| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
India and Pakistan: Arms Exports
3.7 p.m.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice, namely:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will clarify the position about the export of arms to Pakistan and India.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government's policy on arms exports to India and Pakistan remains unchanged. There is no embargo and no suspension. However, the consolidated national and EU criteria, which apply to all export licence requests, require the Government to take full account of circumstances in the region. In respect of India and Pakistan, the Government are keeping a very close eye on developments and are applying the criteria rigorously.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that the escalation of hostilities leads to a threat of nuclear conflict, which, on the estimates given, could lead to the deaths of between 12 million and 30 million people? In that light, would the initiation by the Government of a total embargo on both countries be a strong indication of the Government's position? Will not the Government have to choose between the roles of peacemaker and arms broker?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government's position is very clear and is known to the participants. Any action that we take has to be judged by its total impact on the situation and by its relationship to the role that we are playing in that part of the world.
Lord Jones: My Lords, what are the employment consequences of the Government's decision?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as we have made no changes, there are no employment conditions.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Leader of the House for allowing this
PNQ, particularly as we all had a letter only this morning from the Foreign Secretary to say that Parliament was in recess. I heard what the Minister has said, but nevertheless there have been different statements from No. 10 Downing Street, from the Department of Trade and Industry and from others. Given that there seems to be confusion at the very heart of government, does the Minister not agree that that is the worst possible background for the Foreign Secretary's visit to India and Pakistan? Can the Minister tell us whether there have been consultations with the Society of British Aerospace Companies, BAe Systems and the Defence Manufacturers Association? Does he agree that this confusion, which I maintain is a confusion, is very bad indeed for British industry and particularly bad for British manufacturing? Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Jones, said, the confusion has an impact also on employees. This morning, I believe, or yesterday, Sir Ken Jackson said that 2,500 jobs would be at risk if, for example, the Hawk were halted.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I think that I have made the Government's position very clear in my Answer. I again repeat that there is no embargo and no suspension. We shall examine all export licence applications from both India and Pakistan against the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. It is a very grave situation and we need to proceed very carefully. We are always in discussions with the industry on these issues, and we have been in discussions with the industry in this instance.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, while the question of jobs is very relevant in most circumstances, we are teetering on the edge of what could be a new, nuclear war with incalculable consequences not only for South Asia but for the whole of the world. Will the Minister therefore consider again whether a clear embargo on arms exports to the two countries, imposed by a country which has considerable influence on both countries as a fellow Commonwealth member, would be appropriate and would send an appropriate signal to the two protagonists—which will have to make up their minds in the next few days whether to allow the situation to spiral out of control?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, clearly the Government's main consideration is the impact of our actions on the very grave and dangerous situation in that part of the world. That is our primary—indeed our only—consideration. At this point, jobs are not a consideration. We are concerned about the impact on that part of the world.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, does not the public controversy now surrounding the affair only further point to the need to establish a defence exports scrutiny committee—the DESC—which has been promoted in the other place and in this House? Indeed, it is supported by 310 elected Members of Parliament. Why cannot we now have this committee to deal with these matters?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I would simply point out that no licence is currently being
considered for the main arms. The arguments against DESC, and the possibilities of delay with the consequent difficulties, have been well rehearsed in debates on the Export Control Bill. I do not think that it would add anything in these circumstances.
Lord Merlyn-Rees: My Lords, when could the first deliveries of Hawk training aircraft be expected to go to the Indian subcontinent?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as there is no application for these aircraft at the moment the issue does not arise.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if hostilities break out between India and Pakistan, what will be the position on the provision of spares and replacements for arms already supplied to those countries?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, in such situations, and at this point, it is impossible to specify what action would be taken. Obviously it would depend on the exact circumstances at the time.
Millennium Dome
3.14 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I rise to ask the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House to give his reasons for having rejected a Private Notice Question from my noble friend Lady Blatch on the question of the Dome. For the past three days or so, the media have been full of speculation about the future of the Dome. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, is a Member of this House; as we have heard, the House of Commons is not sitting. I wonder if the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House could give an assurance that, before we rise for the Jubilee weekend, he will ask his noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton to come to the House to give us a Statement on the current position so that it can be fully debated and we can go away for that recess in the full knowledge of what is intended for the Greenwich peninsula.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, did indicate to me that he would be asking whether there would be a Statement to Parliament after the deal has been signed. No deal has been signed; negotiations continue. I think that your Lordships will agree that the time to make a Statement to the House is once the deal has been signed. The Government will indeed make a Statement to the House as soon as a deal has been signed. Lacking the gift of prophecy, I cannot say anything about this week.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his Answer to my noble friend Lord Strathclyde. However, as most noble Lords know, the noble and learned Lord,
Lord Falconer, gave freely of his time to television and radio throughout the weekend to discuss details of these negotiations. He also said that he would come to Parliament. How does that square with the comments that the noble and learned Lord has just made?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, it is perfectly consistent, but I repeat myself: no deal has been signed. I repeat: the time to make a Statement is once the deal has been signed; and I repeat: we shall make a Statement when the deal has been signed.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, bearing in mind that we have had numerous Dome deals, none of which has come to fruition, might not this be another deal that will go by the way? In the light of that, would it not be more sensible if the noble and learned Lord we are talking about could come and suppress our worries about the wonderful Greenwich peninsula?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord we are talking about knows perfectly well, as every schoolboy knows, that a deal which is not completed is not a deal.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the—
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, why was the noble and learned Lord—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: This side.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: This corner then. Will the Leader of the House simply tell us whether the deal will be irrevocable once it has been signed? If it is irrevocable, what is the point of reporting to Parliament, as Parliament will not be able to do anything about the deal anyway?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, all deals which are contractually binding are just that—contractually binding. They can be unpicked only if the parties agree. If the parties do not agree, there are legal sanctions. The point which I would have thought is self-evident is that, if one is doing a deal, one tries to do the very best one can without disclosing all one's thoughts. I should have thought that that was commercial common sense and prudence.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page