutinises proposed exports to countries of concern in advance. Even the United States—the largest arms exporter—has a system of prior notification. As three former distinguished members of the armed forces said in a letter to The Times recently, Britain must have a more restrictive and transparent arms policy at the same time as it supports our armed forces and promotes an ethical foreign policy.

This year is the 50th anniversary of the universal declaration of human rights. It is an opportunity for a global effort to work towards the new world order that western leaders declared after the end of the cold war, but which has evaded us. The horrors of recent years have proved that peace will not come by rhetoric alone. We are approaching a new century. As we led in the fight against dictators and repression in this century, Britain, along with her allies, must promote humanitarian principles and codes of conduct in the next. In a world of less threat, less peace, we must work for peace.

6.51 pm

Mr. Tony Lloyd

With the leave of the House. This has been a fascinating debate in many ways. I have some sympathy with the remarks of the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) about the need for passion. I have just returned from Sierra Leone. I shall say this dispassionately, because if I say it emotionally it will be almost an abuse of emotion.

I saw pictures that almost defied description of the torture that had been meted out to the victims of the former junta. People had been beheaded or had their limbs torn off. I met survivors of torture. That is what war and brutality are all about, and that is, among other reasons, why we have to introduce ethical standards into all our debates on foreign policy and our relationship with our fellow human beings in this world.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park called for fewer words and more action. Perhaps she will forgive me for saying that a considerable amount of action is being taken. I shall give her some instances.

Even this debate about arms sales has to be put into the wider context of a world that moves away from the perception of conflict as the norm towards conflict prevention as a more rational way of going forward. Picking up the pieces after a conflict is always incredibly expensive and inefficient and can never recompense the victims. In various areas, the Government are making progress, and in some areas we are doing precisely what I have described.

The hon. Lady described rape as an act of war. The Government are working hard to establish an international criminal court. Among the things that we want such a court to do is to accept that rape as a tactic of war will be seen as a war crime.

Dr. Tonge

Does the Minister accept that rape is an act of genocide, not only of war?

Mr. Lloyd

We are in danger of getting into a battle of semantics rather than a battle of practicalities. We want to ensure that the crime of rape as an act of war is penalised through the international criminal court and seen for what it is—an act of atrocious violation.

Those are practical steps forward. We are doing work in The Hague and in Arusha, where an international tribunal on events in Rwanda is being held. We are giving practical support to ensure that those two tribunals are able to provide a framework within which justice is seen to be part of the process of reconciliation. We are taking steps in Africa, where Britain is undertaking active training in peacekeeping to prevent the outbreak of conflict. We are taking part at the level of the United Nations in efforts to move things forward in a practical way to build a capacity to stop conflict breaking out. Those are practical steps, and they are important.

Britain ought to be proud that we are at the forefront of practical steps, and that we are part of moving this world on. The hon. Member for Richmond Park is right: passion is necessary in defence of the rights of those who get little by way of defence elsewhere, but it is in that context that we are making real and tangible progress in the context of arms sales. I have already explained to the House the practical steps that we are taking on illicit arms trafficking and international registration. Those are practical steps.

The European Union code of conduct is a practical step. It brings our European allies on board in a process that they have never previously undertaken collectively. Again, that is progress. That is why, sadly, the speech of the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) was so sad and so churlish. After a new leader of the Conservative party has been elected and after time for reflection, it would have been enough to say, "We are genuinely sorry. What the previous Government did was an outrage. It was a disgrace and a stain on this nation." That would have been a sensible speech.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Derek Fatchett)

He did not vote for the new leader.

Mr. Lloyd

Perhaps we have an old Tory here—proud of Scott, proud of the Pergau dam scandal, proud of all those stains on our national honour, which are now being washed away because Britain does not want that any more.

The hon. Member for Westbury talked about delays. When the Labour Government came to power, they inherited a system in which the previous Government did not care about arms sales, had no proper control system and asked no questions. Ministers took no decisions except the decision to sell.

Inevitably, when a new Government come to power determined to break with that past, the system creaks under the strain. We have had to rebuild the system. We have had to work with the very competent officials who are now making the system work. Yes, we inherited a system that produced delays. We are now getting those delays out of the system, but the responsibility falls on the previous Government. That is widely understood in the industry, which recognises that the balance is now being got right.

It is astonishing that the hon. Member for Westbury wants us to apply a system in which the delays would not occur. He wants us to go back to the system in which everything went through, and we let whatever was put to us pass by; in which there was no control. We are not prepared to do that, because we must have better standards of practice.

Mr. Faber

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Lloyd

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me—

Mr. Faber

The hon. Gentleman referred to me.

Mr. Lloyd

The hon. Gentleman referred to me in his speech, and he will forgive me if we cannot always give way on that basis.

The hon. Gentleman has to make up his mind whose side he is on. Is he on the side of an arms sales policy that balances out national interest—of course—and jobs—of course—but recognises that recourse to the words of respect for human rights is not enough and that it must be put it into practice? That is what is happening under the Labour Government, and what we did not see under the previous Government.

Several hon. Members referred to Mil Tec. Mil Tec was itself something of a scandal, because the previous Government failed to include the Isle of Man in the legislation that brought the UN embargo into effect. That was astonishing, but lax, as was so much that was done by the previous Government. We are simply not prepared to operate according to those standards.

This has been an important debate. It is the first to concentrate on how we get the balance right. The Government are happy for the debate to have taken place, and we congratulate the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). We believe that Parliament has a right to be involved in the process, and today Parliament has taken part. It is a shame that the hon. Member for Westbury, speaking on behalf of the main Opposition party, failed to take part in the process of parliamentary scrutiny.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House, mindful of the conclusions of the Scott Report, commends Her Majesty's Government for its efforts to obtain agreement for a European Union Code of Conduct on the arms trade; and urges Her Majesty's Government to ensure that any such code sets high common standards governing arms exports for all Member States, and, in particular, to insist that export guidelines are transparent, unambiguous and pay due regard to human rights.