HC Deb 08 November 2001 vol 374 cc420-41

'(1) In deciding how to exercise a licensing power under a control order in connection with controls imposed by virtue of paragraph 4, 4A, 4B or 4C of the Schedule, regard shall be had, among other things, to any potential consequences of the activities being controlled that are of a kind mentioned in the Table in paragraph 4D of the Schedule.

(2) Otherwise, nothing in paragraph 4, 4A, 4B or 4C of the Schedule limits—

  1. (a)the reasons which may justify a decision to grant or refuse a licence or to exercise any other licensing power under a control order in any particular way; or
  2. (b) the matters to which regard may be had in the exercise of any licensing power under a control order.'.— [Nigel Griffiths.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Nigel Griffiths

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Michael Lord)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 3—Licence revocation and end-use controls—

'(1) The Secretary of State may revoke, suspend or amend any licence issued under any of the powers conferred by this Act where any of the parties referred to in the relevant licence fail to honour their export licence obligations.

(2) The Secretary of State shall revoke any licence issued under any of the powers conferred by this Act where the execution of the licence:

  1. (a) results in any of the consequences referred to in the Table in paragraph 4 of the Schedule, or
  2. (b) results in consequences which contravene any of the consolidated criteria relating to export licensing decisions announced to Parliament by the Secretary of State on 26th October 2000.

(3) For the purpose of sub-section 1 "export licence obligations" will include, but not be limited to, end-use undertakings stipulated in the relevant licence or end-use documentation.

(4) Upon the revocation of a licence, all future exports of goods, transfers of technology, provision of technical assistance or trade in controlled goods authorised by or relating to the licence shall be cancelled.

(5) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for follow-up monitoring of the use made of goods exported, technology transferred, technical assistance provided or goods traded, in order to establish whether the end-use commitments entered into as a consequence of applying for an export licence (required by an order under section 1, 2, 4 or 5) are being honoured.'.

New clause 4—Prior parliamentary scrutiny— 'As part of the licence application process required by an order under section 1, 2, 4 or 5, the Secretary of State may take advice from a Parliamentary Select Committee.' New clause 6—Prior parliamentary scrutiny— 'The Secretary of State may consult with any Select Committee of the House of Commons or the House of Lords before a determination regarding an application for a licence required by an order under section 1, 2, 4 or 5 is completed.'. New clause 7—Revocation of licences—

'(1) Any licence or Community Licence granted under this Act, or having effect as if so granted, may be amended, suspended or revoked by the Secretary of State at any time and in such circumstances and on such terms as she thinks fit by serving notice to that effect on the holder of the licence or Community Licence.

(2) For the purpose of this clause "such circumstances" and "such terms" will include, but not be limited to, breaches of the end-use undertakings stipulated in the relevant licence or end-use documentation.

(3) With immediate effect from the date of revocation,—

  1. (a) any further exports of goods, transfers of technology, provision of technical assistance or trade in controlled goods authorised by the licence, and
  2. (b) the provision of further equipment, technology, training, transport or technical, promotional, or financial assistance in support of goods, technology or technical assistance already supplied under the relevant licence shall be cancelled.'.

Nigel Griffiths

New clause 2 is a Government new clause, and I shall explain why it is necessary. I shall also explain why I consider that new clauses 3, 4, 6 and 7 should be withdrawn.

New clause 2 follows as a consequential amendment to the group of amendments relating to new clause 1. In effect, it replicates the second half of the current clause 3 relating to the reasons that may be taken into account in decision making on export licences. I urge hon. Members to accept it.

New clauses 3 and 7 deal with licence revocation and end-use controls. Both would give the Secretary of State the power to revoke, suspend or amend any licence issued under the Bill. They also allow revocation where obligations under end-use undertakings were not honoured, and require the Secretary of State to revoke the licence if its execution had any of the consequences listed in the table of the schedule or contravened the consolidated criteria.

4 pm

New Clause 3 would allow the Secretary of State to make provision by order for end-use monitoring of any exports under the licence; new clause 7 to cancel the provision of various goods or services in support of any goods, technology or technical assistance already supplied under a licence with effect from revocation. The new clauses are unnecessary, because the Government already have powers to revoke, suspend and amend export licences. Those powers will be carried forward in the new Bill.

It might be helpful if I explained the present position, and the position under the new Bill. Under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939, the Secretary of State has power to revoke, suspend or amend any form of licence, whether open or individual. Those powers apply to licences themselves. Details of revocations are included in the annual reports on strategic export controls. Revocation might take place when there is clear evidence that an undertaking given by the end user is likely to be broken because the situation in the recipient country changes significantly after a licence is issued. Revocation might also apply when new information comes to light after a licence has been issued that would have led to the refusal of an application.

If we had reliable evidence of a past breach of an end-use undertaking or the risk of diversion in relation to a specific destination, those factors would certainly be taken into consideration in the assessment of any future licence applications involving that end-user destination.

As for the new Bill, the dummy orders with which we provided the Committee contain revocation, suspension and amendment provisions. The dummy orders on the export of goods, the transfer of technology and the provision of technical assistance—all of which are mentioned in the new clause—provide for the revocation of licences in article 10(5) on page 10. The dummy order on trade in controlled goods provides for revocation under article 5(2)on page 4. The example we have provided of a dummy order giving effect to an embargo includes revocation in article 4(2) on page 2.

The circumstances in which revocation would be considered are the same under the Bill as in existing legislation. The power of revocation, suspension and amendment follows the well-established precedent established in the 1939 Act, in which related secondary legislation also contained the revocation provisions. As for the Exports of Goods (Control) Order 1994, a copy of which we supplied to the Committee before the recess, article 7(1) mentioned the revocation control. Decisions to revoke licences are made by the Secretary of State on a case-by-case basis, in the light of all the relevant information.

As I have said, if there were reliable evidence that an end-use undertaking was about to be breached, revocation would be considered. If new information came to light that would have led to a refusal against the consolidated criteria, revocation would be considered. If circumstances changed significantly in the end-use destination, revocation would be considered.

