| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Lang: No, not now. I have given way a great many times, and I still have a good deal of important information to divulge to the House.
The second point that I should like to make clear is that, contrary to the Opposition's assertions, PII claims have been made in criminal cases both before and since the Matrix Churchill trial, and have been upheld in the courts. The abandonment of PII claims in criminal cases, which I understand that the Opposition propose, would result in cases against serious criminals and terrorists having to be dropped. That would be necessary,for example, to protect sensitive sources of information,and those whose lives might otherwise be at risk. Moreover, PII applies not only to Government documents and confidential police information but to the work of other agencies, such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, in relation to child abuse cases.
The law on public interest immunity in civil and criminal cases is made by the courts, and Sir Richard Scott does not consider legislative intervention necessary or, at present, desirable. The Government, however,will consider his recommendations in the light of developing case law--in particular, his view that the time is opportune for a collective reappraisal by Ministers.As part of that consideration, the Government would welcome the views of hon. Members and others on future developments in the use of PII certificates.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington):
Will the right hon. Gentleman answer a question that I have been asked by a number of my constituents? Why did the Attorney-General refuse to pull the prosecution--to end the trial--when he knew that Henderson was working for MI6? Scott says that he could have done so.
Mr. Lang:
The matter is not one for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. The trial was conducted properly and fairly. All the appropriate documents were placed before the judge; the judge commented on them and said that he was satisfied,and three defence counsel concluded that a fair and proper trial had taken place.
Mr. Alex Carlile:
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Lang:
The report devotes--
Madam Speaker:
Order. I have yet another point of order.
Mr. Carlile:
Is it right for the President of the Board of Trade to assert to the House that it is not possible for
Madam Speaker:
That is not a point of order, but a point of argument.
Mr. Lang:
The report devotes two chapters of recommendations to export control powers and licensing procedures. Before I come to those recommendations,I should like to cover, as I did in my statement, our policy regarding the export of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq.
The Government's policy was to remain neutral in the Iran-Iraq war.
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it possible for the Attorney-General to come to the Dispatch Box to give a ruling on the point made by me and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) because it is important and significant in this whole affair?
Madam Speaker:
The Secretary of State is at the Dispatch Box and I am sure that he is capable of responding to the points that have been made.
Mr. Lang:
Thank you, Madam Speaker. I understand that points of order are for you, which is why I did not respond to the previous one, but I am sure that if the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) catches your eye, he will pursue his point.
Dr. Keith Hampson (Leeds, North-West):
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Lang:
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I must make progress.
The Government's policy was to remain neutral in the Iran-Iraq war. As Sir Richard recognises, no lethal weapons were sold to either side and the Government took vigorous measures to prevent the export of non-lethal goods that could have prolonged or intensified the conflict. As the House knows, a set of guidelines was introduced to assist in the application of that policy, which was far stricter than that of our main international competitors. The guidelines were exactly that. They were for guidance, essentially for internal use, to assist officials in dealing with export licence applications. They had no legal basis and were not intended to set out the complete policy. As Sir Richard Scott acknowledges in his report:
Mr. Spearing:
The President of the Board of Trade has made it clear that the guidelines were not necessarily related specifically to policy, which was a different matter. Why is it then that, in paragraph D4.3, Sir Richard quotes a statement included in letters by Ministers on four occasions that
Does not the President of the Board of Trade agree that all the evidence clearly showed that the Government had?
Mr. Lang:
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point. On the question of guidelines, let me quote the author of a different guide on guidelines, who said:
Those are the words not of myself or the Government. Those are the words in a preface to the Chancery guide written by Sir Richard Scott himself.
My point is that Ministers and officials in all three Departments believed--and Sir Richard Scott accepts--that they were applying the Government's policy on the export of defence equipment in a way that remained within the guidelines announced by the then Foreign Secretary in 1985, with all their inherent flexibility. While honest opinions can and do differ--
Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker:
I think that it is a point of frustration, but either way.
Mr. Sheerman:
The Secretary of State has been on his feet for 37 minutes. Support for parliamentary democracy in this country is ebbing and haemorrhaging away every second that he speaks. Will you, Madam Speaker, direct him to answer the main charges of Scott before it is too late?
Madam Speaker:
That is not a point of order.
Mr. Lang:
The central tenet of our parliamentary democracy is freedom of speech. I have given way many times in this debate. I have a great deal of information to lay before the House and I wish to do that so that the debate can continue.
Madam Speaker:
Order. The right hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. The Secretary of State has indicated that he is not giving way at the moment. Is that correct?
Madam Speaker:
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) must therefore resume his seat.
Mr. Lang:
Officials in all three Departments believed, and Sir Richard Scott accepts--
Mr. Kaufman:
On a point of order, Madam Speaker--[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker:
Order. I have yet another point of order.
Mr. Kaufman
The President of the Board of Trade gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham,
Madam Speaker:
Order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will want to rephrase what he has said. I am sure that he will do so--[Interruption.]
Mr. Kaufman:
Yes, Madam Speaker. Of course I will rephrase my point of order in response to what you have said. The President of the Board of Trade gave a response to my hon. Friend in which he will have misinformed the House unless he allows that to be corrected by giving way to me.
Madam Speaker:
That is what a parliamentary debate is made of. Thank you.
Mr. Lang:
I look forward to listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
Madam Speaker:
Order. I require the right hon. Member for Gorton to resume his seat.
Mr. Lang:
As I have said, we will be placing in the Library a document that sets out our current approach to informing Parliament about our policy on arms sales.In the light of comments that we receive, we will bring forward any specific proposals for discussion in the House. I am also placing in the Library a note on how that policy operated between 1980 and 1990.
I return to Sir Richard Scott's recommendations on export controls. The Government accept that the current export control powers and procedures should be reviewed and that there should be wide consultation in the course of such a review. That review will take into account the points made by the report. We will then produce a consultation paper covering those points, as Sir Richard Scott recommends. I should make it clear that the Government are committed to an export control system that is easy for business to use and understand but allows the Government to take restraining action where it is necessary for wider policy reasons. I am sure that the House will approve progress in that area.
It is important to put the issue of defence equipment sales and the operation of those guidelines into clear perspective. Let it not be forgotten that the whole debate on guidelines is not about the sale of arms such as guns, missiles, bullets and bombs, but about non-lethal defence equipment. Moreover, the issue is not about the sale of such equipment by the Government, but about the steps taken by the Government to control sales by manufacturers and others to unacceptable destinations. The details of the export licences to Iraq in the crucial years have all been published.
I invite the House to contrast that point with the policy pursued by Labour Governments in the 1960s and 1970s, when the issue was not about non-lethal equipment but the
sale of lethal weapons. It was not about the Government controlling such sales. Indeed, the Government helped to do the selling.
In 1966, the Ministry of Defence, under the then Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Healey, set up its own defence sales organisation tasked not with the control of overseas defence sales, as this Government's guidelines have sought to do, but with the specific purpose among others of organising sales, campaigns and presentations and of negotiating major deals--deals be it noted not in spare parts for microprocessors or field telephones, but in lethal weapons. At what countries did the Labour Government direct their sales campaign? I have done a little research and found that in 1975, 1976 and 1977, during the run-up to the Iran-Iraq war, British defence sales to Iran averaged more than £50 million a year, including the sale of lethal weapons.
Still more interesting is the previous Labour Government's record at the same time with another country: Argentina. I have discovered that the previous Labour Government helped to secure contracts to sell to Argentina--again, not a country renowned at the time either for its democracy or its human rights record--such choice consignments as 42 Sea Dart surface-to-air missiles, 120 Blowpipe surface-to-air missiles and two Lynx helicopters. Those are not spares for radar sales or metal detectors; they are weapons of war that were sold to the Argentine dictatorship.
"I would readily accept that, in relation to defence sales to Iran and Iraq, the Guidelines were not, and were never intended to be, an exclusive exposition of Government policy".
"The Government have not changed their policy on defence sales to Iraq or Iran"?
26 Feb 1996 : Column 601
"They must not be allowed, by an over-rigid application that fails to take into account the circumstances of each case, to become a constraint on effective and sensible case management."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |