The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) has chaired the Quadripartite Committee with great skill, and managed to steer it to produce an excellent report with unanimous conclusions. It is not easy to bring together four Select Committees with diverse views.

I apologise to you, Mr. Benton, and to the Minister and the Chamber, because the Select Committee on International Development is taking evidence from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development this afternoon, so the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) and I, and other members of the International Development Committee, will have to leave fairly soon to take that evidence. Therefore, I will keep my comments as brief as possible.

On Tuesday, the House debated African development strategies. During that debate, many hon. Members raised concerns about conflict constricting development. The Under-Secretary of State for International Development responded to those concerns at the close of the debate, when he stated that the Government

"are spending a total of �110 million specifically on conflict management and prevention activities. Much of that amount is spent on UN operations, such as those that took place in the Congo. However, we are also working on security sector reform, reducing the prevalence of small arms and carrying out peace-building work."�[Official Report, 4 November 2003; Vol. 412, c. 767.]

I do not doubt that the UK is investing such sums for peacekeeping in Africa, but such spending is often negated by aspects of the UK's defence export control legislation, which hampers international development and allows for the proliferation of small arms in Africa and elsewhere.

Small arms account for nearly all combat deaths in developing countries. In some parts of Africa, every child appears to have an AK45. It is terrifying to hear what the Lord's Resistance Army has been doing in northern Uganda, and what was happening in Sierra Leone before the UN and British forces intervened. Practically every child seemed to have an AK45. Poverty fuels conflict and conflict fuels poverty. Civil wars leave countries poorer, with many more people living in absolute poverty. Almost all the countries that recently had civil wars were developing countries. Nearly half the countries with the highest defence burden have the lowest indicators of development. Angola and Eritrea, for example, spend more than 20 per cent. of their gross domestic product on the military. Indonesia, the second highest recipient of net overseas aid, spends almost the same sum on its military forces as it receives in development aid. Pakistan's total defence spending consumes a third of its GDP at the same time as its servicing of debt on loans to finance defence purchases rises to 50 per cent.

Overall, some $22 billion a year is spent on arms by countries in Africa, Asia, the middle east and Latin America. That sum would enable those countries to be well on track to meet the millennium development goals by 2015�to achieve primary education for all and to meet the UN's targets to reduce infant and maternal mortality.

Those stark facts are highlighted not by the Quadripartite Committee's report but by "Shattered Lives: The Case for Tough International Arms Control", the report that was recently published by Oxfam and Amnesty International. I know that hon. Members are conscious of the report, much of which reinforces the conclusions and recommendations of the Quadripartite Committee's report.

The Committee has been speaking much the same language as the "Shattered Lives" report. One need only reflect on the Committee's recommendations in 2001 about sustainable development and enforcement of the EU's criterion 8 on arms exports, with respect to the Export Control Act 2002. Given much of the language used by Ministers during its passage�at least by Ministers from the Department for International Development�it is disconcerting that it is still necessary to raise concerns about the likely effectiveness of the 2002 Act and, now, its secondary legislation.

I shall not repeat what I said in the House on Third Reading. I simply say that putting sustainable development in the schedule to the Bill was a start, but was not nearly enough. From my perspective as Chairman of the International Development Committee the Quadripartite Committee's report supports the case for robust checks on arms brokering and end use, and robust prior scrutiny.

I believe that the Quadripartite Committee's report supports many of the recommendations in the "Shattered Lives" report. The Oxfam and Amnesty International campaign is sensibly seeking the adoption of the UN's arms trade treaty by the time of the 2006 UN review conference on small arms. Such a treaty would be legally binding and would help to ensure that the international community worked together to the same standards to prevent the irresponsible transfer of arms and to seek to prevent violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. The UK should champion such an arms trade treaty.

The Quadripartite Committee's report also demonstrates the need for the Government to take action domestically. It shows the need to create new international instruments to prevent irresponsible arms brokering, transporting and financing, and foreign licensed production, using the arms trade treaty criteria to define and prevent irresponsible transfers; to establish independent mechanisms to bring to justice, without delay, those who perpetrate serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law, ensuring that such violations are adequately punished and other steps are taken to end impunity; and to enforce existing legislation or create new legislation to control the import, export, transit, production, management and use of all arms.

The standards outlined in the arms trade treaty should be used when taking decisions on national arms exports, ensuring that human rights, international humanitarian law and sustainable development do not suffer as a consequence of commercial pressure. Transparency and oversight should be ensured by the provision of regular and meaningful information to the public about the production, possession and transfer of arms; the reports should be subject to regular review by legislatures and parliaments.

It is therefore of some concern that the Financial Times�a periodical not known for being left-leaning�reported last month, about the measures that we are discussing, that

"the legislation will fail to include regulations permitting law enforcement agencies to prosecute Britons who sell small arms illegally outside the country. The legislation is also expected to omit other regulations, including a register for UK arms dealers and a requirement that all arms contracts include end-user certification, which would allow British authorities to ensure that dual-use technologies had been used for non-military purposes. Similar regulations are in place in several leading arms-exporting countries, including the US."

One of the questions that we need to ask the Government is why we are doing less than the United States in this context? My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) accurately observed that the UK is one of the largest defence equipment exporters in the world. The United States' defence exports outstrip ours by a considerable factor. If the United States can feel confident with that legislation, why cannot the United Kingdom?

That approach contrasts sharply with recent international developments on trafficking and brokering activities, including the EU common position on brokering of June 2003, and the statement of understanding on arms brokerage adopted by the Wassenaar arrangement in December 2002. In response to the Committee's report, the Government stated that they remain

"convinced that the most effective way of preventing the illicit trade in small arms is through multi-lateral action."

However, it is slightly difficult to reconcile that statement with the Government's response to the launch of the "Shattered Lives" report.

Let us further consider the secondary legislation. The Government have rejected calls from the Quadripartite Committee to introduce full extraterritorial controls on arms brokering. In response to the Committee's report, they stated:

"The new controls will criminalise anyone trading, without a licence, in military equipment from the UK or a UK person anywhere trading in 'Restricted Goods' and in arms to embargoed destinations. This latter control should capture many of the circumstances in which arms are transferred to areas of conflict or rogue States."

That statement contrasts considerably with the commitments that the Minister made to me during the passage of the Export Control Bill. In a letter dated 21 February 2002, he said that

"there is no question of the Government going back on its manifesto commitment in this area."

Unfortunately, the Government response to the Quadripartite Committee does not support that claim; rather, it suggests a somewhat stunted ambition on the part of the Government to attempt to control brokering.

It is simply not enough to design legislation to capture, in the words of the Government report, "many of the circumstances". That is a very loose line to take. Comprehensive controls are required. The measure will not capture many of the circumstances in which arms are to transfer to areas of conflict or rogue states. It will not prevent UK arms brokers overseas from transferring machine guns and helicopters to the Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, FARC rebels in Colombia or the war-torn Ivory Coast. It will also still be legal for UK dealers to supply surface-to-air missiles to countries whose Governments have been accused of sponsoring terrorism, such as Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Syria. Unless the secondary legislation is tightened, the risk will remain that arms brokers will carry out activities overseas to sidestep the legislation.

Similarly, the Government made it clear to the Committee that they believe that the proposed legislation

"would also be likely to lead to conflicts of jurisdiction where other countries take a different view to us on individual cases, and to enforcement difficulties and administrative overload."

That is nonsense. Ministers already propose to exert such controls on the brokering of certain torture equipment and of arms to destinations subject to a national embargo, so if they can do that there, why not elsewhere? That raises the question whether the Government believe that it will be easier to obtain a prosecution for corrupt payments to foreign officials made overseas than for the unauthorised trafficking in conventional weapons to a non-embargoed destination. I do not understand the logic in that, so I would welcome clarification from the Minister today.

In evidence to the Quadripartite Committee on 3 April, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry referred to controls where any part of the transaction, including an email, fax or telephone call, takes place in the UK. However, in response to a question about a company being able to enter into a provisional agreement relating to the sale of equipment that it owns in one overseas country to another overseas country before acquiring the licence, the Secretary of State said that a licence would be required only when a commitment was entered into.

On that basis, there is clearly the risk that UK regulations could be avoided by carrying out the marketing and promoting in the UK, while brokering the deal offshore. Such a loophole needs to be closed the Government, and the most straightforward and effective approach would be to license all arms transfers brokered by UK persons, regardless of their whereabouts. If all transfers are regulated, the control of negotiations becomes redundant.

I alluded to the Minister reaffirming the Government's manifesto commitment on export controls. As the hon. Member for Kingswood who chairs the Quadripartite Committee acknowledged, the Labour party's 1997 manifesto contained the commitment to

"strengthen monitoring of the end-use of defence exports to prevent diversion to third countries and to ensure that exported equipment is used only on the conditions under which the export licence has been granted".

The Government have failed to introduce an effective end-use monitoring system. In the past year, several reports have surfaced regarding the diversion of military equipment from third countries into Iraq, Jordan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates and Yemen, all countries to which the Government authorised weapon sales in 2001, and a number of which were suspected of being links in the Iraqi military equipment supply chain.

In February it emerged that UK forces had found UK-made equipment in an Iraqi weapons store outside Basra, and Ministry of Defence sources were reported to have said that the find highlighted the threat from the burgeoning black market arms trade across the middle east.

Obviously, that raises a number of questions, yet the Government declare themselves satisfied that existing pre-licensing checks are sufficient to prevent diversion or unauthorised export, and refuse to institute a system of end-use monitoring. That leads me to prior parliamentary scrutiny.

The Quadripartite Committee has long called for the introduction of prior parliamentary scrutiny, but Ministers continue to reject it. The Committee's report recommends that the Government come up with proposals for a system of prior parliamentary scrutiny of export licence applications by a Select Committee or Committees of the House. I agree. That same letter of 21 February said that the Government believe that the system of prior parliamentary scrutiny of individual export licence applications cannot be made to work without having a materially adverse impact on efficiency and effectiveness of the export licensing process, and risks making Parliament complicit in the eventual licensing decision.

Ministers are clearly seeking to say that there is some sort of constitutional impediment to proper prior scrutiny. I do not think so�there is no constitutional impediment that would prevent Parliament from legislating to give itself a role in scrutinising arms export licences, it is simply that Ministers do not wish to enable Parliament to have a greater say or role in this activity.

The impact of small arms on the lack of development in many parts of the world, especially in several parts of Africa, is self-evident to anyone who reads a newspaper. If we are to have an Export Control Act, it is essential that it is effective, as if it is not, it is not worth having. The International Development Committee will shortly be considering the impact of small arms on migration. I hope that the Quadripartite Committee in its next work will want to consider the calls for the strongest possible United Nations arms trade treaty by 2006.