| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset): It is all in the report.
Mrs. Beckett: That is just the point, which the hon. Gentleman--who has not even attended the debate, never mind spoken--makes in his sedentary intervention. Ministers say that it is for the judge to decide, that that is "the system" and that the judge's decision shows that"the system" works. The Deputy Prime Minister said that again today.
We, too, have a system in the House. It is called ministerial responsibility. Under the Government, it is honoured more in the breach than in the observance, but today, here and now, we decide whether, under this Government, it any longer exists. Sir Richard Scott states in paragraph D4.63:
Many commentators have expressed irritation thatSir Richard Scott did not summarise his conclusions, but left them to be found scattered throughout his report.A number of hon. Members said so in the debate tonight, but Sir Richard's reasons seem plain to me. He wanted to make people read the report to see for themselves the evidence on which he based his conclusions rather than that they should decide to agree or disagree without considering the weight of evidence, as he had done. Secondly, he seems to have been determined to lay out the evidence and the arguments in the five volumes of the report and to leave the verdict to the House and the people whom we are sent here to serve.
Whether we like it or not, I believe that Sir Richard Scott has put Parliament itself on trial. He has flung down a gauntlet to the House. In his judgment, he tells us,after three years of careful study, that Parliament was misled. In his judgment, Ministers failed, and failed repeatedly and deliberately, in their duty of accountability to the House, to all those whom we are elected to serve, and hence, in his words, to our democracy itself.Yet Ministers, by their argument and rhetoric, are asking us not just to accept but to applaud the way in which they have acted in our name.
It is this House that is on trial tonight and the verdict is in the hands of each of us.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman):
I reject completely the allegations from the right hon. Member for Derby, South(Mrs. Beckett) that the publication of the report did not follow the accepted precedents and practice in the House. The publication of the report followed the precedents used in the House. The House has now had 10 days to read the report thoroughly, and has been well prepared for a thorough debate. The Government have behaved entirely properly--[Interruption.]--in the publication of the document, permitting a full debate.
The Government appointed Scott, and Sir Richard has made a number of important and useful recommendations. I should like to start by summarising the recommendations that Sir Richard has made, and the Government's positive and constructive response to them.
First, on the use of intelligence, the Government have accepted the inquiry's criticisms concerning the circulation of intelligence material, and have taken action to rectify those failings. I regret, and the Government regret, the fact that proper intelligence was not fully available to all Departments and to all Ministers before licensing decisions were taken.
We will tell the Intelligence and Security Committee of the improvements that the Government have made and will make.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland):
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Freeman:
The hon. Gentleman will allow me to respond to the debate. The right hon. Lady did not give way. Ministers were not aware of intelligence about
Secondly, the export control legislation and licensing procedures are, of course, founded upon the Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939,as amended by the Import and Export Control Act 1990.The Government accept that export control policy and procedures should be reviewed and we intend to issue a consultation paper. There has been much debate, not only today but in 1990, when the Government held discussions with Opposition Front Benchers on the 1990 Bill. It is right in our judgment now to review the powers contained in that Act and the degree to which Parliament should be involved in its implementation.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock):
What about the charges made by the hon. Member for Torbay(Mr. Allason)?
Mr. Freeman:
I am coming to those.
Thirdly, on the supervision of Customs and Excise, the Government accept the principle of the need for greater supervision by the office of the Attorney-General of Customs prosecutions in relation to defence export control matters, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will report further to the House. Fourthly, on Customs procedures, we accept Sir Richard's recommendations relating to Customs legislation and internal procedures. We will report back to the House on changes once the implementation plans are finalised.
I turn to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) about prosecution procedures and the use of public interest immunity certificates. Concern has been expressed during the debate about the scope and procedures for public interest immunity claims. There is a strong case for the House to have an opportunity to consider the circumstances in which public interest immunity should be claimed by Ministers, and, if so, the criteria for those claims. At present, the law is wholly judge-made, and the areas to which it applies include intelligence sources and other sensitive material relating to national security, commercial interests of a public character, and advice to Ministers.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay has taken the issue very seriously. Under existing law, Ministers must ensure the maximum disclosure commensurate with the essential public interests to which I have referred. The real question is whether there is a need for class claims, or whether claims should be content-based. In any case, wherever possible, maximum use--in the opinion of the Government--should be made of redaction. Whatever system is adopted, it should remain--
Mr. Allason:
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Freeman:
I will give way to my hon. Friend when I have concluded my sentence.
Whatever system is adopted, it should remain for the judge to decide on disclosure--if justice so requires--on matters of national security or other matters covered by a PII certificate. The House needs a better opportunity to discuss that important issue, and the Government will ensure that such an opportunity arises.
Mr. Allason:
Will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that the presumption in future will always be
Mr. Freeman:
The presumption should be disclosure, and when the judge read and interpreted the public interest immunity certificates in the Matrix Churchill trial, he made a positive decision on disclosure. I give my hon. Friend the undertaking I gave a few moments ago--the Government will ensure that an opportunity arises in Government time for that matter to be considered further.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths (Edinburgh, South):
Reply to the debate.
Mr. Freeman:
If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I will reply to the debate.
Sixthly, I turn to the centrally important issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills(Mr. Shepherd), about openness to Parliament on defence sales and other security issues.
It is a long-held parliamentary convention--it has been followed by Labour and Conservative Governments--that these matters should be subject to the withholding of information. That is documented in "Erskine May". Last November, I repeated the amendment to "Questions of Procedure for Ministers", which referred specifically to this parliamentary convention. The Labour Government used it when upgrading Polaris missile systems with Chevaline. There have been countless examples of the use of the convention over the years.
I accept the sincerity of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills on these matters, and I therefore call upon all parties represented in the House to participate--
Mr. Nigel Griffiths:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Freeman:
I am not giving way.
Mr. Freeman:
Because I am trying to respond to the debate. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen.
I hope that the House will have a full opportunity to reassess the parliamentary convention that I have described. We welcome the fact that the Select Committee on Public Service may well take an interest in early hearings on the subject. We have today published a paper setting out the present position on the convention. It is important for any Government--Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat--when considering informing the House about the details of defence sales always to balance the best interests of the United Kingdom defence industrial base and the importance of confidentiality in its commercial dealings and, for diplomatic reasons,the protection of British interests, against the importance of openness to Parliament.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who opened the debate on behalf of the Opposition, has a major problem that he will have to face with his Back-Bench colleagues. The right hon. Member for
Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) fairly and squarely nailed his colours to the mast of full disclosure of all arms/defence sales. If the hon. Member for Livingston seeks to act as a senior Minister in a Labour Government, he must decide where he draws the line. Where is the balance for the Labour party? The hon. Gentleman has so far made no contribution to the important debate on what is in the best interests of the British defence industry, which represents 500,000 jobs.
The hon. Member for Livingston must know that many of his right hon. and hon. Friends represent constituencies where, for example, GEC, Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace, have plants. Those are important defence interests that the Labour party cannot ignore. We look forward to the Labour party's positive contribution on the extent to which long-standing parliamentary conventions should be changed.
The Government will bring forward specific proposals in due course on the parliamentary convention that now concerns us.
"the Government statements . . . consistently failed, in my opinion, to comply with . . . Questions of Procedure for Ministers and, more important, failed to discharge the obligations imposed by the constitutional principle of Ministerial accountability."
9.37 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |