| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the Minister give the House the terms of experience of the two pilots accused of being grossly negligent? Were they young pilots with no experience of flying Chinooks or pilots of experience? If they were pilots of experience, is it not rather odd that both of them were negligent at the same time?
Earl Howe: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, a finding of negligence is never reached lightly. The initial batch of training crews, who were all experienced, qualified helicopter instructors, was converted on to the Chinook Mk 2 by the design authority. These crews subsequently designed the in-service conversion course and instructed on it. All crews who converted were experienced on the Chinook and so the conversion course concentrated on technical differences between the Mk 1 and Mk 2. The course lasted two working weeks. Both pilots had completed that course and were therefore qualified to fly the Chinook Mk 2.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, will my noble friend remind me whether a black box recorder was carried by the helicopter? I think that I have read that that may not have been the case. If I am correct, can he remind us whether a civilian helicopter of the same mark would have had to carry a black box recorder when flying for commercial purposes?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I shall have to take advice on the question of a civilian helicopter. However, I can tell my noble friend that the decision was taken before the
Mull of Kintyre Chinook accident to install accident data recorders and cockpit voice recorders as part of the helicopter usage monitoring system. This equipment will be fitted into the Chinook fleet from August 1998.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, whether or not those two unfortunate pilots were guilty of gross negligence, who was originally responsible for putting so many VIP experts on security in one helicopter?
Earl Howe: My Lords, that question has been asked many times. We have reviewed the position. However, despite this very tragic accident, we reached the conclusion that the decision was not necessarily unsound and that in future probably a similar decision would be taken.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that at an inquiry held in Scotland under the procedure for inquiry into fatal accidents a Scottish sheriff took evidence widely, including from those who had given evidence at the RAF board of inquiry? Will he confirm two further matters: first, that the president of the RAF board of inquiry said that he was not prepared to come to the conclusion that the pilots had been negligent; and, secondly, that the sheriff in this case said that there was no evidence whatsoever to support this verdict?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the key point is this. The fatal accident inquiry in Scotland did not uncover any evidence that was not known to the Royal Air Force. Neither the sheriff's determination nor his personal views alter the conclusions of the RAF inquiry which, as I said, was conducted by experts with first-hand experience of Chinooks. It was the duty of the senior officers involved in the board of inquiry to come to a conclusion. They did so with great regret having examined all the evidence placed before them.
Rwanda: Arms Allegations
2.51 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether arms of British manufacture have been sold to any of the participants in the massacre in Rwanda and, if so, on whose authority.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, in the light of media reports in November 1996, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise are seeking to establish whether there have been any illegal acts coming within UK jurisdiction. There is no suggestion that arms were exported from the UK by the company at the centre of recent allegations. The allegations suggest that arms were supplied from third countries.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. We understand that there was a failure to implement the United Nations embargo on sales of arms to Rwanda in Crown
dependencies and dependent territories. Indeed, the Foreign Secretary announced that. If Customs are examining the question of British manufactured arms, can they be sure that those arms were not diverted from other destinations by those people who operated in the Isle of Man, Guernsey, or wherever it was, and sent off to Rwanda? Can that be established for certainty?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, until the investigations are complete I cannot give the noble Lord a complete answer. From my discussions with Her Majesty's Customs and Excise I know that they will examine all possible avenues by which arms, wherever they went from and whatever route was used, may have ended up in Rwanda by entering from a country neighbouring Rwanda. That is the essential point that the question revealed in paragraph 41 of the interdepartmental committee report; namely, whether existing orders prohibit deliveries to countries neighbouring Rwanda for the purpose of use in Rwanda as UN Security Council resolutions require. I assure the noble Lord that the interdepartmental committee has produced no evidence that deficiencies in the system resulted in the export of arms from the UK to the Rwandan Hutu rebels who fled following the 1994 genocide.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the problems particularly in relation to Africa is the export, not of arms as such, but of seemingly innocuous items which can be used as instruments of repression? The most obvious example is the machete, which can be described as an agricultural implement, and objects of that kind. Does she accept that one has to be very much on one's guard against that?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Viscount is right. However, in my years of experience in Africa I have seen many home-produced machetes which are just as lethal as any weapons that might enter from outside for use by warring tribesmen. They are sometimes very good at producing their own implements. If nothing else is available, they will use those.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the Minister give the House any indication as to when the Customs and Excise inquiry will be completed and whether an announcement will be made in the House?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I wish I could, since we could then bring this whole matter to a clear end. I cannot do so at the moment. If I have any further knowledge, I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, do the Government have any evidence that arms shipped by the company in question prior to the United Nations embargo were shipped from the United Kingdom but after that were shipped via one of the dependent territories which escaped the legal net?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord a definitive answer. Clearly, all the evidence is not yet to hand. The whole matter has not yet
been fully investigated. I repeat that there is no evidence that deficiencies in the system resulted in the export of arms from the UK to the Rwandan Hutus by whatever means. I am committed to making sure that the whole matter is fully cleared up. I am glad to say that we are working in co-operation with the UN International Commission of Inquiry. The chairman of the commission wrote to the Government on 17th December expressing complete satisfaction with the co-operation that it had received from the UK. I will place a copy of the letter in the Library.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, will the Minister give an undertaking that if the final report shows that loopholes have been exploited by people taking arms into that country the Government will do all they can to see that those loopholes are closed as quickly as possible?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I think that that was done in the response to the Question that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and I answered in our respective Houses on 21st January. The reply appeared at cols. WA 50 and WA 51 of Hansard. The Government have endorsed the report of the interdepartmental committee. There is a copy of the report in both Libraries. We are implementing all its recommendations.
Justices of the Peace Bill [H.L.]
2.57 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 and provisions of Part IV of the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.-- (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.
Business of the House: Debates, 3rd February
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The effect of this Motion will be that the Motions of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, which currently appear at the bottom of the Order Paper will be taken first on Monday, 3rd February. This follows agreement with the usual channels.
Moved, That Standing Order 38(4) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with on Monday next to allow the Motions standing in the name of the Lord Carter to be taken first.--(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |