| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.29 pm
Mr. Michael Alison (Selby): The hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) referred to the38 letters, and I hope to rebut his line by asking hon. Members to focus on one of the letters which was referred to--for those who would like to follow the text--on page 478 of the Scott report. That letter was addressed by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasuryto my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West(Mr. Sackville). I shall quote two significant parts from it to rebut the hon. Member for Hodge Hill's argument.It refers to the specific limitation on defence-related equipment.
Mr. Terry Davis: I am sure that the righthon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House.The 38 letters do not include that one. Paragraph D4.3 shows that all 38 letters were sent before August. The letter that he is describing was sent in August.
Mr. Alison: I leave that aside, and concentrate on one letter that, in relation to the indictments levelled at the Chief Secretary, is nevertheless highly definitive in the way in which Lord Justice Scott handles it. My right hon. Friend's letter states:
- "These"
guidelines
The fact that the letter and other similar letters contain the phrase
must mean that they needed some qualification and interpretation.
When that letter was written, in the middle of August 1989, the conflict between Iraq and Iran was already over. That is why its final sentence was:
Clearly that was a necessary qualification to the reference to prolonging or exacerbating conflict.
The Scott report goes on to observe that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary
He goes on to say that the Chief Secretary
that refers to the need to qualify the guidelines relating to the period of conflict between Iran and Iraq--
It is the report's use of the word "interpretation" that I want hon. Members to focus on. Interpretation is at the root of the Scott report's acquittal of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, and of his view as to where the truth lay. I quote the key reference in Scott to my right hon. Friend's complete integrity in the matter:
It is worth pointing out that Lord Justice Scott expressed the view that it is possible for guidelines to possess
The Scott report goes on to show how value judgments might arise. This is the most important dimension in which the blamelessness of my right hon. Friend comes through.
Mr. Sheerman:
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Alison:
I must make progress. The hon. Gentleman knows the problem we have with time-limited speeches.
Mr. Sheerman:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris):
It had better be a serious point of order.
Mr. Sheerman:
It is a serious point of order. This debate is about parliamentary democracy, and tonight we
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Is the hon. Gentleman criticising the occupant of the Chair?
Mr. Sheerman:
I have no intention of criticising the occupant of the Chair, but we all know--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. In that case, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will resume his seat, and think before he speaks on another occasion.
Mr. Alison:
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I trust that you will give me injury time, not for being an old Etonian--I can do nothing about that--but for having been interrupted for minute and a half by that assault.
The Scott report goes through three different categories of how the guidelines might be understood. It says in paragraph D2.428 that the equipment subject to the guidelines "included 'defence-related' equipment". That phrase was included in my right hon. Friend's letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West, even though the phrase does not, strictly speaking, appear in the original criteria. The report goes on:
This is a matter in which a "value judgment"--the phrase used by Scott in relation to giving flexibility to the interpretation of guidelines--is manifestly appropriate.
Uncertainty as to whether equipment would be for civil or military purposes is manifest in some of the equipment referred to. For example, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) mentioned rubber boats. Was that equipment not subject to interpretation? My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was entirely right to make the judgments he did. The criticism levelled at him in the Scott report relates entirely to interpretations or value judgments of particular pieces of equipment.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray):
In the short time that has been allocated to me to speak on behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, I do not intend to follow the example of some previous speakers by quoting many of the chapters and verses of the substantial report.I should like again to put on record the fact that our minority parties were not allocated the opportunity of an early sight of the report prior to the President of the Board
All the arguments in the Scott report have been put very eloquently by hon. Members from all parties and have highlighted where the Government have shown their weaknesses. At one stage, we became used to the phrase "lies, damned lies and statistics". As a result of the Government's interpretation of the Scott inquiry we have a new phrase: adjectives, damned adverbs and qualifications. The use of those adverbs, adjectives and qualifications is no excuse for the incompetence that they have shown and will not win back the people's support or faith in the idea of parliamentary accountability or ministerial responsibility.
I shall concentrate on two points of principle arising from the report. Although one Labour Member said that he did not feel that the report was about the arms trade,I believe that it has long-term implications for the arms trade. As a young student in the 1960s, I remember campaigning against the then Labour Government's attitude to the arms trade which was affecting Nigeria and resulted in the virtual eradication of the Ibo tribe in Biafra. That policy was driven by interests in oil and energy.
Since then, I have watched the development of arms trade policy over the years and I should like to refer to two issues. First, despite the Government knowing that Saddam Hussein was gassing the Kurds, a distinct preference was given to the Iraqis during the Iran-Iraq war. At the moment, the Government are considering selling Hawk aircraft and Scorpion tanks to Indonesia, despite the atrocities that it is enacting against the people of East Timor.
The Secretary of State spoke about the common conflict between morality in international affairs and jobs at home. There will always be conflicts of interest--I say that as a Member who represents a constituency with substantial defence interests--yet I have heard nothing logical either from the Treasury Front-Bench team or the official Opposition Front-Bench team about a long-term policy on the arms trade. The justification that seems to be given is that everybody else does it. Indeed, the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), is on record in The House Magazine during the 1995 summer recess for praising the fact that we are
in selling arms abroad. It is incumbent on all hon. Members to consider such a long-term strategy, which is why it is important that we consider the possibility of a defence diversification fund. All political parties face that challenge.
If there is to be a peace dividend, we must recognise that we also have a responsibility for those who are employed in the defence industry. Some hon. Members have made eloquent speeches on the jobs lost as a result of the Matrix Churchill scenario. In its dynamic budget, my party has already planned for £25 million a year in the first four years of independence to be put directly into a defence diversification fund so that people will have security of employment. Jobs and homes are of critical importance to everyone. If the Government were to implement such a policy instead of the short-term
concessions that have been made today, they would gain much more respect throughout the country. It would be a positive step forward and it might restore some public confidence in the political process.
The phrase "freedom of information" has been bandied around a great deal since the Scott inquiry was set up and its report published. I first entered Parliament in 1974 and well remember supporting Bills on the freedom of information, introduced by such people as Sir Clement Freud, the then Member for Isle of Ely. They were all defeated by the then Government. Between 1979 and this Session, more than a dozen freedom of information Bills have been introduced--all apparently destined for the scrap heap of Government, Opposition or parliamentary indifference. If the Government were to introduce a Bill on freedom of information--it would undoubtedly receive cross-party support, since all of us believe in freedom of information--it would restore faith in the political profession.
"specifically prohibit the sale of any lethal equipment or any defence-related equipment which could significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict."
"to prolong or exacerbate the conflict"
"These restrictions on defence sales are kept under constant review, and are applied in the light of prevailing circumstances, including the ceasefire and developments in the peace negotiations".
"in his written evidence to the Inquiry, contended that the passage I have cited was an accurate statement of Government policy at the time."
"knew of this new formulation"--
"but regarded it as an interpretation of the original guideline."
"I accept that Mr. Waldegrave and the other adherents of the 'interpretation' thesis did not, in putting forward the thesis, have any duplicitous intention and, at the time, regarded the relaxed interpretation, or implementation, of guideline (iii) as being a justifiable use of the flexibility believed to be inherent in the Guidelines . . . Flexibility that reflects the differences of opinion that may arise whenever an attempt is made to apply a criterion that depends upon a value judgment is inevitable and desirable.For example, whether an enhancement of military capability is 'significant' is a matter on which opinions may differ. If opinions do differ, a decision falling within the spectrum created by those differences can legitimately be described as an application of the criterion. Guideline (iii) had, thus, an inherent and entirely acceptable flexibility."
"an inherent and entirely acceptable flexibility."
"Defence-related equipment would, in my opinion, normally be taken to include all dual-use equipment save for equipment which was earmarked for a non defence-related use. Dual-use equipment whose intended use, whether for civil or military purposes, was uncertain, ought to have been treated as subject of the Guidelines."
"second only to that of the United States"
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |