GENERAL RESTRICTION ON PURPOSES OF CONTROL ORDERS

HC Deb 08 November 2001 vol 374 cc382-420

'(1) The Schedule specifies the purposes for which an order imposing controls may be made.

(2) The power to make an order imposing controls is not restricted by subsection (1) if the order provides—

1. (a) for the order to expire. or
2. (b) for the provision imposing the controls to cease to have effect,

no later than the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the order is made.

(3) The power to make an order which—

1. (a) amends provisions of an earlier order;
2. (b) revokes and re-enacts (with or without modifications) provisions of an earlier order,

is restricted by subsection (1) only if and to the extent that the order strengthens controls that have already been imposed or imposes new controls.

(4) In subsection (3) "provisions of an earlier order" does not include provisions made by virtue of subsection (2).

(5) In this section "controls" means export, transfer, technical assistance or trade controls.'.— [Nigel Griffiths.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

1.21 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths)

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

Mr. Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed clause, in line 4, leave out from "order" to end of line 6 and insert—

'(a) has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, and

(b) provides—

1. (i) for the order to expire, or
2. (ii) for the provision imposing them to cease to have effect,'.

Government amendments Nos. 1 to 8, 10 and 12 to 15.

Amendment No. 30, in clause 11, page 7, line 4, leave out from "which" to "shall" in line 5 and insert— 'does not contain any provision made by virtue of (General restriction on purposes of control orders) (2), or under section 4 or 5'.

Government amendment No. 16.

Amendment No. 31, in page 7, line 15, leave out from "containing" to end of line 18 and insert— 'an order under section 14(3)'.

Government amendments Nos. 17 to 23.

Amendment No. 36, in schedule, page 9, line 18, after "have", insert— ', or contribute through cumulative impact to having,'.

Amendment No. 32, in page 9, line 19, after "Table". insert— ', or that exportation of the goods might run contrary to any of the criteria of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports'.

Amendment No. 33, in page 9, line 26, after "Table", insert— ', or that exportation of the goods might run contrary to any of the criteria of the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports'.

Government amendment No. 24.

Amendment No. 38, in page 10, line 2, leave out from "of" to end of line 4 and insert— 'goods or technology anywhere in the world in connection with the development, production or use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.'.

Government amendment No. 25.

Amendment No. 39, in page 10, line 11, at end insert— E An adverse effect on the sustainable development of the country to which the goods were exported, or the technology was transferred.'.

Government amendment No. 26.

Amendment No. 34, in page 10, line 15, at the end, insert— 'Economic capacity and sustainable development

F An adverse effect on—

1. (a) the economic capacity; or
2. (b) the sustainable development of the country to which the goods were exported, or the technology was transferred.'.

Nigel Griffiths

As new clause 1 and amendments Nos. 1 to 8, 10 and 12 to 26 are Government amendments, I intend to speak in favour of them.

I want to give the House a clear and detailed explanation of the many and varied issues covered by the amendments, and I apologise because that is likely to take some time. I wish to give the clearest possible explanation of the Government's position, so I hope that hon. Members will keep their interventions to a minimum during my speech. The House will appreciate that I have a great deal of ground to cover and I ask the House's patience, as in most cases I am not likely to agree to give way immediately. The House will be aware that, unlike in Committee, we have only this afternoon, so I have limited time to speak and I wish to give the House the fullest possible explanation in the time available.

For clarity, I should say at the outset that I intend to oppose amendment (a) to new clause 1 and amendments Nos. 30 to 34, 36, 38 and 39. I support new clause 1 and amendments Nos. 1 to 8, 10 and 12 to 26. New clause 2, which will be considered in the next group of amendments, is a consequential amendment to this group of amendments.

At first sight, this group of a new clause and amendments may appear somewhat complex. I assure hon. Members that that is not the case. They provide that the powers to introduce orders imposing trade controls or controls on technical assistance are directly subject to the purposes described in the schedule to the Bill. They are then limited in scope to controls that are similar in effect to those imposed under clauses 1 and 2, on the export of goods and the transfer of technology. This, then, allows the definitions of "controlled goods" and "controlled technology" in clause 9 to be deleted. However, the alterations achieved in new clause 1 and amendments Nos. 4, 8 and 14 result in a large number of further consequential amendments. Let me explain why we wish to amend the Bill in this way.

In Committee there were calls from hon. Members for trade controls and technical assistance controls to be directly subject to the purposes in the schedule. It also became evident in Committee that the definitions of "controlled goods" and "controlled technology" used in clause 9 to achieve that effect could be confusing. There is also a risk that the current structure of the Bill could leave a loophole whereby brokers who arranged for their goods to transit the United Kingdom might be able to claim exemption from the controls. We want to avoid that at all costs. Hence the Government have concluded that it would simplify and clarify the Bill to ensure that trade controls and technical assistance controls are subject to the purposes contained in the schedule in the same way as the export and transfer controls.

The amendments proposed ensure that orders imposing controls on trading goods or on the provision of technical assistance overseas can be made only for one of the purposes listed in the schedule. The first subsection of new clause 1 proposes and states: The Schedule specifies the purposes for which an order imposing controls may be made. The new clause then explains that controls include export, transfer, technical assistance or trade controls. That amendment does not widen the Government's powers to introduce controls on trade, or on the provision of technical assistance overseas. Amendments No. 4 and 8 make it clear that controls on trade or on technical assistance are limited, not only by the purposes in the schedule but by the fact that the controls must be connected or correspond to export or transfer controls. Therefore it will not be possible for the Government to impose trafficking or brokering controls and technical assistance controls that are radically different from the export or transfer controls or of no connection with them.

The amendments seek to simplify the Bill, and to tighten it up to ensure that there are no potential loopholes. I know that hon. Members will agree that the Bill is of considerable importance, and it is important to get it right, so I urge hon. Members to support the amendments.

I shall now speak to amendment (a) to new clause 1, and amendments Nos. 30 to 31, as they address similar issues. Those amendments seek to alter the existing provisions in the Bill for parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation. Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 seek to replace the negative resolution procedures for orders made under clauses 1, 2, 4 and 5 with the delayed affirmative resolution procedure. Amendment (a) to new clause 1 seeks to subject orders under subsection (2) of the new clause to the draft affirmative resolution procedure.

A very similar set of amendments was debated in Committee last month. I made the general point then that the different scrutiny provisions of clause 11 reflect the distinction between orders that can change the fundamental purposes for which export controls can be imposed, and orders that set out the details of those controls. Clearly, where the fundamental purposes of the Bill are involved, it is right that Parliament should have the opportunity to debate such matters under the affirmative resolution procedure, but the Government believe that the details of the controls are best dealt with by the negative procedure.

Orders made under clauses 1, 2, 4 and 5, for which the negative procedure is provided, will frequently be of a technical nature, such as amendments to orders resulting from changes to lists of items subject to control. Such changes are usually a result of alterations to the international export control regimes such as the missile technology control regime, upon which many of our export controls are based. They are orders of the type for which the negative resolution procedure is best suited.

There is, rightly, parliamentary interest in the new controls to be introduced under the Bill, which is why we provided the Committee and Parliament with draft dummy orders, setting out how we proposed to use the new controls. That is why I announced last month that the Government would hold a full public consultation on draft secondary legislation before the new controls were introduced next year. That will provide an opportunity for all those with an interest to consider and comment on the new controls to be introduced under the Bill.

We believe that amendment (a), relating to new clause 1, is intended to require that no orders made under subsection (2) of new clause 1 may be brought into force without prior approval of Parliament. We fully accept that draft affirmative resolution procedure for orders made under clause 11(4), which can modify the schedule of purposes, but we do not believe that it would be sensible for that procedure to apply to orders made under subsection (2) of new clause 1.

The object of the new subsection (2), which is currently part of clause 3 of the Bill, as amended in Committee, is to allow the Government to respond to emergency situations by imposing controls with immediate effect that, exceptionally, would not or might not clearly fall within the purposes set out in the schedule. As I said in Committee, the reason for that is that the Government will sometimes have to introduce specific controls under that subsection to deal with unforeseen emergency situations. In such situations, the Government would be required to act without delay and it would not always be possible to achieve parliamentary approval in time. However, no one should be in any doubt that it will ultimately be left to Parliament to decide by the end of 40 sitting days whether to allow the Government to continue to exercise those controls.

1.30 pm

That in itself will always be a significant influence on any Government exercising powers over that short period. I also point out that any order introduced under new clause 1(2) that was approved by Parliament within the 40-day period could not remain in force for more than a year without the further express approval of both Houses of Parliament.

To sum up, I consider that the Bill is a significant and desirable improvement on the existing legislative framework for export controls. That framework does not provide for any proper parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation, but the Bill does. As I said in Committee, it is important that we have the right tools for the right job. Accordingly, where the fundamental objectives of the Bill are involved, we have provided for the affirmative resolution procedure. We have also provided for scrutiny by the negative resolution procedure in all other cases.

Given what I have said, I hope that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) will withdraw amendment (a), and amendments Nos. 30 and 31.

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 36, 32 and 33 together, as they address similar issues. Amendments Nos. 36 and 33 would ensure that orders could be imposed to prevent an adverse effect of a type specified in any of the criteria of the European Union code of conduct on arms exports. I assure the House that the schedule of the Bill will allow us to impose controls on any goods or technology that we need to be able to control in order to meet our obligations under the EU code of conduct.

Like other member states, we impose controls on military items. Dual-use items, of course, are subject to control under the European Community regulation. Such items are the goods and technologies whose export we need to control in order to meet our obligations under the EU code of conduct. They are the goods and technologies that the schedule allows us to impose controls on, but it would not be appropriate to refer to the code in the schedule, as the amendment would require. The purpose of the EU code, and of our consolidated criteria that incorporate it, is to set out the basis on which licence applications are assessed. That is different from the purposes for which controls may be imposed.

I can best illustrate that by referring to the criterion in the code that refers to the risk of diversion to undesirable end-users. That risk is an extremely important factor in making any licensing decision. However, the risk of diversion is not associated with any particular category of goods or technology. So allowing diversion to be included as a factor for which orders could be imposed would theoretically allow the Government the power to control any goods of any description whatsoever.

It is not the purpose of the Bill to enable the Government to be able to control any goods whatsoever. Using the power would also conflict with our commitments to international and EU trade arrangements.

Amendment No. 32 would introduce into the schedule a reference to the risk that goods might have one of the consequences listed in the table contained in the schedule through cumulative effect. I believe that those of my hon. Friends who tabled the amendment had the primary intention of ensuring that the Bill allows the cumulative effect of arms exports on the sustainable development of recipient countries to be taken into account in licensing decisions.

I shall address the issue of cumulative effect more generally. The schedule describes the purposes for which the order imposing export controls or transfer controls can be made. The function of the schedule is to govern the making of orders that specify the goods and technology, or classes of goods and technology, that are to be subject to export controls.

Paragraph 4 of the schedule allows controls to be imposed on types of goods without reference to quantities. A particular item of equipment—a machine gun, for example—may be brought under control, and an export licence would be required for any exports of machine guns, irrespective of the number of guns that it is proposed to export.

There is nothing in the Bill, or in the current orders, that would prevent the Secretary of State from considering the number of other goods of that type—or of other types of arms exported by the recipient—when reaching a decision on an export licence application, where that is a relevant consideration. Such considerations form a normal part of the assessment of whether the proposed end use is reasonable, and in assessing the degree of risk, for instance, of diversion or of aggressive use against neighbours.

Similarly, decisions on individual licences are considered under the criterion on a case-by-case basis. The cumulative effects of the purchase of arms by recipient countries may well be a relevant consideration in the assessment of a licence application under criterion 8.

As many hon. Members will be aware, criterion 8 of the consolidated EU criteria obliges Ministers taking decisions on export licences to look carefully at the compatibility of any proposed arms export with the technical and economic capacity of the recipient country. In view of that explanation, and of the explanations that I shall give later, I hope that, in due course, those of my hon. Friends who have tabled amendments Nos. 36, 32 and 33 will agree to withdraw them.

I turn now to amendment No. 38. This would clarify the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" and ensure that it refers to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. I believe that the amendment is unnecessary and that it could be counterproductive, as I shall explain. The amendment would restrict the purposes for which orders could be imposed to activities related to nuclear, chemical or biological weapons. However, it is possible that other current, and future, weapons could cause mass destruction but would not fall into any of those categories.

For example, radiological weapons constructed of conventional explosives combined with radioactive material are not considered to be nuclear weapons, but they could of course have devastating results. That is why the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" allows the possibility of controlling activities related to such weapons, or to any other types of such weapons that may arise in the future.

I hope that the explanation satisfies those hon. Members who tabled amendment No. 38, and that they will agree to withdraw the amendment in due course.

I shall speak to amendments No. 39 and 34 together, as they address similar issues. The effect of each amendment would be to allow the risk of there being an adverse effect on the sustainable development of a country to be the purpose for which the orders could be made imposing controls on goods and technology. In addition, amendment No. 39 would allow the risk of there being an adverse effect on the economic capability of a country to be a purpose for which such orders could be made.

We believe that the amendments are unnecessary, because the concerns that appear to lie behind them are already fully addressed elsewhere in the Bill. Sustainable development concerns are already taken fully into account under the consolidated EU criteria and the national arms export licensing criteria, which we announced to Parliament on 26 October 2000. The criteria were framed by EU member states precisely to cover the range of issues that ought to be addressed in licensing decisions, and they included the issue of sustainable development.

Criterion 8 of the consolidated criteria obliges member states taking decision on export licences to look carefully at the compatibility of any proposed arms export with the technical and economic capability of the recipient country. It further states that any Government must take into account whether the proposed export would seriously undermine the economy or seriously hamper the sustainable development of the recipient country.

All the consolidated criteria will remain the basis for export licensing decisions under the legislation. To remove any doubt about that, we have made explicit provision in clause 7 for all the consolidated criteria—including criterion 8 on sustainable development—to continue to be taken fully into account when decisions are made about export licences.

Moreover, as I explained in connection with amendments Nos. 36 and 32, the schedule will allow us to impose controls on any goods or technology that we need to be able to control in order to meet all our obligations under the EU code of conduct. Adding the provisions of criterion 8 to the schedule is not necessary because we are able, under the Bill as it stands, fully to take into account all the criteria, including the criterion on sustainable development. Clause 7 underlines, for the first time in legislation, the status of the consolidated criteria.

In conclusion, for the reasons that I have outlined, I urge the House to accept the Government amendments.

Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury)

I suspect that we are in for a long afternoon on a highly technical group of amendments. We shall have an extremely important series of debates this afternoon. All the hon. Members who are present have track records and experience in such matters, so this series of debates will be very well informed.

The Opposition have broadly welcomed the Bill, as have British industry, non-governmental organisations and many individuals, but all of us have certain reservations, hence the large number of amendments. Of course, because we broadly agree, detailed scrutiny is even more important, and that will be the House's function this afternoon, following on from very interesting debates in Committee. It was unfortunate, of course, that half of Standing Committee B's sittings took place in July and the other half in October, because the intervening period allowed a number of changes, one of which was for myself to be parachuted into my current position, which was a great pleasure. I suspect that various changes occurred on both sides of the Committee.

Grateful though I am to the Minister for his courtesy and to his officials for theirs, it was something of a surprise to discover on Tuesday that the Government had rewritten a very large proportion of the Bill. The Minister has very courteously explained why they did so, and he wrote to hon. Members on 6 November, sending official Government notes on the amendments that he was proposing. However, in all my 18 and a half years as a Member, it was the first occasion on which I can recall such a sweeping rewrite to primary legislation so close to Report and Third Reading—a mere two working days.

That lack of time made things very difficult for a lot of people. For instance, it made it very difficult for the Clerks to get the business in order and for the Opposition parties to adjust to the proposed amendments, because it was suggested that certain clauses should be deleted, but many of us wanted to propose amendments to those clauses. We therefore had to work out where those bits of the Bill would be by the time Thursday arrived. It was very difficult for the public and the non-governmental organisations, charities and pressure groups to follow all the changes.

We all now recognise what the Government have done, and I repeat that I am grateful to the Minister for his courtesy and his explanation of the changes. I am also grateful to his excellent officials in the Department of Trade and Industry, who have been sitting at the end of telephone lines waiting to offer help. I certainly took the Minister's advice and used that facility, and I am very grateful to him because it certainly helped us to make a more coherent response to the changes that the Government had announced. It would he helpful, however, if the Minister could explain why they decided to propose this very big change at the last minute.

I understand the Minister's argument—I follow his logic, and I accept it—but I am bound to ask why he and his officials did not think of the change some months earlier; it would have been helpful if they had. Flattered though we all are that the Minister suggested that the change had something to do with what occurred in Committee, it really would be a first if we had such a large proportion of a Bill rewritten on those grounds. In addition to his courtesy in explaining why he has proposed the change, it would be much appreciated if he could have another go at saying why it had to be left quite so late.

1.45 pm

On new clause 1 and the related amendments, much of the debate in Committee focused on the orders that would be laid before the House and whether that should be done under the affirmative or negative procedure. That is a touchstone argument, and it has arisen time and again. Indeed, paragraph 4 of the DTI's explanatory notes to the Bill, which we all received, state: The Scott Inquiry … identified a number of limitations in the 1939 Act, including the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation made under the Act and the absence of any indication of the purposes for which export controls may be imposed. I acknowledge that the Government have gone a long way in seeking to meet those criticisms, and we are very glad that they have, but they have not gone nearly far enough. That is why I decided that we must pursue the issue a little further.

I shall briefly explain what the amendments that I have tabled would do. The Minister has given us a summary, but under the proposed change, temporary orders would require prior affirmation by the House before they could take effect. The Bill, as drafted, makes provision for Parliament to approve temporary orders, but only within 40 days of their taking effect. The Secretary of State could conceivably issue a temporary order to have effect for less than 40 days, which would escape parliamentary scrutiny, so the importance of such secondary legislation would not be recognised.

Of course, the Quadripartite Committee was a tremendous innovation in itself—four Select Committees worked together on this extremely important Bill. We all welcomed that remarkable achievement, as we did its report; it helped us to understand one another. The work of Select Committees is often compartmentalised and there is inevitably a lot of overlap, and I am glad to see Government Members nodding. I hope that that innovative procedure will be used again.

The Quadripartite Committee says in its report: The Bill is largely an enabling Bill. The meat of the proposals being made will be in the secondary legislation to be made under the Bill. Quite so. In Committee, we therefore proposed a number of changes in the guidance on parliamentary approval, but the Government rejected them.

There is a fundamental point at stake, and we must insist that Parliament should retain more control than it will be allowed under the Bill. Furthermore, the concern was expressed in the other place by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the Secretary of State will be given unusual discretion to impose temporary orders under new clause 1(2). We all understand what the Minister said about emergencies, and we do not doubt that, but I have never yet encountered a situation in which the Government have found themselves unable to make the necessary emergency moves, if necessary by introducing primary legislation.

On one occasion during my time as a Member, an emergency Bill passed all its stages in the House in three minutes, so I do not accept that the Government cannot move quickly if they really need to do so. We propose that new clause 1(2) should be amended so that any temporary order must first be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament, in the same way that Parliament must approve any changes proposed by the Secretary of State to the schedule of purposes.

As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) said in Committee, that is not an ideological or policy issue; it is about parliamentary prerogatives and control over the Executive. The House is now going through a very interesting phase, to say the least—it is losing authority to the Executive, and I should like to resist any further losses.

The other amendments follow the first. As was pointed out on Second Reading on 9 July, the Government would be able, under the negative resolution procedure, to decide whether Parliament would be able to debate export control orders. We want to amend the Bill so that any orders—except temporary orders—made under clauses 1, 2, 4 or 5 are subject to the delayed affirmative resolution procedure. That requires a complementary amendment.

Governments often give a standard response to any suggestion. They say that the time of Parliament would be wasted and that the business of the House and the Government would be slowed down by the consideration of minor procedural or technical changes. That is not a substantial argument and, when changes are significant, Parliament must be given the opportunity to consider them. We must also consider what is or is not significant.

There was a good debate in Committee in which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) moved excellent amendments on orders. He said: It is clearly in the interests of good government that we should have the most thorough parliamentary scrutiny. That is not just in the interests of Back Benchers of whatever party, but is in the interests of the Executive, provided that the Opposition do not cause inordinate delay or unreasonable instruction. When he wound up the debate, he said: Given the strong feeling on both sides of the Committee that we want the fullest possible scrutiny, I ask the Department to give the fullest possible consideration on Report to whether aspects of secondary legislation could be given fuller parliamentary scrutiny. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment."— [Official Report, Standing Committee B 18 October 2001; c. 137–140.]

That was significant moment. On the basis that a Minister would, on Report, take the opportunity to repone the issue, a Labour Member said that he would withdraw his amendment. However, the Government have not done what he suggested. The Minister has merely told us that he will reject our amendments. We must take that fact seriously.

It was an extraordinary moment, because I do not recall a similar instance in any Standing Committee on which I have served. A Labour Member sought to withdraw an amendment, but I said that we should not and insisted on a Division. Everyone who had spoken in favour of the amendment, including the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, had to vote against it. That was no doubt an interesting experience for all the Labour Members concerned.

We are considering amendments that are so complex and diverse that I am sure that we shall have a long debate on this group. However, I wish to comment on the definition of sustainable development.

Mr. Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central)

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to his next point, will he consider the point about urgency? I have considerable sympathy for what he says about parliamentary scrutiny. It is fundamental and, if I catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope to speak to one of the new clauses that touches on the subject. However, the need for the Government to be able to act with extreme urgency is a real issue. I can think of circumstances in the past when the Government had to act against goods that had not previously been subject to controls but, if they had been exported, could have affected the lives and well-being of British forces. Does he accept that, under those circumstances, the Government must act and must be seen to act immediately? It would be difficult to support any provision that would prevent them from being able to do that. Will he explain why my view of his amendment is misplaced?

Mr. Key

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that interesting and instructive intervention. The House would be very interested in hearing from him how he resolved such problems when he was a Foreign Office Minister. Clearly Governments face such problems, so perhaps he could tell us how they responded when he was a Minister. My contention is that they can always find a way of doing something. In emergencies, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence might be able to act under the royal prerogative.

Emergency legislation is available to the Government and they can use it without the need to return to the House. However, it would help the debate if the hon. Gentleman, who has considerable experience on this matter, explained what happened in, say, the case of Sierra Leone—where there might have been such examples—or Rwanda. I look forward to hearing from him later.

I do not want to hog the Floor, because many Members wish to speak on this complex subject. I have explained why I think that we should press our amendment. The Government have failed to come forward with any further suggestions despite the invitation of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North to do so. I shall listen with great interest to the remainder of the debate,

Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal)

Technically the debate on this group of amendments is taking place on the question of whether new clause 1 be read a Second time. I will call the hon. Gentleman to move amendment (a) formally at the appropriate time.

Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie)

I am pleased to take part in this debate on an important Bill. I enthusiastically support it except in one respect. I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 34. Amendments No. 32 and 33 deal with the same theme, but amendment No. 34 is slightly different in its purpose.

Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 would bring our legislation automatically into line with the European directive on sustainable development. The gap between the EU directive and the Bill derives from the fact that the Bill does not cover sustainable development whereas the EU code of guidance does. My amendments would ensure that, if the code of guidance is changed, it would automatically be incorporated into British law. If, with our consent, the EU thought that other grounds existed to make it necessary to forbid the sale of arms or other services, we would not need to introduce primary legislation in the House.

Amendment No. 34 would simply ensure that sustainable development is covered by the Bill. The Minister owes us an explanation—[Interruption.] If the Minister will listen, I shall repeat my view that he owes us the explanation that was not forthcoming either from the Secretary of State on Second Reading or from other Ministers in Committee. We need to know why sustainable development as a ground for banning an export was dropped from the Bill.

In an earlier phase of Government thinking, both the EU code of guidance and the Bill agreed that sustainable development should be a consideration. It was accepted that we should not give approval to activities that would increase poverty, and that provision was in the Bill. However, without explanation the Government removed it from the Bill, which means that the export of arms and inappropriate technology cannot be banned on the basis of sustainable development. That is odd.

2 pm

My central point relates to what the Minister said in Committee. In trying to allay suspicions about why sustainable development was not included in the Bill, he said: We have always made it clear that our national criteria and the EU code of conduct on arms exports, which we played a key role in drafting…would remain the basis for export licensing decisions. I do not understand how that can be so when it is only that which is explicitly banned in the schedule which can be the grounds for stopping exports.

Dr. Jenny Tonge (Richmond Park)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is also difficult to understand the Minister's reasoning when the EU code of conduct for arms export is not legally binding, so no Government will be bound by it anyway?

Tony Worthington

Yes, that is absolutely the case. The code of conduct is simply guidance. The Minister said in Committee that if the Government were to ignore sustainable development when making a decision, that could be subject to judicial review, but I doubt whether that is so.

The non-governmental organisations that are interested in this subject and form the United Kingdom working group on arms—Amnesty International, the British American Security Information Council, which is known as BASIC, International Alert, Oxfam and Saferworld—took legal advice on the Minister's comments. It asked whether he was right and the advice the group received from Matrix chambers was that he was wrong. Indeed, judicial review could be called for by a firm if an export is refused on the grounds of sustainable development because only those criteria that are set out in the schedule are relevant. Given that legal advice, which I can make available to him for no fee, I hope that he will reconsider his case.

The Minister also said in Committee: They are ignoring the fact that we signed up to the EU code of conduct. We shall not withdraw from it, and a future Government will have to be bound by clause 8(4)."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 July 2001; c. 47–48.] That is not true. The code of conduct offers advice; it has no binding power. Will he also reconsider that, and bear in mind that it goes against Scott's sensible recommendation that the law should contain all such advice. He did not think that we should have to look to advice from elsewhere. He was clear about that.

I have one example in particular on which I should like the Minister to comment. The Department of Trade and Industry is considering an application by a British firm to supply Tanzania with $40 million of air traffic control radar equipment. As that has a substantial military component, it has to receive approval from the Department. The World Bank has condemned the proposal for being needlessly expensive and it says that what Tanzania needs could be obtained for $10 million. The proposal has also been turned down by the International Monetary Fund.

The UK has formed a relationship with Tanzania, one of the world's poorest countries, to help it to wipe out its huge debt. However, at the same time there is a risk that the Government will increase that debt by $40 million. If the criterion of sustainable development is not included in the Bill, that application could be approved, but if it is altered by my amendments, it could not be approved.

The inherent conflict must be causing problems in the Government. The Department for International Development is surely against the proposal because if the project goes ahead poverty would probably increase in Tanzania, so its support is inconceivable. It is also unlikely that the Treasury is in favour of the proposal. The idea of going to Dar es Salaam to negotiate debt reduction and then agreeing to something that adds $40 million to that debt does not sound like prudence, does it? So who does support the proposal, which has been around for a long time? It can only be the DTI.

I am suspicious because the sustainable development criterion has been removed from the Bill and without it we cannot be sure that poverty will be taken into account. I hope that the Minister can explain that omission and assure me that if he cannot alter the Bill today, he will do so in another place.

Dr. Tonge

Liberal Democrat Members broadly welcome the Government and Conservative new clauses and amendments in this group. We are also delighted that many of the issues that they address were raised by Liberal Democrat Members in our amendments in Committee. As the Minister rejected our amendments as unnecessary at the time, it is good to see them returning as Government amendments.

I want to speak to the amendments tabled by me, my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and the hon. Members for Moray (Angus Robertson) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd). Amendment No. 36 deals with the need for the Bill to provide for thorough consideration of the cumulative impact of arms exports.

The Government's policy is that exports are assessed case by case. Although that is appropriate in most instances, there are situations in which it is vital that the Government assess the cumulative impact of arms exports on a country or region. The need for such an assessment is especially acute when considering the implications of exports for sustainable development, which I shall speak about at some length, as the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) did.

No licence has ever been refused under the sustainable development criterion, largely because it is almost impossible to prove that any single licence will damage development. However, although it may be true that one licence taken in isolation may be of little concern, the combined effect of a number of licences could well have an adverse effect on development.

Perhaps it is necessary to spell this out again to the Minister, as we did in Committee. Developing countries often get into debt, and they are often encouraged to do so by the United Kingdom, which grants them export credit guarantees to buy arms. They spend far too much on the arms sector while spending far too little on health and education, which they neglect. As I said in Committee, education is crucial to the economic and overall development of any country. Development issues have been neglected because of spending on arms. Although one export may not highlight that fact, a series of exports may do so.

A series of exports may be a factor also when evaluating the impact of arms exports on a particular region. Perhaps one export of arms will not have an immediate impact on the country to which it is made, but it may affect overall regional stability. It is therefore crucial that the Bill provides for the consideration of the cumulative effect.

Perhaps the Minister will refer us to other provisions in the Bill, or to other schedules, guidance or other criteria, all of which can be so confusing. If the issue is addressed in all those places, why can we not simply state in the Bill how to address it? I do not know what Ministers are running away from. A provision requiring an examination of the cumulative impact of arms sales would make it so much simpler to interpret the Bill's intent.

On amendment No. 38, I understand the Minister's point on the desirability of substituting the words "mass destruction" for development, production or use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. However, as recent events have shown, a weapon of mass destruction could encompass almost anything. I therefore believe that we have to be careful when addressing that issue. Perhaps we should be legislating for the possibilities that we can understand and not for any old thing that may take the fancy of future terrorists. I ask the Minister to reflect on that issue.

Amendment No. 39 takes us back to sustainable development—however defined—which is my favourite subject, and the favourite subject of the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie. Yesterday, we had a very interesting debate in the House on the definition of sustainable development and on whether we should accept the Brundtland definition or the Government's own definition in the International Development Bill. Nevertheless, whichever definition we choose, the Bill surely must address the issue.

In the Export Control Bill, sustainable development is the only one of the eight consolidated criteria that the Government will consider before granting an export licence that is not included in the schedule of purposes for export control. Instead, the sustainable development criterion is referred to indirectly in the clause on guidance. In Committee, however, the Minister said: The Bill confirms and underlines the status of consolidated criteria, all aspects of which are important. He also said that the Bill had been so structured as "a matter of clarity and convenience". We believe that that sends the very clear political message that the Government do not regard protecting sustainable development as of equal importance to the other purposes. The Minister said that the Bill says it all, but in his statements he has clearly excluded sustainable development as a purpose of equal importance.

The omission of sustainable development was raised in Committee. As the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said, legal advice has been taken from Matrix chambers by a group of non-governmental organisations. I prefer to read out the relevant sections of the advice that we have received. It is important that we have that advice on the record as it has been given, because I could not put it in the correct legal terms if I tried to paraphrase it.

2.15 pm

The advice identifies three reasons why it is important to include sustainable development in the schedule of purposes. It states that the purposes can be changed only under the affirmative resolution procedure, so a Government could change them only with prior parliamentary approval, whereas the guidance can be changed without reference to Parliament other than it being informed at some unspecified time after the event. The DTI has stated that sustainable development will be protected as it is one of the criteria in the EU code of conduct on arms exports, and in Committee the Minister said: Even if a future Government tried to withdraw guidance issues under clause 8"— which, post-Committee, has become clause 7— the EU criteria would continue to apply".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B 17 July 2001; c. 47.] However, Matrix chambers advises that, on the contrary, it would be hard to maintain this argument in the face of an express decision to remove the Code from the guidance especially as even at the EU level the Code does not have legal force. That is most elegantly put.

Secondly, as an export order or transfer order can be made only for a purpose as elaborated in the schedule, excluding sustainable development from the schedule means that an order could not be made for the purpose of sustainable development. Our advice states: However much other matters have to be taken into account, they cannot justify making an order for a purpose which is not listed in the Schedule. That means that it would not be possible to introduce specific secondary legislation under the Bill to control more tightly exports that could hamper sustainable development, whereas, for example, the Government could introduce orders laying out a more detailed definition of what constitutes internal repression, or any of the other purposes in the schedule. Thirdly, the current arrangement of including sustainable development only under guidance does not satisfy the recommendation of the Scott report that any guidelines or guidance issued by the Government must operate inside the law, not alongside it.

In conclusion, the legal advice suggests that removing sustainable development from the schedule places it in a weaker position than other criteria under law. The omission denies a future Secretary of State the power to introduce controls to protect sustainable development, even if he or she wants to do so. It also means that he or she could remove sustainable development altogether as a consideration, with minimal parliamentary oversight. I thank the House for allowing me to read that advice, as it is important that it is on the record.

We should not have to keep on spelling out the importance of sustainable development. Yesterday, the House debated the International Development Bill: sustainable development, whatever definition is used, is central to that Bill and dear to the hearts of the Secretary of State for International Development and her junior Minister. That Bill was given its Second Reading without encountering any dissent from hon. Members, so it is abundantly clear that sustainable development is close to the hearts of all parties.

Sustainable development is on the face of the International Development Bill. If the Government believe in Departments working together, and if they believe in the joined-up government about which we hear so much, those words must appear on the face of the Export Control Bill, to ensure that no future Secretary of State can interpret the guidance in a different way and bypass crucial sustainable development.

Vera Baird (Redcar)

I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington). I emphasise in particular my support for amendment No. 34 on sustainable development. I do not propose to repeat the arguments advanced by hon. Members on both sides of the House in respect of that amendment; instead, I will make two minor further points.

It is my view—I invite the Minister to consider it—that the existence of the words "sustainable development" in the consolidated criteria, together with the fact that sustainable development is the only one of the consolidated criteria that is left out of the statutory schedule, make it next to impossible to imply into the schedule a power to legislate to protect sustainable development. It is all too clear that it has been deliberately, obviously and openly omitted. I suggest that seeking to imply it back in by an indirect mechanism will not work.

I ask the Minister to note that that is not only the view of Matrix chambers, well known and important as it is. It is also the view of the researcher who produced the paper in connection with the schedule, which is in the Library. It states that if there is not a reference to sustainable development in, then it is wholly out and cannot be implied in. The researcher says that the schedule sets out the purposes of export control in legislation, and it limits controls to those purposes and no others.

There is also the argument—it is exactly the argument advanced by the Minister—that is now propounded in support of amendment No. 34. My hon. Friend put it forward against amendment No. 38. He talked about that amendment setting out a list of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and that being a dangerous course because if such a list is put into the Bill, anything that is left out cannot be covered. That argument applies exactly to leaving out sustainable development from the list in schedule 4.

I do not like the term "hoist by one's own petard", and it is not appropriate in this instance, but will my hon. Friend seriously reconsider the matter and provide an explanation? If he will not seriously reconsider the position, why is the obvious need for the term "sustainable development" to appear in legislation not to be recognised? It is clearly the Government's intention to have regard to it. They have put themselves in an inextricably complex position. The simple way out is to add the phrase to the schedule.

Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham)

Many of the key points have already been made by Members on both sides of the House, so I will not delay the House. I shall merely make a few additional points.

I speak in support of the Conservative amendments, which are important and echo a theme that ran throughout our discussions in Committee. Whatever our views about the arms trade and necessity for controls—there are different views about those matters—parliamentary scrutiny is essential. Later, we shall discuss the core issue of prior scrutiny. In the absence of prior scrutiny, the point has been made by the Members representing all three parties that were represented in Committee that there would be considerable merit in escalating the level of parliamentary scrutiny generally. It was thought that the negative procedure is too weak, and where possible it should be replaced with delayed action; and where there is delayed action, it should be replaced with affirmative action. That is the substance of the Conservative amendment, which is a useful one, and I hope that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) will pursue it.

I move on to cumulative effects, which are taken up by amendment No. 36. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) made the point well. The current crisis underlines the necessity for having such criteria built into legislation. We are on the brink of at least one new arms race between India and Pakistan. Under current proposals, every export application would be considered individually. However, the problem when there is an arms race is knowing precisely when the cumulative effect is getting out of control.

An individual contract taken in isolation may be beneficial or neutral in its impact, but the exporting country might want to say that the point was being reached where the arming of Pakistan or India, or both, was getting out of control. The cumulative effect is what we must consider.

Similarly, the economic environment is changing rapidly. If there is a major economic shock leading to falling commodity prices, the effects of deteriorating international economic conditions will quickly undermine the conditions under which, for example, the heavily indebted poor countries have had debt relief. The position of many western hemisphere countries, including those in Latin America, is precarious. Only yesterday, I saw figures showing that the debt service to export ratio of many of those countries is close to what it was before the defaults of the 1980s. Adverse international economic conditions could well precipitate a crisis in both groups of countries. If that is the case, we need to consider not just individual export contracts in isolation, but the overall effect of large volumes of arms exports going through the process and destabilising countries' economies. The cumulative impact therefore needs to be built into the language of the Bill.

We have had a detailed exposition of the legal advice on sustainable development that is now available, but was not available in Committee. "Sustainable development" has become a buzz phrase. I was involved in writing the Brundtland report, so I have a vested interest in its interpretation of sustainable development. The key point is not whether or not we accept that definition, but that sustainable development is becoming institutionalised. The International Development Bill builds sustainable development into our legislation. We have passed the point at which it is simply an issue to be discussed by people involved in development; it is now becoming part of public law, and should be recognised as such.

The core point about sustainable development is that if, in future, Ministers wish to introduce export controls on the grounds of sustainable development, they will not be able to do so under current legislation; there are no powers for such action. If, on the other hand, they were succeeded by other Ministers who had little interest in the subject or, indeed, held it in contempt, those Ministers could simply dismiss any sustainable development criteria with perfunctory parliamentary scrutiny. Sustainable development should therefore be built into the Bill. It is inexcusable that the Government should have difficulty with that phrase; indeed, it is inexplicable. I suspect that someone in the Department decided that they did not want woolly-minded environmentalists getting in the way of hard business decisions on arms exports, and decided to strike sustainable development from the Bill. Having done so, they have landed the Minister not only with political, but legal, problems. I hope that he will think about that again.

Tony Worthington

Is not the situation even worse than that? Sustainable development was included in the draft Bill, but the Government decided that it should not become a ground on which exports were banned. In fact, the European Union code of guidance on sustainable development is utterly worthless because it cannot be taken into account at all as the result of the Government changing their mind between the draft Bill and the present Bill.

Dr. Cable

The hon. Gentleman makes the point eloquently and better than I did. I sincerely hope that the Minister will listen to his own Back Benchers. He may feel that we are creating difficulties for the sake of doing so; I assure him that we are not. I am sure that he will hear strong, sincere opinions from them, and I hope that he will take account of them.

Mr. Tom Clarke (Coatbridge and Chryston)

l always find the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) convincing; perhaps he should not have been quite so modest. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington). Indeed, I was persuaded to put my name to amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 34, which he and my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Ms Drown) tabled. Echoing the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), it is important that the matter is aired.

I raise that with some trepidation because, whenever I am puzzled or in intellectual difficulty, almost invariably I go to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths), the Minister for advice. Almost without exception, he removes my doubts. I am sure that that reputation will be consolidated today.

It is in that questioning mode that I express to my hon. Friend the great concern that exists about the sustainable development issue in the context of a Bill that is otherwise extremely welcome. We are seeking to help my hon. Friend remove what seems, in the absence of any other explanation, to be a flaw.

2.30 pm

Sustainable development is extremely important. The spirit of the Scott report suggested that Scott was far from happy, because in his view the purpose of export controls was not set out in legislation. That is what the amendments seek to achieve. I am a little surprised that that needs to be done from the Back Benches. From the draft Bill that was considered previously, our understanding was that sustainable development would be part of the final Bill to be put before the House. I am not entirely sure why it was taken out of the eight criteria considered by the Government.

Admirably, all the other export criteria in the draft Bill, such as the need not to export weapons that could be used for internal repression or human rights abuses, have been included in the final Bill. That is both right and welcome, but it raises the question why there is at present a gap between those on the Front Bench and many hon. Members on both sides in respect of sustainable development.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie explained clearly that if we accept the Bill as it stands, we are being asked to rely not on legislation—not on the schedules—but on guidance. We have seen in the past where guidance has taken us, not least during the Scott inquiry. We want to move forward more positively than that.

Under the Bill, if there were a change in policy, Parliament would not have a say. That becomes particularly worrying when we consider that we may not always—optimistic though I am about the future—have Ministers of whatever political party who are of the calibre of my hon. Friend. If those Ministers change their minds, where does that leave us in terms of legislation? Not, I suspect, where we want to be. As has been pointed out, the EU code is entirely advisory. We want to make matters clearer and the provision mandatory.

Reference has been made to the excellent debate in the House yesterday on the Second Reading of the International Development Bill. Not only is sustainable development at the heart of that admirable Bill, but it was mentioned time after time in speeches in that debate. Most importantly, sustainable development appears in the Bill. It is not for me to speak for the Department for International Development, which we all agree is an excellent Department, but there seems to be a hiatus between the thinking of the Department of Trade and Industry as reflected in the Bill, what we heard in the debate yesterday, and what appears in the International Development Bill. In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie, I am seeking to close that gap.

The Government have been highly persuasive in assuring the House of their commitment to sustainable development, but it seems contradictory that sustainable development is the only one of the consolidated national and European Union export criteria that is not in the Bill.

I read carefully what my hon. Friend the Minister had to say in Committee, through which he piloted the Bill with great confidence. He said: We have always made it clear that our national criteria and the EU code of conduct on arms exports, which we played a key role in drafting, accepted in full and consolidated last autumn, would remain the basis for export licensing decisions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 July 2001; c. 47.]

That is excellent, but we would still like to see it in the Bill. In that same column, my hon. Friend gave some legal arguments. As we have heard today, however, those appear to have been contradicted by Matrix chambers. Many of us would, perhaps, give more weight to Matrix chambers than to, say, Matrix Churchill. In any event, that legal definition that I put to my hon. Friend must be clarified today, because the absence of such a definition would detract quite unnecessarily from what is otherwise an extremely comprehensive and positive Bill.

Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh)

I apologise to the Minister for coming into the Chamber mid-way through his speech. I can only say in my defence that I have come hotfoot from having some dental work done. I earnestly hope that the novocaine has now worn off and that I shall not slur my words. I am conscious that a number of hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, so I shall adopt that most worrying of parliamentary phrases: "I intend to keep my remarks quite brief." I shall make only three points.

First, it is legitimate to register concern about the considerable degree of rewriting of the Bill that has taken place in a comparatively short space of time. As a broad rule of thumb, it does not inspire confidence when a Department suddenly has to turn round and rewrite so much of its Bill so late in the day. That gives a number of us pause for thought, and it is worth placing it on the record to reinforce the point that was made earlier on this side of the Chamber.

Secondly, I share the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) about the further trend towards the erosion of the powers of parliamentary scrutiny and influence, be that through the ever-increasing stream of European directives and regulations with which Parliament has to deal, or through the growing tendency of Ministers to ask for powers which negate the requirement for future areas of policy in their domain to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. Our amendments simply seek to retain a greater degree of parliamentary scrutiny over important measures, and they are genuinely worthy of consideration on that basis.

Thirdly, I want to make a brief point about the industry that the regulation, as amended, would affect. The defence industry, which employs more than one third of a million people in this country, is—on one level at least—an important guarantor of our security. On a day when so many hon. Members are, quite rightly, wearing poppies, it is worth remembering that, had there not been a defence industry in 1940, this debate would not be taking place at all. I urge fellow hon. Members to keep that at the back, if not at the forefront, of their minds as we continue our deliberations this afternoon.

Mr. Bob Blizzard (Waveney)

I want to speak briefly about the amendments relating to sustainable development.

The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said that Members were present who were very experienced and knowledgeable in regard to these matters, and had taken an interest in them for some time. I have to say that I am not one of those Members; I am new to the Bill, and relatively new to this subject. It strikes me, however, that it is not necessary to think too long before reaching the obvious conclusion that it cannot be right to sell arms to countries that have no means of affording them other than depriving their own people of budgets that sustain the basics of life, such as health and education.

I wanted to speak because some of my constituents have expressed their concern to me. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will help me to explain to them why sustainable development is the only one of the consolidated national and European Union export criteria not to be included in the Bill. He has said that the question is unnecessary, having been fully addressed elsewhere in the Bill; but if that is the case, why not underline it by including sustainable development in the schedule of purposes? That would remove any doubt, it would wipe away any concerns, and I think that it would answer questions raised by other Members about the difference between the draft Bill and this one. I feel that, of necessity, the concept of sustainable development must embrace that of the cumulative impact. The latter is surely implicit in the former.

Perhaps my hon. Friends can also help me to explain to my constituents how we can rely on the EU code of conduct when it has no legal force. That, in fact, is one of our reasons for proceeding with the Bill. The Government have done an awful lot by helping to drive the code through when none existed, but we are going further today, and I think we need to go further than the code of conduct.

I shall ask a final question. If an export or transfer order can be made only for the purposes elaborated explicitly in the schedule, why are we excluding sustainable development from it? Does it not follow that we shall be unable to make such an order?

I should be very grateful if my hon. Friend could help me explain those points to my constituents.

Angus Robertson (Moray)

I shall briefly reiterate the position of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, the party of Wales.

We consider this to be an important Bill that tightens up an important area of legislation, and in general we support it, especially because it takes on and responds to so many points made in the Scott inquiry. We also consider it to be a significant step forward because it tries to prevent the transfer of arms by United Kingdom companies and citizens to conflict or human rights crisis zones. We welcome the closing of loopholes, as described by the Minister, and the enhanced scrutiny procedures.

I hope that the Minister will take what I say in the spirit in which it is meant—one of general support. I think that my comments are in line with the overwhelming view of the majority of those who have spoken so far. We in the SNP and Plaid Cymru agree that a number of factors have been identified which, if not addressed, could undermine the Bill's effectiveness. We share the concern felt by many in the House and elsewhere that the draft Bill's reference to the need to consider the consequences of arms exports on sustainable development has been dropped from the final legislation. That point has been made repeatedly this afternoon. That is why the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) and I have joined the hon. Members for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) and for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) in tabling amendments Nos. 36, 38 and 39.

2.45 pm

Apart from sustainable development, all other export criteria, such as the need not to export weapons that could be used for internal repression or human rights abuses, have been included in the Bill, and rightly so. The Government have justified the omission on the ground that a new provision that gives the Secretary of State powers to issue guidance for consideration during the licensing process covers development issues. However—this point has been made, but it is crucial—although Parliament would have to be fully consulted when changes to the schedule of purposes were made, no such requirement exists for changes to the guidance. It is conceivable that, in the lifetime of the legislation, reference to the need to consider the impact of arms exports on sustainable development could be removed by the Government at any time, without any consideration by Parliament.

Sustainable development as a concept is already becoming recognised in United Kingdom legislation. The International Development Bill received its Second Reading in the House of Commons yesterday. Many hon. Members in the Chamber today who were present yesterday will know that that Bill explicitly refers to and defines sustainable development. I agree with the point made in yesterday's proceedings by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) that the Brundtland definition of sustainable development would have been preferable. None the less a sustainable measure is included in that Bill.

During the Committee stage of the Bill, the Government repeatedly stressed the importance of the issue. It seems contradictory that sustainable development is the only one of the consolidated criteria not in the Bill. I endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Tony Worthington) with regard to Tanzania. The schedule of purposes should contain explicit reference to the need to ensure that arms transfers do not have any adverse effect on the economy or sustainable development of a country.

Government policy is based on assessing licence applications on a case-by-case basis. Although that is appropriate in most circumstances, there are concerns—we have heard many of them this afternoon—that that approach may be too narrow when considering the implications of arms transfers on sustainable development. One contract may not be significant on its own, but if part of a pattern of large-scale procurement its may contribute to a cumulative undermining of the development potential of the recipient state. That should be taken into account in the licensing process.

In the Bill as currently drafted, sustainable development is the only one of the eight consolidated criteria, which the Government consider before granting an export licence, not to be included in the schedule. It is instead referred to indirectly in the clause. That is despite the fact that, according to the Minister: The Bill confirms and underlines the status of consolidated criteria, all aspects of which are important.

Earlier, he stated that the Bill had been so structured as a matter of clarity and convenience." —[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 17 July 2001; c. 47.] Indeed, it sends a clear political message that the Government do not regard protecting sustainable development as of equal importance to the other purposes, such as preventing internal repression.

The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) made many valuable points about the issue of scrutiny. I suggest to him and to any other hon. Members who are interested in the matter that they have a second look at the scrutiny regime in Sweden, which is of particular interest. The Swedes, who brought in legislation not that long ago, have an interesting principle on which to base scrutiny procedure: The overriding principle dictating licensing policy is that licences may only be granted if there are security or defence policy reasons for doing so and it does not conflict with Sweden's foreign policy. Interestingly, it also includes, implicitly, that export licences should not be granted if the recipient state is involved in an armed conflict with another state is involved in an international conflict that may lead to armed conflict is subject to internal armed disturbances has perpetrated extensive and serious violations of human rights. That is particularly relevant when we consider the defence systems and equipment international exhibition that was held in this country on 10 September this year. A number of repressive regimes and countries fighting on opposing sides in Africa were invited to that event. There were representatives from countries currently involved in the conflict in the so-called Democratic Republic of Congo, including representatives from Angola and Uganda. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to explain whether the updated legislation would allow exports to such countries to continue. I, and many other hon. Members, would be concerned if arms from the United Kingdom could be used in such conflicts.

Amendment No. 36 goes back to the case-by-case assessment outlined earlier. I welcome the fact that the Minister signalled in his opening remarks that that would be taken into consideration. In the spirit of cross-party co-operation, I hope to get some clarification on why that amendment is not acceptable.

Amendment No. 38 deals with the question of different weapons technologies. I am rather confused and would welcome an explanation from the Minister.

Nigel Griffiths

I can perhaps help end some of the confusion. Does the hon. Gentleman know that he is wrong to say that sustainable development is the only criterion not included in the schedule?

Angus Robertson

I bow to the Minister's wisdom, but that does not detract from the case for including it in the legislation. I am happy to continue debating that if the Minister thinks that it is important.

The Minister argued that amendment No. 38 should not be incorporated because it highlights existing and not future or emerging technologies. That is rather confusing because such a proposition would affect much if not all legislation. I do not claim to have a crystal ball that would enable us to produce legislation to anticipate all possible future technological and weapons systems development, but surely we should deal with existing threats and he open to updating legislation as necessary.

I hope that the Minister will respond to the points that have been made by hon. Members from all the parties that have participated in the debate. I look forward to hearing the Minister deal with many of our concerns.

Mr. Lloyd

Some hon. Members have mentioned sustainable development, and I want to put a simple question to the Minister to which I hope that he will respond later.

The House is in favour of sustainable development being caught within the concept of this legislation. Hon. Members have pointed out that the EU code—I have some responsibility for the promulgation of that code—is not legally binding and was never accepted as being so at European level.

Is my hon. Friend the Minister convinced that if sustainable development were used as a criterion for refusal of a licence, it would stand up against judicial review instigated by an exporter facing such refusal? That is a fundamental consideration. Ministers are entitled to protection in using a criterion for the refusal of licences and to know that they can do so without others seeking recourse to the law. Like hon. Members on both sides of the House, I am not yet convinced that it would not be better for the provision to be both extant and in the Bill, so that it is clear not only to the House but to those who implement the legislation and are subject to it.

I turn to amendment (a), which was tabled by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). He asked me a little about my experience of Sierra Leone. My recollection is that I had very little to do with arms going to Sierra Leone—despite my reputation over the years. It is rather ironic if the purpose of the amendment is to allow the Government to act in a way that is consistent with the spirit of the legislation—the establishment of a licensing system that not only allows the legitimate export of arms, but controls and prevents arms sales that we do not want to occur—because there are some circumstances in which it is necessary for the Government to act, not simply quickly, but effectively and immediately.

It is true that, as United Nations embargoes would be implemented by Order in Council, they would fall outside the provisions of the Bill. However, there are other circumstances to consider, such as the present conflict in Afghanistan. Whatever hon. Members' views on that, it was not foreseen well before the event and could not easily have been planned for.

I can think of other such circumstances. After a period of prolonged but uneasy peace, Ecuador and Peru edged in a matter of days towards war. I also recall the situation in Indonesia with respect to East Timor. I went to East Timor for the referendum on independence. The European Union was faced with a mounting crisis in Indonesia and in relations between Indonesia and East Timor, and at very short notice imposed an embargo on weapons sales to Indonesia.

There are times, therefore, when it is necessary to allow Governments to act instantly. It is right and proper that there should be parliamentary control—in many instances I would be at the forefront of those saying, "Let's not trust Ministers"—but amendment (a) would shackle the Government, preventing them acting in ways consistent with foreign policy objectives and maintaining the security of our fighting troops.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will resist pleas to alter the definition of weapons of mass destruction. He is right in the example that he cited. Technology moves very quickly and we may not be able to foresee future weapons of mass destruction. It would be ridiculous for us to define downwards our capacity to control such technology, which we ought to be restricting. I therefore urge him to leave the words "weapons of mass destruction" in the Bill.

3 pm

Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North)

The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) apologised for being delayed at the dentist. I apologise for being delayed while working in my office and for therefore following on television the speeches of the Minister and of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who courteously referred to the amendments that I moved on 18 October and to some of the remarks that I made at the time.

It is true that I said that thorough parliamentary scrutiny is in the interests of good government, and that that is in the interests of not only Back Benchers of whatever party but the Executive—provided that it is not an opportunity for inordinate delay or unreasonable obstruction. I hasten to emphasise the words "unreasonable obstruction", because it was not until I heard the hon. Member for Salisbury that I realised that Hansard had recorded me as saying "unreasonable instruction". May I say immediately that I absolve the Opposition from ever being guilty of unreasonable instruction? I have occasionally suspected that they had an unreasonable lack of instruction, but never unreasonable instruction. He also referred to my comments in withdrawing the amendment, when I said that I hoped that my hon. Friend the Minister would take account of the expressions from both sides of the House that the fullest scrutiny of secondary legislation was desirable.

However, the hon. Member for Salisbury did not quote what I said immediately before that, when I indicated that, in relation to the negative resolution procedure, the Minster made the point in responding to my probing amendment that this procedure would deal purely with technical matters, such as minor changes in detailed lists. That seemed to me to be perfectly reasonable.

On clause 3(2), I recognised that, in the case of emergencies, the delayed affirmative procedure might be the most appropriate procedure, particularly since the Minister had indicated that it would relate mostly to technical matters. I say to the hon. Member for Salisbury that I cannot see the advantage of trying to use something like royal prerogatives in these circumstances, as the procedure to which I have referred would be preferable. On 18 October, I stated that my amendment was intended purely as a probing amendment and that it was my intention to withdraw it. I felt that the Minister had answered a number of points satisfactorily and my amendment, as worded, was not appropriate to be pressed. I was slightly disappointed that some Opposition Members felt it appropriate to seek to deny me the opportunity to withdraw the amendment.

The amendment tabled today by the hon. Member for Salisbury still does not take sufficient account of the Minister's response and raises the suspicion that, in this case, inordinate delay and unreasonable obstruction might be the intention behind it. The hon. Member for Salisbury showed good judgment on many occasions in Committee; I compliment him on his good judgment if he feels that his own party has a vested interest in the position of Opposition parties for some considerable time into the future. However, inordinate delay and unreasonable obstruction may be in the interests of Opposition sometimes, but they are not in the interests of good government. Therefore, I would not be proposing to vote for the amendment.

Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)

I have not contributed so far to discussions on the Bill, although I had some part in its genesis when I served on the Foreign Affairs Committee, which considered the matter at an early stage and formed part of the Quadripartite Committee, on which I served for a short time.

I agree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd) said; many of us have a great deal of respect for what he did when in office. One of the principal reasons for that was his advocacy of the EU code of conduct, which was an important advance. But, as he said, it has no force in law. It is a matter of agreement between the EU member states, but it does not fall within our statutes. That is why it is so important that we get the Bill right.

I wish to refer to the question of whether sustainable development should be a criterion and whether it should be in the table in the schedule. The Minister will have some difficulty in persuading many of us that it should not be there, for this reason. First, the argument against it being included might be that it fettered the discretion of Ministers. Clearly, it does not; it extends the discretion of Ministers to apply what Members on both sides of the House have agreed is a desirable criterion.

The second reason might be that the criterion is otiose because the matter is covered elsewhere. If that argument is to be pursued—that the measure is unnecessary because the guidance can be relied upon entirely to give Ministers the discretion they need to make decisions without fear of judicial review or challenge in the courts—we must ask what the court's interpretation of the absence of that criterion from the list would be and whether it is more likely that it would evince a challenge from those who had had an export licence refused on those specific grounds, if it were on the face of the Bill or if it were not. My answer to that, not as a lawyer but as a layman, would be that it is inevitable that a court would be more easily persuaded that the Minister was acting beyond the express powers given in the legislation, if he was relying on guidance notes that were not on the face of the Bill than he would if he were relying on an express commitment and an inclusion in the schedule.

Therefore I believe that the Minister needs to persuade the House, at the conclusion of the debate, that there is a good reason for not including that criterion in the list. It seems to me that many Members on both sides of the Chamber are not yet persuaded of that fact, and if that is the case he would be well advised to accept the advice that has been proffered, not least by some hon. Members on his side of the Chamber.

Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme)

I welcome the Bill. It is an important new weapon in our armoury to restrain the merchants of death. However, having read the Standing Committee report, I am in confusion as to exactly who and what would be captured by the scope of the technical assistance provisions, so I should like to speak, if I may, to Government amendment No. 4. If you will bear with me for a short while, Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to use a concrete example of a situation where I believe that we would all like arms dealing to be captured, but I am not quite sure whether it would be, and would appreciate the Minister's advice.

I welcomed the assurances that the Minister gave in Committee that the Bill had sufficient scope to cover what some might call mercenary activities of United Kingdom nationals, but which might more broadly be called military support activities of UK nationals abroad; I very much look forward to the long overdue Green Paper on mercenaries. Some doubts were nevertheless raised that the courts might not uphold orders placed on such nefarious people, as the language of the Bill is not sufficiently precise. Therefore it is important in this debate to state that it is the will of Parliament that, as far as possible, such traffickers in death be captured by the Bill.

At this time of the terrible conflict in Afghanistan, it is important that we do not forget other regions of the world where irresponsible arms dealing, against the will of the international community, is leading to death and destruction. I am thinking particularly of the terrible civil war in the Congo, where other African states that should know better are systematically looting a country that is already on its knees. Zimbabwe is one of the vultures at that feast—or rather, Robert Mugabe's henchmen are profiting while that war bankrupts their own country.

It is a little known fact that the main arms supplier to Zimbabwe and its adventure in the Congo is a UK resident, who runs his huge business empire from the royal county of Berkshire—from genteel Ascot and Windsor, to be precise. I should like to use his example to illustrate why the House should support the Bill, and to place in context my request for clarification from the Minister of the Bill's precise scope.

Outside the sports pages, hon. Members would not find much reference to that gentleman, Mr. John Bredenkamp, in the UK press. With a fortune estimated at £400 million, he has deep pockets, expensive libel lawyers and a dangerous reputation. He is also extremely clever and careful, and does not readily leave end-user certificates lying around. Therefore it is safer for the press to chronicle his handling of sports stars—including Ernie Els and Francois Pienaar among many others—through his sports agency, Masters International, than his handling of arms. However, Mr. Bredenkamp has long had form of a distinctly unsporting kind, and he is exactly the sort of person based in this country whom the Bill should tackle.

A former tobacco farmer, captain of the Rhodesian rugby team and member of Rhodesian special forces, Mr. Bredenkamp was a key figure in sanctions busting, so long ago, for Ian Smith, and when the regime changed he quite simply changed his allegiance. In 1994, the activities of Mr. Bredenkamp's then company, Casalee, were exposed by a courageous Channel 4 "Despatches" programme.

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are actually discussing, in this group of amendments and the new clause, the general restriction on purposes of control orders. It may be more appropriate for the speech that he is currently delivering to be made at Third Reading.

Paul Farrelly

I wanted, Madam Deputy Speaker, to deal with the scope of the orders that might be made under the technical assistance regime, which I understood to be part and parcel of the Government amendments.

Madam Deputy Speaker

I am concerned about the extent of the detail that the hon. Gentleman is giving.

Paul Farrelly

In that case, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall try to skip some of the detail, and get to the nub of my argument.

The activities of Casalee have been well documented but, although he denies it, Mr. Bredenkamp is one of the major suppliers of arms to Mr. Mugabe. He is a key backer of ZANU-PF, and of a potential successor to Robert Mugabe. His companies are reliably believed to have supplied arms and equipment used by the Zimbabwean army, the Interahamwe, and the Mai-Mai tribesmen in eastern Congo. Many of those arms subsequently have found their way back to war veterans, and have been used in attacks on white-owned farms.

In return, Mr. Bredenkamp has been a major beneficiary of Mr. Mugabe's largesse in Zimbabwe and the Congo. He is a major mover and shaker in southern Congo, and he has been awarded valuable diamond, cobalt and other mineral concessions. He has recently come to the attention of the United Nations panel investigating profiteering from the war in the Congo.

My hon. Friend the Minister has rightly said that the Bill should complement international co-operation between the UK, Europe and the UN in curbing arms dealing in world trouble spots. However, the matter of the scope of the technical assistance provisions in the Bill is relevant in connection with the very clever way in which Mr. Bredenkamp has structured his African involvement.

Mr. Bredenkamp runs his master company, Breco Services, from Berkshire. His African activities are run through several separate companies based in Harare, in particular through one called ACS International. Mr. Bredenkamp therefore appears to break no UK laws, embargoes or restrictions—however formal or informal—by ostensibly keeping all his African arms-dealing activities offshore. Although UK policy is not to license arms sales to Zimbabwe, Mr. Bredenkamp is clearly able freely to subvert that policy.

I should be grateful for an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Department of Trade and Industry, by means of the Bill, will have the necessary powers, in conjunction with the Home Office and the Foreign Office, to investigate empires such as Mr. Bredenkamp's. I hope that it will use those powers to take such measures as are necessary to curb organisations that are structured in the same clever way.

I hope too that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure the House that the relationships between Mr. Bredenkamp and any similar organisation will also be allowed to be examined under the Bill, as will the role of any UK company, including British Aerospace, in the supply of arms and military logistics to world trouble spots. The House will remember the controversy regarding the sale of Hawk aircraft parts to Zimbabwe by British Aerospace.

Finally, there is one further twist with regard to Mr. Bredenkamp on which I should appreciate my hon. Friend's learned advice. Mr. Bredenkamp has rights of residence in the UK, but I understand that he is not a British passport holder. Instead, he holds Zimbabwean and Dutch passports. Is he caught under the definition of the Bill as a United Kingdom person who would then be subject to the technical assistance provisions?

I should appreciate advice on that question, as I am sure that the House would agree that the Bill should be able to rein in precisely those activities that I have described—activities that mean that merchants of death use our country as their base, to the detriment of peace and stability in the rest of the world.

Roger Casale (Wimbledon)

I spoke on Second Reading in support of the Bill, and I am grateful for the opportunity to make some brief comments about Government amendments Nos. 39 and 44, which would remove direct reference to sustainable development from the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Minister said earlier that that reference was unnecessary because the issues connected with sustainable development were addressed in other parts of the Bill. I should welcome further reassurance that that is the case, but other hon. Members from all parties have emphasised their concerns and advocated that the Bill should expressly cover the matter of sustainable development.

Reference has also been made, and rightly, to yesterday's Second Reading of the International Development Bill. The question of sustainable development formed a central part of that debate, one of the features of which was the recognition that definitions of sustainable development were themselves subject to political debate and to change over time.

In the 1980s, the Brundtland report defined sustainable development as development that did not prejudice the ability of future generations to meet their needs. However, one of the issues that has arisen from international development debates is that, when we talk of sustainable development, we should also talk about economic development that allows the society involved to sustain itself for many years to come. So sustainable development is not a clear concept; it is itself subject to change.

3.15 pm

The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who speaks for the Opposition, said that it is necessary to balance the needs of the Government to be able to govern and take decisions with those of Parliament to provide effective scrutiny of the Government's actions. That important balance has to be struck, and it should concern us all, but this issue does not necessarily fit the schema of striking a balance between the Government and Parliament. I suggest that the balance that needs to be struck in considering how to refer to sustainable development is that between our ideals and aspirations and what is practicable and workable in the real world.

We should remember that the last time that a Bill to control arms exports was introduced in the House was 1939. Whatever legislation we pass today will need to last for a very long time, so we must at least consider whether terms that are not as robust as they might be to sustain changes in their definition over time perhaps need to be deleted from the Bill.

Some people will find it curious, perhaps even ironic, that we might remove reference to the adverse impact on sustainable development as a ground for restricting arms exports, while talking about introducing more joined-up thinking into government and while strengthening our commitment to sustainable development under the International Development Bill.

I have tried to consider both sides of the argument, and I may be minded to accept the Government amendments, but before doing so, I should like the Minister to give further assurances that the commitment to sustainable development runs as a golden thread through the Bill and the work of the DTI, the Department for International Development and the Treasury, as well as all our attempts to improve the condition of people across the world.

Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater)

I must apologise for turning up late for this debate—unfortunately, in the best words of any film, I was unavoidably detained.

Having served on the Committee, I am interested in two important aspects of the Bill, the first of which is the way in which the long-term scrutiny will be carried out. We discussed the importance of timing at great length. What shall we do if the Government are unable to hit their targets in the scrutiny period? Assuming that 57 per cent. of the applications are considered and that the rest are not in the time allocated, how do we then manage to bring into play the longer-term licence applications? That may be a problem because they cannot be considered retrospectively—people will have to look ahead.

Many of those issues will hinge on the movement of technology. We now discover that some companies' computer software can he bought for £5 in Hong Kong. That shows that technology develops extremely quickly in this country and throughout the world. One of the problems that must be considered is whether the amendments can be held up in law, given that we discovered in Committee that they cannot in many cases. Given the supersession of Europe, it is very difficult to understand how we as a Parliament can consider such matters in the longer term.

Longevity is central to the Bill; it needs to be sustainable for as long as possible. Although the Bill is overdue, it has been superseded by human rights and other legislation.

In Committee, we even discussed the export of cows in formaldehyde. I think that they should be exported, but that is a personal view. How does one give a licence for a work of art? For example, Greece seeks the return of the Elgin marbles, but could we scrutinise such an export licence in such way that the best interests of the United Kingdom remain at the forefront of people's minds?

Although many of the amendments have merit, it is up to Parliament to scrutinise each one of them so that we can police and monitor the Bill. Will the House have the time and the ability to scrutinise complicated issues so that they are examined properly? The answer is probably no. It worries me that the Government want to be able to pass measures as quickly as possible without their receiving the necessary scrutiny.

In Committee, the hon. Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) made an interesting point about East Timor and Hawk jets. I have not quite got to the bottom of the difference between a Hawk 100 and a Hawk 200, but would a licence cover the point that those jets are a dual-purpose piece of kit? The jet can be used as a trainer or as a fighter and bomber, and I do not understand how the House will be able to consider those points in the depth that is necessary for us to be able to take a decision. I am not an expert in chemistry but dual-purpose kit from chemicals is another of the biggest problems that we face. We have had our fingers burned so often that we need a usable and sustainable Bill that Governments will be able to stand by for a long time to come. If they cannot, that suggests that the Bill will be flawed even before it comes into force.

For the longer term, we need to consider the points that I have raised about technology, dual-purpose kit and the way in which licences are introduced. If we do not get the Bill right, we shall suffer for a long time and, especially, under European legislation. Such legislation will be draconian if we are not careful.

Mr. Key

The House has heard a number of firsts in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Liddell-Grainger) may have been unavoidably detained, but he was a loyal attender in Standing Committee. He has scored a first. As far as I am aware of, he is the first person to have mentioned the export of works of art in the debate. I congratulate him. We should not forget that the Bill is also about the export of works of art.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Savidge) scored another first. He is a doughty man of Surrey, a good grammar school boy and he has made many contributions in the debate. However, it is absolutely astonishing that he should pop into the Chamber to say that he has been watching us on telly and to make a derogatory speech before popping back to watch us on telly again. If he is out there, let me tell him "We are still at it. How's the tea break?" That was a first, and I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his sheer audacity.

However, the hon. Gentleman hit a nail on the head when he talked about unreasonable instructions and interventions. The point is that technical and minor provisions in the Bill matter most. There have been some brave words spoken on both sides, but those brave words might lead to lawyers' paradises if we are not careful. [Interruption.] Ah, I welcome the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North back to the Chamber. I am envious of his opportunity to take a tea break or whatever it may have been that detained him in his room.

The problem of defining the small print and the detail has been repeatedly mentioned. It is always a pleasure to hear from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly). I used to read him assiduously when he was business editor of The Independent on Sunday and The Observer. I have a feeling that his case was a continuation of previous investigations. The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Roger Casale) put his finger on the button when he said that the problem was getting the balance right between the ideals and aspirations, and what is practical and workable.

The Minister must explain why sustainable development is not mentioned in the Bill when it was included in the draft version. I am going to throw him a lifeline: I suspect that the DTI has been framed by other Departments. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke) and I, as former Ministers, recognise when a Minister has been framed. I suspect that the Minister and his officials were told to remove the reference to sustainable development before other Departments realised that they, too, had a problem. It is tempting for the Opposition to row in with those who want to cause serious trouble, but I shall resist that if the Minister gives a credible explanation of why it is not mentioned.

It is important that the Minister recognises our disappointment in Committee when he did not give us a word of explanation for that decision, even though I made a gentle request for it when I said: I should be very grateful for a brief explanation as to why that clause disappeared from the draft Bill".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 October 2001; c. 148.] If the Minister can give us a convincing answer to that, I will be the first to be pleased because I recognise the Government's difficulty.

The hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), who has, I think, also caught an early plane back to the north, made an interesting point about the Swedish system. There are problems with it, because that system did not stop Sweden exporting fighter aircraft to South Africa as part of a multinational arms deal, so I am not sure that it has much to commend it.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) was a little wide of the mark, however, when he said in last night's debate that the answer lies in Brundtland. He stated: I am sure that the Minister is familiar with the Brundtland definition, which states that sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. That has been accepted as the standard international definition of sustainable development for many years."—[Official Report, 7 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 319.] My goodness, if that is a legally watertight definition that the Government are expected to include in the Bill, I am in the wrong profession; I should definitely have been a lawyer. The Brundtland definition is full of aspiration and miles away from practicality. If the Government are being urged to adopt that, I have great sympathy with them.

In last night's debate on Second Reading of the International Development Bill, I read with great interest the explanatory notes that had been prepared by the Department for International Development. Paragraph 19 states:

The terms 'poverty', 'sustainable development' and 'welfare' are not defined in the Bill. It is considered that to do so might reduce the United Kingdom's ability to offer assistance. Subsection (3) of clause 1 ensures that the Secretary of State will not be bound to take a view of sustainable development that is exclusively or excessively economic on the one hand or exclusively or excessively environmental on the other.

Clause 1(3) of that Bill states: 'sustainable development' includes any development that is, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, prudent having regard to the likelihood of its generating lasting benefits for the population of the country or countries in relation to which it is provided. It sounds as though the Secretary of State for International Development has had a chat with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as prudence was cited in the definition as an important reason why Ministers should or should not act. I can see why people believe that such a broad definition is not acceptable.

3.30 pm

Moreover, in reply to yesterday's debate, the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn)— whose credentials on the issue are surely impeccable—said: I think that we have to ensure that the concept"— of sustainable development— is not captured either by those who take an entirely economic view of sustainable development or by those who see it principally as an environmental concern—something that I learned very forcefully when I was in Indonesia, where the economics of sustainable livelihoods in a forest community are about trying to balance those two sometimes competing demands. I think that clause 1(3) is not so much a definition as a safeguard against the narrowing of that concept by anyone who has a particular definition favouring one concept or the other.—[Official Report, 7 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 335.]

As I said, the Opposition are offering the Minister a lifeline. We do not wish to oppose new clause 1 or to support amendments that would tie his hands to a definition of sustainable development from which only lawyers could benefit and which would detract from the judgment of the relevant Secretary of State. The matter now rests very much with the Minister. The House is owed an explanation of why the Government left out the paragraph on sustainable development from the table to the schedule, and I hope that the Minister will be able to put us right.

Nigel. Griffiths

One of the great pleasures of being a Minister is the opportunity to listen and respond to the many thoughtful and well-informed speeches made by colleagues who take a great interest in the issues under debate. We have heard a number of such speeches today. We have also heard comments expressing our constituents' concerns about these issues. I shall address some of the issues that have been raised in the debate, almost in the order in which they were raised.

Some hon. Members mentioned the time factor in the tabling of some of our amendments. I think that I have explained fairly clearly that, in Committee, certain aspects of the structure were unclear. Hon. Members suggested that the schedule should he applied to clauses 4 and 5. Taking those concerns on board with the Government's own concerns about the Bill's structure creating the risk of a loophole in the control powers, we concluded that it was necessary to amend the Bill as we are proposing in new clause 1.

There is no question of the Government trying to rush through amendments at short notice. I wrote to members of the Standing Committee to explain that the new clause had been tabled partly in response to concerns that were expressed in Committee. I believe that the new clause is a necessary simplification and clarification of the Bill.

I thank the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) for his kind offer of a lifeline. I shall not be taking him up on that offer, but I will allow him to save the lifeline for the Conservative party, which will have more need of it than I do. I also did not license the parachute that he mentioned in his opening remarks.

I want to make one thing very clear on sustainable development. This Government have done more than any previous Government to promote the interests of the third world, both by spearheading the international campaign to relieve third-world debt—which has had a tremendous impact—and by providing a lead in writing off debts. We have led the drive to ensure that the people of the third world have a right to health, education and freedom from poverty. It is with that in mind that I should like to deal with some of the comments that just do not stand up.

It is not true that sustainable development is not fully covered in the Bill. It is clearly included in the criteria against which applications are considered. It is not true that the Government cannot refuse an export licence on grounds that are not included in the schedule. I hope that my colleagues are reassured on that point. It is not true that sustainable development could not be a factor in a judicial review. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), for whom I have great respect, put to me the direct question: would the use of sustainable development as a basis for the refusal of a licence stand up to judicial review? The answer is yes, it would.

There are legal opinions on this issue, but I do not have to remind the House, which is replete with lawyers, that an opinion is exactly that. An opinion is not a legal fact, otherwise cases would never reach court.

Dr. Cable

Has the Minister seen the contrary legal opinion? Before reaching a firm conclusion, is he willing to review it?

Nigel Griffiths

I have seen the opinion. The NGOs who commissioned it did me the great courtesy of coming to my office to discuss it with me. I am not a lawyer and so cannot pass legal judgment on it, but the opinion has been seen by the Government lawyers and it is that which has allowed me to respond so robustly and, I hope, helpfully. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central for having raised that issue and enabling us to put our position clearly on the record.

Tony Worthington

I am not convinced by the Minister's argument. There is clearly a difference of opinion, so it would seem sensible for the Government to put the matter beyond all doubt by adding sustainable development to the criteria, so that we have no court problems in future. One of the benefits of scrutiny by parliamentarians is that we can get rid of the ambiguities that the Minister admits remain.

Nigel Griffiths

No words spoken in the House and no Act of Parliament put anything beyond doubt. We know that from the plethora of court cases that arise. It is important that hon. Members respect the fact that when direct questions are put to me and I answer yes or no, we put beyond doubt the issues raised and we make clear our opinion on a legal opinion. The world is replete with legal opinions.

Many hon. Members raised the question of sustainable development, and rightly so. Several pointed out, wrongly—I am sure that that was because they have misread briefings or the Bill—that sustainable development is the only one of the consolidated EU criteria that is not included in the Bill.

Dr. Cable

Will the Minister give way?

Nigel Griffiths

No. I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman and I want to make some progress. I do not know whether he was one of those who said that—we will check Hansard—but several hon. Members did, and at least one is willing to admit to having done so.

Let us be clear. Another of the criteria that is not listed in the schedule is criterion 7. which covers diversion. I explained that if diversion were to be listed in the schedule, it would give us the power to impose controls by order solely on the grounds that the goods might be diverted, which would in effect allow us to control all exports of any goods because any goods might be diverted. That goes to the heart of the distinction between the schedule, which allows us to impose controls, and clause 7, which requires us to take the criteria into account when taking licensing decisions.

Nothing in the Bill will affect one jot the Government's current ability to take criterion 8—sustainable development—fully into account. The Bill makes it clear that matters in the schedule are not the only matters that can form the basis of a licensing decision. The purposes essentially determine the reasons for which controls can be imposed on particular goods and technology.

Another issue was raised in that context.

Mr. Roger Berry (Kingswood)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Nigel Griffiths

I shall finish what I was saying and then give way.

It has been said that no matter how benign, effective or otherwise I am as a Minister, or the Government are, a future Government may choose to ignore the EU criteria because they are not in the schedule. Even if a future Government tried to withdraw or water down the guidance on the criteria in the Bill, the EU code of conduct on arms exports would continue to apply until specifically withdrawn by the EU in its common foreign and security policy formation. I see no prospect of that happening. If anything, the direction of continuing discussions within the EU is to strengthen the code.

Mr. Berry

Does my hon. Friend not accept that there will be less doubt if sustainable development is one of the criteria in the Bill?

Nigel Griffiths

There may also be less flexibility. It is important to ensure that the EU code of conduct on arms exports is applied throughout the EU and is strengthened. We have been at the forefront of that process.

The issue of Lord Scott's opinions has been raised. The Bill clearly addresses his criticisms by setting out in the schedule the reasons for which controls may be imposed on the export of goods, the transfer of technology, the provision of technical assistance and trade in goods, and further by making it clear in clause 7 that the consolidated criteria will continue to inform day-to-day decisions on export licences.

Angus Robertson

Will the Minister clarify whether he is asserting that the EU code of conduct is legally binding?

Nigel Griffiths

The Government are taking into account, and must do so, the consolidated criteria in the EU code of conduct. We have done that, and are continuing to do so. I have made it clear that the possibility of a future Government changing the policy and trying to duck their responsibilities is virtually non-existent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) referred to some specific examples, but as he knows, I cannot comment on individual cases. However, he raised an important point of principle on which I think the House will want to have the Government's views on record. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that the Bill will give us the power to control UK citizens and anyone operating in the UK, which I think was the point that he was making. He was concerned about someone who was not a UK citizen who was a trafficker and broker in arms to arms-embargoed destinations such as Zimbabwe. Such people will be caught. That is important.

I shall ensure for the benefit of the House—

Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire)

Will the Minister give way?

Nigel Griffiths

No. I want fully to answer the point that my hon. Friend made. No doubt will be created by the current formulation in the Bill. The code is not legally binding, but there is no realistic prospect of any Government withdrawing from it. It is a political commitment, and one that causes me to urge on the House acceptance of the Government's amendments and the rejection—

Mr. Lansley

rose—

Nigel Griffiths

No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman because he has not been in the Chamber throughout the debate.

I ask the House to reject the amendments that have not been tabled by the Government for the very good grounds that I have set out.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment proposed to the proposed new clause: (a), in line 4, leave out from "order" to end of line 6 and insert—

1. '(a) has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, and
2. (b) provides—
1. (i) for the order to expire, or
2. (ii) for the provision imposing them to cease to have effect,'.—[Mr. Key.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 117, Noes 251.

Division No. 51]	[3.45 pm
AYES
Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)	Field, Mark (Cities of London)
Amess, David	Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Baker, Norman	Foster, Don (Bath)
Baldry, Tony	Francois, Mark
Baron, John	Garnier, Edward
Barrett, John	George, Andrew (St Ives)
Blunt, Crispin	Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Boswell, Tim	Goodman, Paul
Brady, Graham	Gray, James
Brooke, Annette	Grayling, Chris
Burstow, Paul	Green, Damian (Ashford)
Cable, Dr Vincent	Green, Matthew (Ludlow)
Cameron, David	Grieve, Dominic
Chope, Christopher	Harris, Dr Evan (Oxford W)
Clappison, James	Hawkins, Nick
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth	Hayes, John
(Rushcliffe)	Heath, David
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey	Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Collins, Tim	Hoban, Mark
Davey, Edward (Kingston)	Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)	Holmes, Paul
Djanogly, Jonathan	Horam, John
Doughty, Sue	Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Duncan, Alan (Rutland & Melton)	Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Ewing, Annabelle	Jenkin, Bernard
Fabricant, Michael	Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles
Fallon, Michael	(Ross Skye & Inverness W)

Key, Robert	Rosindell, Andrew
Kirkbride, Miss Julie	Ruffley, David
Laing, Mrs Eleanor	Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui	Sanders, Adrian
Lamb, Norman	Selous, Andrew
Lansley, Andrew	Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Laws, David	Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Leigh, Edward	Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)	Spicer, Sir Michael
Liddell-Grainger, Ian	Streeter, Gary
Lidington, David	Stunell, Andrew
Luff, Peter	Swayne, Desmond
McIntosh, Miss Anne	Swire, Hugo
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew	Syms, Robert
Maclean, Rt Hon David	Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian	Taylor, Sir Teddy
May, Mrs Theresa	Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)
Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)	Tonge, Dr Jenny
Moore, Michael	Tyler, Paul
Murrison, Dr Andrew	Tyrie, Andrew
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)	Weir, Michael
Öpik, Lembit	Whittingdale, John
	Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Osborne, George (Tatton)	Wiggin, Bill
Ottaway, Richard	Wilkinson, John
Paice, James	Willetts, David
Paterson, Owen	Williams, Roger (Brecon)
Prisk, Mark	Willis, Phil
Pugh, Dr John	Wilshire, David
Randall, John	Wishart, Pete
Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)	Younger-Ross, Richard
Rendel, David
Robathan, Andrew	Tellers for the Ayes:
Robertson, Angus (Moray)	Mr. Julian Brazier and
Robertson, Hugh (Faversham)	Mr. Laurence Robertson.
NOES
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)	Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Ainger, Nick	Clarke, Rt Hon Charles
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)	(Norwich S)
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary	Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Atkins, Charlotte	Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Austin, John	Clwyd, Ann
Bailey, Adrian	Coffey, Ms Ann
Baird, Vera	Coleman, Iain
Barnes, Harry	Connarty, Michael
Battle, John	Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
	Corston, Jean
Beard, Nigel	Cousins, Jim
Bell, Stuart	Cox, Tom
Berry, Roger	Cranston, Ross
Best, Harold	Crausby, David
Betts, Clive	Cruddas, Jon
Blizzard, Bob	Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul	Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Borrow, David	Cunningham, Tony (Workington)
Bradley, Rt Hon Keith (Withington)	Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)	Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Bradshaw, Ben	David, Wayne
Brennan, Kevin	Davidson, Ian
Bryant, Chris	Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Buck, Ms Karen	Dawson, Hilton
Burden, Richard	Dean, Mrs Janet
Burnham, Andy	Denham, Rt Hon John
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)	Dismore, Andrew
	Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)	Donohoe, Brian H
Caplin, Ivor	Doran, Frank
Casale, Roger	Dowd, Jim
Caton, Martin	Drown, Ms Julia
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)	Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Chaytor, David	Edwards, Huw
Clapham, Michael	Efford, Clive
Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)	Ellman, Mrs Louise
Clark, Dr Lynda	Ennis, Jeff
(Edinburgh Pentlands)	Farrelly, Paul

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna	McNulty, Tony
Flint Caroline	Mactaggart, Fiona
Flynn, Paul	Mahmood, Khalid
Follett, Barbara	Mallaber, Judy
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)	Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Francis, Dr Hywel	Mann, John
Galloway, George	Marris, Rob
Gardiner, Barry	Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
George, Rt Hon Bruce (WalsallS)	Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Gibson. Dr lan	Merron, Gillian
Gilroy, Linda	Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Godsiff, Roger	Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Griffiths. Jane (Reading E)	Miller, Andrew
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)	Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)	Moffatt, Laura
Grogan, John	Moonie, Dr Lewis
Hain, Rt Hon Peter	Morgan, Julie
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)	Morley, Elliot
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)	Morris, Rt Hon Estelle
Hamilton, David (Midlothian)	Mountford, Kali
Havard, Dai	Mullin, Chris
Healey, John	Munn, Ms Meg
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)	Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Hendrick, Mark	Naysmith, Dr Doug
Hepburn, Stephen	O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Hesford, Stephen	O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Hewitt, Rt Hon Ms Patricia	O'Neill, Martin
Heyes, David	Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)
Hill, Keith	Owen, Albert
Hinchliffe, David	Palmer, Dr Nick
Hodge, Margaret	Pearson, Ian
Hope, Phil	Perham, Linda
Hopkins, Kelvin	Pickthall, Colin
Howarth, Rt Hon Alan (Newport E)	Pike, Peter
Hoyle, Lindsay	Plaskitt, James
Hughes, Beverley (Stretford)	Pollard, Kerry
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)	Pond, Chris
Humble, Mrs Joan	Pound, Stephen
Hurst, Alan	Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Hutton, Rt Hon John	Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Iddon, Dr Brian	Prosser, Gwyn
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam	Quinn, Lawrie
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)	Rapson, Syd
Jenkins, Brian	Raynsford, Rt Hon Nick
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)	Reed, Andy (Loughborough)
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)	Robertson, John
Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)	(Glasgow Anniesland)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)	Roche, Mrs Barbara
Joyce, Eric	Rooney, Terry
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Ross, Ernie
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)	Roy, Frank
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)	Ruddock, Joan
Kemp, Fraser	Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Khabra, Piara S	Ryan, Joan
Kidney, David	Sarwar, Mohammad
King, Andy (Rugby Kenilworth)	Savidge, Malcolm
Kumar, Dr Ashok	Shaw, Jonathan
Ladyman, Dr Stephen	Sheerman, Barry
Lammy, David	Sheridan, Jim
Lazarowicz, Mark	Shipley, Ms Debra
Lepper, David	Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Levitt, Tom	Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Linton, Martin	Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Lloyd, Tony	Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Love, Andrew	Soley, Clive
Luke, Iain	Southworth, Helen
Lyons, John	Squire, Rachel
McAvoy, Thomas	Starkey, Dr Phyllis
McCabe, Stephen	Stevenson, George
McCafferty, Chris	Stewart, David (Inverness E)
McDonagh, Siobhain	Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
MacDonald, Calum	Stinchcombe, Paul
McDonnell, John	Stoate, Dr Howard
MacDougall, John	Sutcliffe, Gerry
McFall, John	Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
McKechin, Ann	Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)	Watson, Tom
Timms, Stephen	Watts, David
Tipping, Paddy	White, Brian
Todd, Mark	Whitehead, Dr Alan
Touhig, Don	Wicks, Malcolm
Trickett, Jon	Winnick, David
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)	Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)	Woolas, Phil
Turner, Neil (Wigan)	Worthington, Tony
Twigg, Derek (Halton)	Wright, David (Telford)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)	Wright, Tony (Cannock)
Tynan, Bill
Vis, Dr Rudi	Tellers for the Noes:
Walley, Ms Joan	Jim Fitzpatrick and
Ward, Ms Claire	Mr. John Heppell.

Question accordingly negatived. Clause added to the Bill.