Revocation is of course a serious step, with significant consequences for the exporter as well as the UK's reputation as a supplier. All such decisions to revoke need to be assessed carefully. Revoking a licence will prevent the export of any as yet unexported items covered by the licence. What the consequences would be for other non-licensable items related to items exported under the licence would be a matter for the relevant contract, which is of course a legal and commercial matter between the exporter and the customer, rather than the licence. Rather than imposing an obligation to revoke licences in the event of any of the consequences listed in the table of the schedule, or contravention of the consolidated criteria, we should take those factors into account at the licensing stage. We already do that.

Failure to take the relevant factors into account in either case would open the decision to possible successful legal challenge. Imposing an obligation to revoke licences in certain circumstances would also impose an obligation on the Government to carry out end-use monitoring of every export. The Government do not believe that the end-use monitoring issue needs to be addressed in new primary legislation. Of course, it is important that arms exported from the UK should not be misused or diverted to any undesirable end-users. Although it is difficult to see what the measure could practically do to minimise the risk of that happening, the Government have already shown that they are ready and able to monitor the end use of defence exports in circumstances where that can make a genuine contribution to our efforts to prevent diversion or misuse and, as I have explained already, we possess the power of revocation.

Mr. John Battle (Leeds, West)

Can my hon. Friend tell me whether that power has ever been used?

Nigel Griffiths

Yes. 1 assure my hon. Friend that the power has been used. It is one of the criteria that I as Minister and my predecessors have taken into account. I will send him the section from the annual report that we produced that shows a number of licences that have been revoked for that purpose. I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to explain that clearly to the House. It is a real power: a power that has been used, not a power that has perhaps lapsed or is ineffective. The key is that the Secretary of State possesses the necessary powers. The Bill itself does not need to include detailed provisions about that matter, and I invite hon. Members not to press the new clause.

New clauses 4 and 6 on prior parliamentary scrutiny provide for the Government to take advice from a parliamentary Select Committee on export licence applications in advance of licensing decisions. The Government's response to the Quadripartite Committee in July this year set out the reasons why we believed that such a system of prior scrutiny would not be right in principle, and could not be made to work in practice without having a significant adverse impact on the efficiency and effectiveness of the export licensing process. The Government have made it clear that they see Parliament's role as one of scrutinising decisions after they have been taken and inputting it into policy, not taking part in the decision-making process itself.

Mr. Martin O'Neill (Ochil)

I am intrigued by the impact that prior scrutiny would have on the efficiency and good working of the export licence department. My colleagues in the Select Committee on Trade and Industry have considered the matter over the previous two Parliaments and will probably return to the issue in this one. Over the years, we have found it very difficult to see what additional problems could be visited on the poor civil servants in that department. Perhaps my hon. Friend could be explicit as to which sections, which areas and which difficulties are likely to create extra work for those poor civil servants who have been grossly burdened over the years. The fact is that the improvements have increased efficiency. I would like to know how there will be a regression in the service as a consequence of prior scrutiny.

Nigel Griffiths

I would be happy to take my hon. Friend on a tour of the department to give him a number of examples, but to answer his point directly, it is vital that there should be no delays when decisions are taken on licences. We have set targets to clear decisions in 20 days, but as he and the House know, consultations will take place, especially on those licences where we are determined to ensure that there is no risk of diversion of end use, where we are determined to avoid an embargo, and indeed where circumstances have changed in the country. We are determined to ensure that the input from colleagues at the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and indeed the Department for International Development are firmly taken into account. Having considered the Quadripartite Committee's evidence, we have concluded that further delays would be introduced. I do not have to tell my hon. Friend about the necessity of convening a Committee and supplying papers to its members so that it could meet to consider them. It is interesting that very few legislatures have any form of prior parliamentary scrutiny. My hon. Friend nods in acknowledgement. I have some criticisms of those that do. It is vital that Parliament has the ability to hold the Government to account and in my remarks I do not mean to underestimate either the concern or the need to ensure that there is proper scrutiny.

Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)

My hon. Friend mentioned other Parliaments. The largest arms exporter in the world is the United States and it has a system of prior scrutiny, which some of us have had an opportunity to study at first hand. If the largest arms exporter in the world does not find it a problem, why should this Government?

Nigel Griffiths

I know that my hon. Friend has real concerns about this. Let me refer her to some of the key briefings that we have had on this matter. One of them freely acknowledges that the United States has prior parliamentary scrutiny, but says that enforcement is ineffective in far too many cases. That is one of the key problems of the American system and anyone who prays it in aid.

We want an effective system and that is why we have taken key decisions in the Bill to ensure that we have the most practical and tough regime. Parliamentary scrutiny at the appropriate stage is important. Our annual reports on strategic export controls have opened up the Government's export licensing policy and brought about unprecedented scrutiny and debate. I know that hon. Members have widely welcomed the reports and that industry and other non-governmental organisations have been complimentary.

I am pleased that the Bill will make the publication of an annual report a statutory requirement. In view of all that, I ask hon. Members not to press their new clauses. For the reasons that I gave, I commend new clause 2 to the House.

Mr. Key

It is not my intention to oppose Government new clause 2, but I need to concentrate on it for a few minutes because it has changed significantly the wording and the Government's message in this legislation. I need to understand exactly what the Government mean.

In Committee, there was an interesting exchange between the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and the Minister. The hon. Lady said: I must dispute the Minister's claim that subsection (4) covers actual people. We are talking about people who are training to be mercenaries and to fight, perhaps with their bare hands. We are not talking about goods and services or technology of any description.

The Minister replied: I should not have to tell the hon. Lady that mercenaries need equipment and technology; they thrive on it. They do not generally go around using their bare hands; they are well armed. It is clear from the examples that we have been given of websites and from advertisements that people will not train in America without the equipment that the hon. Member for Salisbury mentioned. It is important to note that people provide services, and mercenaries provide a despicable service that requires an infrastructure."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 16 October 2001; c. 99.] That is significant because new clause 2 refers to paragraph 4D of the schedule. Paragraph 4D says that regard shall be had to (a) acts threatening international peace and security". New clause 2(2) says nothing in paragraph 4, 4A, 4B or 4C of the Schedule limits … (b) the matters to which regard may be had in the exercise of any licensing power under a control order. I ask for clarification because there seems to have been a change. In the interests of their legislation, the Government needed to change the wording.

4.15 pm

I drew attention in Committee to the European Union June 2000 agreement on the control of technical assistance related to weapons of mass destruction, and pointed out that it embodied important principles. In paragraph 45 of command paper 5091, technical assistance is defined thus: Technical assistance, as defined in the joint action, means any technical support related to repairs, development, manufacture, assembly, testing, maintenance, or any other technical service and may take forms such as instruction, training, transmission of working knowledge or skills or consulting services and includes oral forms of assistance. The hon. Lady knew that the EU had included people in its documentation and that the Bill, as drafted at that time, did not. However, the new wording seems to include people. If that is so, I warmly welcome the fact, but must therefore assume, unless it is explained otherwise, that that covers the problem of mercenaries.

I perceive that although we signed up to that EU document, there is a gap in the Bill concerning mercenary activity. The Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 prevents British subjects from serving against countries with which the UK is at peace. However, there has been no successful prosecution under that Act since its introduction more than 130 years ago.

The Government's lack of power to regulate mercenaries was demonstrated in December 1989, when the United Nations General Assembly adopted the international convention against the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries. According to the former Foreign Office Minister, the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), whom I am glad to see in his place, the Government had no plans to sign the convention. In a written answer in 1998, which I do not for one moment expect him to remember, he said: We have no plans at present to sign and ratify the International Convention against Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. We have doubts concerning its legal enforceability in the United Kingdom. We are looking at options for national domestic regulation of military companies."—[Official Report, 15 June 1998; Vol. 314, c. 16W.] Then we had the Legge report on the Government's handling of the situation in Sierra Leone and the activities of Sandline International. At that stage, the Foreign Office promised: To issue within 18 months a Green Paper on mercenary activity, taking account of discussions with our partners in the UN, the EU and other international fora. The Paper will address both the international and the UK context. That was in the second report from the Foreign Affairs Committee, session 1998–99, on Sierra Leone, Cmnd. 4325. The Green Paper has yet to emerge.

On 6 April 2001, in a written answer at column 298W, the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), whom I am also delighted to see in his place—I would not for one moment expect him to remember what he said all that time ago either—expressed his regret that the Green Paper expected in November 2000 had not been published.

I then raised the matter with the Home Secretary during a statement on terrorism a few weeks ago. Since then, we have been told that the Foreign Office is making some progress on the matter. On 29 October, the Financial Times reported: The Foreign Office said yesterday: 'Work on the green paper is now well advanced and we hope to be able to inform parliament about its publication soon."' My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has received a written answer this afternoon from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that said that progress was being made and that it hopes to have something to report soon.

We all want to address the problem of mercenaries; we are agreed on that. Is this an opportunity for mercenaries to be brought into the scope of the Bill? The Minister was clear in his courteous and detailed explanation why they were not included previously. My sole purpose in raising the question is to get an answer in this debate to the query about mercenaries.

Mr. Berry

In speaking primarily to new clause 7 and the issue of revocation, I do so in the spirit of my speech on Second Reading. I warmly welcome the Bill. Together with other Government measures taken over the past four years, we now have a policy on arms exports and an attitude to controlling exports that did not exist previously. That contrasts sharply with the regime prior to May 1997. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought I had better get the "Hear, hears" at the beginning.

It is in that spirit that I wish to say that friends and supporters of what my hon. Friend the Minister is doing feel that we have a responsibility to point out ways in which the Bill can be improved. With other colleagues, I tabled new clause 7 in that spirit. I believe that the Government should have the explicit authority to revoke licences where end-use undertakings or other licence obligations have been broken. That should be an explicit authority in the Bill.

I heard what my hon. Friend the Minister said; namely, that the Government already have the power to revoke licences and that the new clause was unnecessary. If we look at past experience, we can see why some of us feel that the Minister is perhaps being slightly optimistic. With others, I had the pleasure of serving from the beginning on the Quadripartite Select Committee and we looked at recent experience. When I am told that the Government have no problems in revoking licences, I think of some examples that the Committee looked at in depth—in particular I think of Hawks spare parts, Indonesia and Zimbabwe.

First, I wish to refer to Indonesia. In July 1997, the Government announced new criteria to be applied to arms exports. These were warmly welcomed by all those who felt that it was time to get the trade under firmer control. I very much welcomed the criteria announced at the time. The Government said also at the time that it would be neither realistic nor practical to review existing export licences. The one area where that caused most concern was the existing outstanding licences for arms exports to Indonesia.

In May 1997, the Labour Government inherited 125 active export licences for Indonesia. I will not explain how we got into that position; others may wish to comment. As hon. Members know, there was particular concern about the export of Hawks to Indonesia, given the human rights violations in East Timor. The Government's view was that it was not realistic or practical to review existing licences. The Quadripartite Select Committee interviewed Ministers and produced a report that commented on the matter.

The Committee did not think it impractical to review 125 licences, but we made a note that the reason the Government felt that it was not realistic was based on legal advice about the potential for legal action by exporters if individual licences were revoked. We requested sight of that advice and, perhaps for perfectly understandable reasons, the Government declined to respond to that invitation. That is one example of where there is doubt about the Government's ability to revoke export licences if they so wished. In that case, we had a change of Government and a change of policy. That new policy was applied to new export licence applications—and full credit to the Government for applying it—but the Government felt that they could not review existing licences for fear of legal action.

The second example is much more recent. There were similar concerns about end-use and contractual obligations regarding the transfer of Hawk spare parts to Zimbabwe in February 2000. I shall briefly quote the relevant part of the Quadripartite Committee's report of July 2000: On 24 February 2000 the seven outstanding licence applications for Hawk spares were granted. It is not disputed that Hawks have been used in the intervention in the DRC, and there remains a clear risk that they might be used again. Without these spares it has been widely reported that two of the Hawks would be unable to operate … The particular difficulty seen by the Government in the case of the Hawk spares arose from the contractual obligation on BAE Systems to facilitate the supply of spares for 15 years after delivery of the aircraft. As it happens, that contractual obligation was subsequently overridden by a ministerial licensing decision and an arms embargo was announced in May, but in February the argument was, "Gosh, we cannot go ahead with what we would like to do—restrict spares supplies to Zimbabwe because the aircraft are being used in the Democratic Republic of Congo—because of legal obligations". In the report of the Quadripartite Committee published in July 2000, that discussion was noted word for word.

The key issue is that when the Government are deciding whether to revoke an export licence due to, for example, a breach in end-use undertakings, the Government must not be compromised by the risk of legal challenge by the exporter. The Minister, in good faith, has said that he does not believe that that situation need occur, given the Government's existing powers. I have provided him with two examples—there are others, but I shall keep my comments brief—where real concerns were expressed by Ministers at the highest level to the Quadripartite Committee about the Government's existing legal powers. By amending the Bill to include the power to revoke licences for breaches of export licence obligations, the Government would lessen the likelihood of legal challenge and send a clear signal that problems associated with end use were taken seriously.

I am pretty sure that there is no disagreement on that. In article 10(5) of the dummy order on export of goods, transfer of technology and provision of technical assistance, the following statement appears: Any licence or Community Licence under this Order, or having effect as if so granted, may be amended, suspended or revoked by the Secretary of State at any time and in such circumstances and on such terms as she thinks fit by serving notice to that effect on the holder of the licence or Community Licence. Those words happen to be the same, word for word, as the first subsection of new clause 7.

Roger Casale

Will my hon. Friend clarify his argument? Is he saying that, in the instances that he has mentioned, the licences should have been revoked simply because there had been a change of policy and a change of Government, or had there been material changes in the use to which those arms were being put and the circumstances in which they were being used?

Mr. Berry

Because of legal considerations, the Government felt under some obligation to supply spare parts that was contrary to the stated aims of the Government's arms export policy. That is the concern: that there was a conflict, arising from the fact that the Government did not believe that they could interfere with existing licences. For example, in the case of the supply of spare parts for Hawks in Zimbabwe that were used in the DRC, the company had an inherited legal obligation to supply spare parts, so the Government felt that, despite the fact that it was contrary to their policy, they could not act.

Given that the words that form the bulk of new clause 7 are already in the dummy order that the Government have published, how about another cut-and-paste job?

Given that the dummy order makes it clear what powers my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wants and will take, I do not understand why those powers cannot be specified in the Bill. A similar argument arose in the previous debate, but we must not forget that problems have arisen in recent times over the revocation of licences. It is not entirely accurate to say that the Government have all the powers that they need, as the Select Committee evidence makes clear.

The power to revoke licences is vital, and should be included on the face of the Bill.

4.30 pm
Dr. Cable

I wish to speak to new clause 3, which goes over much of the ground with regard to revocation set out so authoritatively by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry), and to new clause 4, which deals with the separate and important issue of price scrutiny.

With regard to new clause 3, many hon. Members are struggling to understand how the Government can use the excuse of legal difficulties to explain what they could not follow through on licences, yet at the same time assure people that no legal problem existed. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) pursued the question of the Hawk aircraft and Indonesia, and the Zimbabwe case has also been mentioned. Until the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) intervened a few minutes ago, I had not been aware that the revocation powers had been used successfully. I should he interested to know in which cases those powers had been used, as the impression given in the past was that serious legal difficulties attended their use.

However, the legal difficulties do not affect only those seeking to impose controls. The industry is naturally concerned about its reputation, but any export control system will mean that licences will be revoked occasionally. That is the nature of the industry, as I am sure that those involved are well aware. We believe that clarity in this matter would aid both the industry and those who want to impose controls. Therefore, we should set out clearly and explicitly what revocation means, and under what circumstances it can be invoked.

Regardless of one's views about specific cases or the merits of tougher controls, clarity is to be preferred to the rather mysterious and opaque processes that the Government appear to favour. That is why new clause 3 sets out the circumstances in which the Government would have discretion to revoke licences, and the circumstances in which licences must be revoked. When the breaking of end-use undertakings leads to revocation, the new clause specifies what effect that revocation would have. It would also give the Secretary of State specific powers to follow up and monitor the use made of exports. New clause 3 would therefore make the process much less opaque, and that greater transparency would be more satisfactory for everyone involved.

I am not a lawyer, but the non-governmental organisations have sought advice about the legal implications of the Bill. They have been told that the law is difficult, and that it is becoming more so. That is because more precedents have been established in which abuse of power is cited as grounds for disputing Government actions. That approach is becoming increasingly entrenched in the courts, where it is argued that the legitimate expectations of private persons often can be overridden where statutory duties or overriding policy interests are involved. It will become increasingly difficult for the Government to use their legal powers—such as they are—unless that problem is taken account of properly.

In normal circumstances, the Government would argue in a legal action that there had been a material change of circumstances, but that may not be adequate to allow the Government to enforce their authority in this regard. We want the Government to explain more clearly what their legal powers are, and they should give the House some examples of how those powers have been imposed successfully without causing serious friction.

I should also be grateful for a description from the Minister of how the Government are taking account of the way in which the law is developing. That development and the scepticism of judges are, arguably, making it more difficult for the Government to introduce powers such as those needed for revocation.

New clause 4 involves prior scrutiny—an important issue. I shall not speak at length about that because other hon. Members who have chaired Select Committees or served on the Quadripartite Committee have studied that issue in detail. I shall summarise the key arguments, as I understand them. There has already been something of a game of ping-pong—the Quadripartite Committee reported in July and advocated prior scrutiny and the Government responded to that suggestion, and in a second round the Quadripartite Committee addressed the concerns that were expressed. An iterative process has already taken place, and many of the Government's objections to prior scrutiny have been very carefully considered. I hope therefore that the debate will be somewhat more advanced than those in the earlier stages.

As Labour Members have said, precedents for prior scrutiny exist in the very different political environments of the United States and Sweden. The Government keep arguing that because holes exist in the American system, we should not learn any lessons from it. I have never understood the logic of that argument. There may be holes in the American control system, but that probably has nothing to do with prior scrutiny, which is intended to serve other objectives.

I shall briefly summarise the three arguments that the Government have adduced for not ceding prior scrutiny, the first of which is constitutional. They argue that Parliament, acting in its legislative capacity, may duplicate or conflict with the Executive's role. People who specialise in public and constitutional law have given their advice and they see absolutely no problem with that. Perhaps the Government will explain in a little more detail why they view that as an immovable barrier. That is not at all clear to the lawyers, let alone to the generalists.

The second issue is commercial confidentiality. At the very worst, the integrity of Members and their ability to maintain secrets is being questioned, but perhaps that is not what the Government are worried about; they are probably worried about inadvertent leaks of confidential information. That issue has been argued through before and several key points have been made. First, a good deal of what might be viewed as important commercial information is already released in advance of a licence being agreed. I understand that the publisher of Jane's catalogues already has a process whereby information is exchanged. Codes of conduct and protocols have been developed, and there is not necessarily a problem.

Many of the issues that matter most to business involve the financial details of contracts. There is no reason why prior scrutiny should necessarily involve Members of Parliament considering those details. In any event, the flow of information is controlled by Her Majesty's Government and by the Minister, so MPs involved in scrutiny do not have unlimited access to all the information. If the process can be managed, with those necessary safeguards, most of us are far from clear why Members who serve on the Quadripartite Committee cannot he entrusted with safeguarding the necessary commercial information.

The third argument that is adduced is that the process causes unnecessary delay. Again, it is far from clear why that should be so. The hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), who is Chairman of the Trade and Industry Committee, has already defused that argument in his witty way.

The scrutiny process operates in parallel to that in the civil service, so we are not talking about additional time; there is no inherent reason why we would add to the 20-day process, and those applications that are, in any event, highly politically controversial will not be completed within the 20-day rule. Most of those arguments have already been addressed by the Quadripartite Committee, which, as the Minister knows, is an all-party Committee of respected Members from both sides of the House. I simply hope that he will deal with that all-party wisdom slightly more sensitively than he did during the debate on the previous group of amendments and that we can make progress.

Mr. O'Neill

I take on board the point, made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) about the ping-pong process that we have undergone. The issue has been lobbed over the net, one way and another.

I want to speak to new clause 6, and it is fair to say that the experience abroad is variable to say the least. I do not necessarily think that we should pray in aid precedents from elsewhere.

Sweden has a sanitised committee made up of the great and the good and it is chaired by a member of the royal family who may or may not have expertise in such matters. 1 have been a great supporter of things Swedish and certainly the great traditions of the Swedish Social Democrat Governments of the past. However. on this issue, the Swedish experience is not particularly valuable or one that we should replicate in the United Kingdom. The committee there does not enjoy much confidence from Swedish non-governmental organisations.

In the United States, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is very much under the control of its chairman. When we were in the United States, the committee had a Republican chairman, Jesse Helms, at the time of a Democrat presidency. To say that the committee became a political football is an understatement.

We must also recognise that the Foreign Relations Committee has a high financial threshold. I think that it examines only those contracts worth more than $14 million, which is a pretty large sum. However, that means that many small, nasty contracts can be swept under the table without anyone knowing about them. The scale of the American task, and the manner in which it is applied, does not lend itself to the type of prior scrutiny that we seek.

As a Quadripartite Committee, we do not seek the power to instigate inquiries. In some sensitive contracts, it would be to the advantage of all concerned to have a broader degree of scrutiny and consultation.

Before the election, we gained the impression that we were beginning to make progress. Indeed, paragraph 33 of the Quadripartite Committee's report of 1 May said: We were pleased to have the Secretary of State's assurance that the proposals for parliamentary prior scrutiny we had made in our March 2001 report could indeed be introduced without primary legislation. We continue to recommend strongly that they should be so introduced. Previous Secretaries of State for Defence, for Trade and Industry and for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs were of a different cast of mind to the new lot. I realise that my hon. Friend the Minister does not have the final word on all these matters in the high levels of government. Our friendship of more than 25 years will not be prejudiced if I say that he has to run around collecting the money while someone else winds the organ.

Many of us are disappointed that the Government have stepped back from dealing with the issue in the way that we had hoped. In their response to the Select Committee—in Cm 5141—they go over the top. In responding to a point about "Principle", a sentence begins with the word "However". It was obviously not written by my hon. Friend the Minister; he went to a good Scottish school and we were always told never to start a sentence with "however". I shall ignore that small point.

The response to the Quadripartite Committee's report says that the Government strongly believes that bringing the Committee into the export licensing process, regardless of the formal status of the Committee's recommendations to Ministers, would in practice be bound to blur this responsibility. The Government therefore remains of the view that, as a matter of principle, it would be wrong for Ministers to be required to consult Parliament before taking decisions in individual cases. The truth is that the Executive do not wish to share responsibilities with the legislature.

4.45 pm

The Government went on to identify several arguments. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) touched on confidentiality. Select Committees are consulted on a variety of matters. They are regularly consulted on a need-to-know basis on security, foreign affairs and defence. Cynics might say that hon. Members are put on a Committee only once they have received security clearance and dubious candidates are not successful, although I am not certain of that.

On commercial confidentiality, the Select Committee on Trade and Industry takes evidence and is sometimes given sight of documents that are commercially sensitive. That privilege is not abused.

Mr. Battle

Many applications resemble what in local government terms would be called outline planning permission. They are not detailed applications. Would not it be appropriate for outline plans to be considered by Committees? That would resolve many problems that are presented as obstacles to prior scrutiny.

Mr. O'Neill

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I shall return to in a moment.

On confidentiality, the Intelligence and Security Committee comprises several hon. Members and representatives of the other place. It is a hybrid Committee, but it deals with matters of great sensitivity. At least two of the participating Departments in the export licence procedure are regularly involved in it. We could be precious and say that the Government's position is insulting to the integrity of hon. Members, but it would be better to explain that we are already involved in the process. There is no need to make a major change to our responsibilities.

We heard that legal concerns are important and that we will create uncertainty for exporters. Any hon. Member who has been confronted by a business in their constituency which is trying to get an export licence will know that they are not innocents abroad. Sometimes they do not prepare themselves as well as they might, but they are aware of the legal uncertainties. It is a bit rich for the Government to accuse us of adding to those.

The other argument is that prior scrutiny will make subsequent scrutiny more difficult, but we would probably not need to give the matter further consideration. We also heard about the old sore of processing delays. That is plumbing new depths in civil service cynicism. If there is sensitivity or difficulty, the DTI et al will move with glacial speed. Weeks become months and months become years. A coup can be followed by a counter-coup, the bad guys become the good guys, and we are not sure whether our enemy's enemy is still our friend. Some of us were involved in defence debates when the late Alan Clark was the Minister who sold everything to everybody, although I accept that he did that at the highest possible price. We recognise the pre-Scott days. Tactics are available if people want to use them.

The argument about resource implications is even worse than the argument about delays. I think it was a Victorian academic who promulgated a list of reasons for not doing what one does not want to do. I think that unripe time was the only cliché from the list.

The Government are missing a serious opportunity. We hear much about the exclusiveness of the Executive, but the Executive now have an opportunity, on a sensitive subject, to share some power and influence with the House, the legislature. We are not demanding that the Executive consult. We are simply saying that they "may consult"; there is no obligation. We are not even saying that they should consult with the Quadripartite Committee; they could consult any of the Committees with the relevant expertise. New clause 6 would provide Ministers with the maximum possible flexibility. It is a very modest amendment.

I would like to think that this discussion will continue. Although we rightly praise the Government for their openness and transparency in so many aspects of the export licensing process, it is becoming ever more apparent that there will always be sensitive issues. There are not many such issues; as we heard, on current reckoning, they number about 50. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) said, many of those issues can be addressed essentially as outline planning permissions, as applications about applications. For those reasons, I believe that the Government are missing an opportunity.

Some of my colleagues on the Trade and Industry Committee and I have been nominated for the Quadripartite Committee. Some of us will be suggesting that one of the early items on the agenda should be to invite to the Committee assorted Secretaries of State and others, such as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to justify the nonsense that was given in the July reply and which I have been trying to highlight.

Although I do not think that the issue is worth pressing to a vote now, I think that it will continue to engage the House. We have got our teeth into the issue and we are not going to let go. We also require much better arguments than the ones we received in the Government's July reply, which was disappointing and unnecessarily heavy handed. We could have reached a better compromise and it would not have greatly undermined the Executive's authority. As we say about devolution, power shared is often power. and authority, enhanced. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that message back to his colleagues in the Departments and Ministries. As I said, the issue will not go away.

Mr. Liddell-Grainger

One of the points that the Minister may be missing is that it should be up to Parliament to decide whether an export licence should be granted for an item of national importance—I dare not mention the cow in formaldehyde again. If this Government or a future Government decide to export an item of national importance and they get it wrong, they will be held to account. However, if they allow a proper debate in the House on granting a licence, the House itself will have to decide whether to allow the item to go overseas. The House should be able to make such decisions, as the issue encompasses not only arms but technology, works of art and a plethora of other items for which you as a Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is a relative newcomer to the House, but he must use the correct parliamentary language.

Mr. Liddell-Grainger

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Dual-purpose items are another aspect of the debate. Turkey, for example, has a licence to make Land Rover vehicles. Most people think that Land Rovers can do anything, but they may not appreciate that the vehicles have a dual purpose as a weapons base. If we had a problem with Turkey, how could we revoke that licence? Turkey is a NATO member and has many other ties to the United Kingdom. Would the Government be able to revoke its licence? The Minister may be able to sort out the issue, but I do not think that he can. I think that he will discover that the United Kingdom would he placed under enormous pressure by Land Rover and those using those vehicles to continue the licence. I believe that some of the new clauses in this group would provide for greater scrutiny in granting overseas licences. One cannot license a dual-purpose piece of kit in one way and then revoke the licence in another. For the House not to have the chance to scrutinise such matters is a great shame. We should be able to do so.

Ann Clwyd

This afternoon, I have listened to a lot of sensible comment and heard a lot of nonsense as well. I do not see where the export of art comes into the Bill—perhaps I have missed something. HON. MEMBERS: "It is there". Oh is it? I find it strange that art comes into an arms export Bill. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can explain.

I rise in the spirit of assisting the Bill and the Minister. All of us who served on the Quadripartite Committee—we expect to do so in future—heard all the arguments over a period of months. With my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), I visited Sweden and the United States. We were less impressed by the Swedish system of prior scrutiny than by the US system. Certain committees in the United States told us that they could pull the plug on a licence at any time, without fear of penalty—indeed, if they found that conditions in a certain country had changed, they could do so rapidly. That is what I am going to suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister.

For many years, I sat in the Chamber listening to arguments in support of the export of arms to Iraq. If the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) had been a Member of Parliament at the time, he would have been as frustrated as many of us here today were then. We knew that exporting arms to Iraq in the 1980s and through to 1991 was a ridiculous thing to do—everyone knew the political and human rights situation in that country. I strongly believe that if Parliament had been given the opportunity to vote on the export of those arms, they would never have been exported.

Wisdom does not rest solely in Whitehall. My hon. Friend the Minister should see that our suggestion might serve him in future as a means of getting himself off the hook. All Governments make mistakes selling arms to certain countries—Labour Governments are no exception. Under the Conservative Government, the great scandal was the sale of arms to Iraq at a time when all informed Members knew that the regime could not and should not be sustained.

Forty Back-Bench Members drawn from all three major parties served on the Quadripartite Committee, which encompassed four Committees, as the House knows. After months of careful examination and visits to two countries that operate a system of prior scrutiny, they concluded unanimously that it was both possible and highly desirable to establish a system of prior parliamentary scrutiny in this country. It is worth noting that the Quadripartite Committee included former Defence Ministers.

Initially, we were disappointed by the negative response from the four Secretaries of State, but when the former Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), appeared before the Committee—I think it was at his last appearance—he said that the Government were listening and that there was an open door. He gave us the strong impression that the Government would support our recommendation. We took on board some of his concerns and objections and in March we offered a refined proposal to the Government. That is the background to the amendment.

5 pm

The introduction of prior scrutiny would enhance ministerial accountability and would improve the system of checks and balances in the arms export licensing regime. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) mentioned Indonesia. I was much involved in questioning the Conservative Government on the export of arms to Indonesia. They ignored human rights abuses that were taking place in East Timor, Jakarta, Aceh, Irian Jaya and many provinces of Indonesia. There was the attempt by East Timor to assert itself as a separate country.

Despite the repeated assurances that were given to the UK Government over the years that UK--supplied equipment would not be used in East Timor, of course it was used. It was used in the water cannons that were used on the streets of Jakarta to spray the students who were demonstrating with red dye so that they could subsequently be picked up by the military and the police. Hawk jets flew over Dili twice. They were used as part of the intimidation of the people of East Timor at a time when they were striving peacefully for independence.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood said, the Government continued to supply spare parts. I remember well a conversation with the then Foreign Secretary, when we asked what his reasons were. He said that he had legal opinion. We also had legal opinion, and the opinions did not coincide. We have never had sight of the then Foreign Secretary's legal opinion, as my hon. Friend said, not even in the Select Committee. We believe that that opinion could have been challenged. If it had gone to some form of judicial review, the Government would have been in a spot of bother.

One of the powers of the United States is the ability to pull the plugs at any time. I am pleased to hear the Minister say that it is possible to revoke licences if circumstances change. However, would anyone in the House now be sending arms to Israel, for example? If Members had been asked whether they would agree to send arms to Israel, I do not believe that more than a handful would have agreed that it was a good idea. Nevertheless, two export licences were issued for components for combat helicopters and related technology to Israel in 1999–2000. Two open individual export licences are currently in force for the same equipment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil mentioned the objections that the Government had to prior scrutiny. The legal advice that we have had is clear. It is that there is no constitutional impediment to prevent Parliament legislating so as to give itself a role in scrutinising arms export licences. Sub-delegation of the decision-making function need not be an issue as long as explicit reference is made in the Bill to the fact that such a role would be advisory only. The wording in new clause 6 is careful. It makes it clear that the role will be advisory only.

Much progress has been made in opening up the UK export licensing system to parliamentary and public oversight. However, it is entirely retrospective; it is taking place after licences have been granted. There is obviously a role for a parliamentary Committee to scrutinise export licensing decisions before they are granted so as to provide advice to Ministers in difficult cases.

We are talking of only a few contentious licences, not 12,000. We are talking of perhaps 80 to 100 in a year, and perhaps even fewer. The Government spelt out their objections to the first report of the Quadripartite Committee, but they subsequently moved the goalposts. They objected to a certain aspect of the recommendations, but when we responded, the goalposts were moved again. Many of my hon. Friends have knocked the question of commercial confidentiality on the head. We are constantly shown commercially confidential material; it has not leaked from the Quadripartite Committee, for example. Representatives of the defence industry have admitted that commercial sensitivities typically concern pricing data and detailed technical specifications. Beyond requiring information on approximate value, where there are concerns about impacts on sustainable development, that type or level of information would be largely irrelevant to a Select Committee giving prior scrutiny to contentious arms licences.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil talked about commercial competitiveness, and my hon. Friend the Minister raised the possibility of a delay. Giving Parliament an advisory role in reviewing licences would not delay the process beyond the target of 20 days per application by adding 10 days to processing. Applications for licences that are most likely to be of concern to Parliament already exceed the 20-day target. I am therefore afraid that the argument about delay must be knocked firmly on the head.

If prior scrutiny causes undue delays, as some argue, as well as damage to the defence industry and harm to bilateral relations, why do the United States Government not feel that it is an issue? As I said earlier, the United States is the largest arms exporter in the world. Whatever the presidency, it is mindful of its defence industry, bilateral relations and operating efficiently. If prior scrutiny is not a problem for the United States or Sweden, I do not understand why it should be a problem for us. I hope that, in due course—perhaps even tonight—the Minister will clarify his reasons for believing that the United Kingdom is a special case.

Mr. Lloyd

I, too, had not realised that the Bill controlled the export of artworks and was fascinated by the concept of dual-use Picassos. I was also fascinated by the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) about the role of the royal family in export licensing. In this country, we are considering the role of our royal family in judging hospital architecture; perhaps that is a comment on the relative values of the Swedes and the British.

New clause 6 goes to the heart of the debate about the relationship that we as a society want with the Executive through a democratically elected Parliament. As the Minister knows, I am one of a number of Members in the Chamber—my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) is another—who have engaged in the art of licensing. Of course, practical issues are involved, but we must consider whether prior scrutiny is desirable and helpful. I have enormous respect for the Minister, and urge him to consider the fact that Ministers themselves may be advantaged by that form of engagement with parliamentary colleagues. That point is profoundly important. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West will remember the lonely Tuesday nights and Wednesday mornings that he spent as a Minister; perhaps, at 3 am, he had a red box full of all manner of things and was under enormous pressure to issue or refuse export licences. Ministers are under genuine pressure.

I shall comment briefly on the arguments against prior scrutiny. One of the issues is confidentiality, which is extremely important for Government. It is not the role of Government to breach confidentiality. It is vital that the position of trust assumed by Government is reflected by those in the parliamentary domain who engage in scrutiny. Ironically, in almost every case in which controversy has arisen, information was leaked into the public domain not by the Government, but often by aggrieved manufacturers with an interest in seeing the matter go forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil noted that through the Intelligence and Security Committee, we already entrust parliamentary colleagues to examine some of the most detailed and secret aspects of Government activity. We could replicate that level of trust by allowing a Committee of trusted Members of both Houses to engage in prior scrutiny. Confidentiality is not a problem that need detain us.

Delay is another issue that has been mentioned. I know from experience that when the Labour Government came to power in 1997, we were faced with an enormous backlog of licensing decisions from the previous Government, who had under-resourced that system which, to be brutally honest, may have operated a little more cavalierly in the near past. The strong improvement that the Labour Government made in the process by tightening controls had a knock-on effect. I pay tribute to those in the various Departments responsible, who faced extraordinary levels of work.

Delays were rarely caused by Ministers, because they would have the relevant paperwork for a relatively short time. I see no reason, either in logic or in the process, why the same time frame would not allow a Select Committee to examine licence applications on their way to the Minister concerned. The problems are not insurmountable and are not a serious limitation on the viability of such scrutiny.

Only a limited number of export licences are genuinely controversial or difficult. They can be difficult for Ministers even if they are not controversial, because they may not be widely known. I know that it would be greatly to the advantage of Ministers, who after all are politicians and represent the political system, to have the advice of trusted and senior colleagues. I have wrestled with such decisions myself and I have known how difficult it is to come to a firm conclusion, sometimes because complex information and uncertainties or unknowns are involved.

In such circumstances, I would have greatly welcomed the opportunity for an exchange of information or an exchange of view with others who also recognised the need for public accountability. The one difference between a Minister and the civil service is that, in the end, a Minister must be prepared to account for every one of those decisions in this place and in the public domain. Parliamentary colleagues understand that, and it is not the role of the civil service to second-guess that job.

I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to give the matter serious consideration. I do not expect him to come to the Dispatch Box tonight and tell us that there has been a change of thinking. I am aware that the issue must also be considered by various members of the Cabinet. However, the argument will not go away. I am convinced that ultimately there will be prior scrutiny through the parliamentary system. That is desirable, and I believe that it will come. I ask my hon. Friend not to close the Government's mind to the matter, and to tell us that he recognises the force of the arguments that have been heard, which was recognised by the former Foreign Secretary. We must keep the debate firmly open. If it is not opened by the Government, it will be kept open by Members of Parliament.

5.15 pm
Nigel Griffiths

I should like to respond to a number of the points that have been raised. First, I shall deal with the issue of mercenaries. Seeking to control mercenaries would go significantly beyond the scope of the Bill, and it is not our intention to do so. The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) has received a response on that matter today from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the lead Department on that issue, and I hope that that will be satisfactory.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) raised a number of points and I shall touch on the most germane of them. Cultural exports and strategic export controls come under the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939. As we are replacing that Act, the Bill has to replace its export control powers in full and needs to cover both those categories. We have decided, mainly for reasons of clarity, that the annual report on cultural exports should be separate from the annual report on strategic export controls.

My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) made a powerful speech from the heart, which I commend to hon. Members. Those hon. Members who have not dealt with arms control issues as Ministers—those who have can only ever be a small minority—do not realise the soul-searching and scrutiny that Ministers and civil servants put into the work. That includes those who are making assessments of diverted end use, inquiring into previous use, and going into the real detail of the licences. It is a difficult job, often done under great pressure at all stages.

I am fortunate never to have found myself having time constraints; I have always been able to give due and detailed consideration to the licences. I know, however, that I come in at the end of a long process during which the licences have been scrutinised by colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence. In defence of other Ministers before me, I do not believe that all Ministers took the view of our late colleague Alan Clark. Many Ministers from both parties have taken this issue very seriously.

This gets to the heart of the reasons that the new clauses have been tabled. I have thought seriously about the new clauses, but I urge hon. Members to reject them. We are wrestling with the emotive issue of sending arms to countries that have been the subject of controversy, but which are not the subject of United Nations or European Union embargoes. In some cases, of course, the UK imposes its own embargoes, so we do not rule that out. As hon. Members have hinted, however, this can leave the market open for others with less scrupulous controls than ours to move into it. Those people would also not have a report such as this annual report, which has been commended in Europe as almost a showcase report on how to list the strategic controls and the licences granted. There are important issues here, and they impinge on some of the individual cases that have been raised. I know that my colleagues are aware of that, and I do not want to comment on them further.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, raised more doubts than l had had about the two regimes that had been commended to me, Sweden and America. I will not add to his comments on Sweden, but in America applications are notified only after a contract has been signed. Here, we advise exporters before they sign a contract as to the likelihood of their getting a licence. That is a useful addition.

As my hon. Friend pointed out, in America only major contracts are covered. Using a telling phrase, he said that it was the small, nasty contracts that could be swept under the table. Certainly, small—possibly not nasty—contracts may require even more scrutiny. They may require disproportionate—but that should not be taken literally!—scrutiny and other work on the part of those responsible for vetting licences.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order

. May I gently remind the Minister that he must face the Chair?

Nigel Griffiths

I humbly apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

One of the complexities that caused us to reject the recommendation of the Quadripartite Committee is the fact that we would have to decide what threshold would catch the small, nasty contracts that my hon. Friend said the Americans did not catch. I have served on one of the most senior Select Committees, and I have seen the Clerk scrambling around to secure a quorum for a meeting to quiz top civil servants and others on billion-pound budgets. I fear that some £10,000 contracts that might be seen as controversial could go to what could be seen as a hotspot.

Mr. Battle

I tend to want a world in which we would emulate those who formed Arsenal football club in 1886. They worked at the Woolwich arsenal. Each of them put in 6d to back the football club; their works factory has now shut down. I feel that if people did other things rather than making arms it would make for a better world.

I also think that those in East Timor, for instance, might say, "As we form a new country and a new Government, we need the means to defend ourselves against a possible future engagement with Indonesia."

I think that the problem here relates to the word "prior". I do not think that the real issue relates to Ministers going through red boxes late at night; I think that it arises at the other end of the process. The pressure is coming from the arms companies. I want them to think twice. I want them to think seriously about the whole process, and not put in speculative bids as they often do. Prior scrutiny would push the process a further stage back, and people would know where they were. I think that that could be done and would send a very healthy signal through the system.

Nigel Griffiths

I am sure that the industry will note my hon. Friend's comments. I certainly have.

Mr. O'Neill

I have listened to my hon. Friend with great interest, but he was not specific on one point. What would he expect to be the volume of work required? We have been given estimates of 40 to 50 cases, up to a maximum of about 100. Not all those cases would necessarily be referred at the Minister's discretion. Given the timing of such matters, it would probably be possible to arrange several meetings each year of a group that would examine them. I do not think that the volume would be as great as the Minister suggests, but I may have got it wrong. Perhaps the Minister could be a little more specific, as it seems that Government thinking has changed.

Nigel Griffiths

I have no more up-to-date information than my hon. Friend.

The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) asked about legal difficulties in the revoking of licences. There are no such difficulties where circumstances have changed significantly since the issuing of a licence. The difficulties would arise if a country's circumstances had changed, or new and relevant information was available to the Government.

Let me return to a point I made earlier. The annual report sets out the reasons for refusals and the statistics. The hon. Member for Twickenham raised that matter, too. On page 15, the report makes clear the cases where revocation took place, so it is clearly set out.

I believe that the proposals that we have put before the House are the practical ones, and I urge the House not to press the other new clauses to a vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Forward to