HC Deb 22 November 1982 vol 32 cc583-6 3.30 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the consequences for the security of the Falkland Islands of the consignment of aircraft and missiles sailing for Argentina from France.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Nott)

I am confident that our garrison on the Falkland Islands has the necessary means, including early warning, and a range of air defence capabilities, to ensure the continued protection of the islands.

Mr. Taylor

Does the Secretary of State agree that the decision to renew the sales of Exocets, which inflicted such appalling damage and loss of life on British forces very recently, is astonishing and shameful on the part of a supposedly friendly Power? Is the Secretary of State making endeavours to persuade the French Government to renew their ban on arms sales until the Argentines abandon their threat to British sovereign territory? In view of the continuing threat that those missiles will present to the security of the islands, will my right hon. Friend in the last resort be willing to take advantage of the United Nations charter that provides for the right of self-defence, intercept the vessels and send them back to France?

Mr. Nott

I shall answer my hon. Friend's last question first. Article 51 of the charter provides for self-defence, but I know of no international legal basis for intercepting a vessel on the high seas.

Mr. Faulds

What about the Belgrano?

Mr. Nott

With regard to the early part of my hon. Friend's question, France suspended all arms deliveries to Argentina during the conflict. Now that the Falkland Islands have been recovered, the French consider that they must honour existing contracts. We naturally regret the decision in view of the fact that formal hostilities have not ended. We have expressed our feelings to the French Government. They are fully aware of our views.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The House will be accustomed to my saying that a private notice question is an extension of Question Time. Today, I will call three hon. Members from each side of the House, in addition to the Front Bench spokesman.

Mr. John Silkin (Deptford)

Is the Secretary of State satisfied that, as a result of Exocets going to Argentina, our early warning system is now capable of dealing with the matter? Is it not a fact that the ban on Roll-Royce engines to Germany, destined for Argentine destroyers, has been lifted? Since Her Majesty's Government—and previous Governments too, I fully accept—have supplied weapons of war that have gone to other countries to be used eventually against our own people, is it not about time that the Secretary of State called a conference of the political committee of NATO at least to co-ordinate what arms should be sold to whom and preferably to do away with the arms trade altogether?

Mr. Nott

I am confident that the early warning system now on the Falkland Islands will provide us with adequate warning of an attack by aircraft on the Falkland Islands. It would be wholly against our policy to supply equipment such as Rolls-Royce engines direct to Argentina. However, those engines are part of a longstanding contract with a NATO ally and also with a most important trading partner. In making them available under the terms of an existing contract, we made it clear that we would be concerned about early delivery to Argentina.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that all Governments have sold arms to a variety of countries. The Labour Government sold a considerable volume of arms to Argentina. It would be difficult to construct an arrangement through NATO or any other medium, whereby arms were not transferred from one country to another.

Mr. Silkin

The right hon. Gentleman might try, at least. What sort of alliance is it when one says that the two principal allies can arm those who have killed one's own Servicemen and merchant marines in the past six months?

Mr. Nott

I have made it clear that we have expressed our feelings in that regard to France.

Mr. Kenneth Warren (Hastings)

While one acknowledges the devastating effects of Exocets on our forces off the Falkland Islands, does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the lessons that we learnt early from that was that the Exocet is not as smart as it is supposed to be, and that we can defeat it now by both electronic means and guns? Does he agree that it should be no longer the threat that it was in the past?

Mr. Nott

My hon. Friend is right. There is a whole range of passive and, even more, of active systems to counter an Exocet attack.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

Will the Secretary of State recollect that throughout the war some of us pleaded with him and the Foreign Secretary to recognise that there was an uninterrupted flow of equipment and technical information from Aerospatiale to Argentina? Does he recollect being told of a seven-hour telephone conservation to M. Hervé Colin, leader of the Aerospatiale team in Bahia Blanca, the day before HMS "Sheffield" was attacked, about how to marry an Exocet, its fusing and arming, to the wing of an aircraft? Are we not whistling in the wind to suppose that the French will do anything different now from what they did before and during the war? Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an estimate of the extra cost that the consequent greater alert will now mean for us? Surely we must recognise that France will not change her policy and, as Shakespeare said "Now thrive the armourers"?

Mr. Nott

I have read, particularly in the Sunday press, a great many speculative reports about what did or did not happen during the Falkland islands conflict. Many of them are, to my knowledge, totally inaccurate. I have no knowledge of telephone calls between Aerospatiale and Argentina.

Mr. Dalyell

There was about to be a revenge strike by Argentina to take out a ship. The Secretary of State's Department knows of the seven-hour phone call.

Mr. Nott

The hon. Gentleman has full knowledge of those matters, but it is not In my possession. There may be reports in Hansard about allegations to that effect, but that does not necessarily mean that they are accurate.

We are aware that there was a flow of equipment to Argentina from a number of countries during the conflict. We reported on that at the time. During the conflict, no country among our NATO allies could have supported us more fully and wholeheartedly than France. Many of the reports that have appeared about the actions of the French during the conflict are wholly untrue. We had enormous support from the President of France and his Government throughout the Falklands conflict. We should be grateful to them for it.

Mr. Richard Crawshaw (Liverpool, Toxteth)

Although everyone must be concerned about any added danger to our forces and the Secretary of State is right to say that the French assisted us greatly during the Falklands campaign, should we not ask ourselves whether in a similar position we should not be doing the same thing, because we would? Although one appreciates that it takes two to make a bargain, and without denying any of our principles, does this not reinforce the necessity for active steps to bring peace and stability to the South Atlantic?

Mr. Nott

I entirely agree that we want a lasting settlement and security for the Falkland Islands and the South Atlantic. That is what we must aim for. The hon. Gentleman is quite correct about the support provided by the French Government during the conflict. It was very great and it was given unstintingly. So far as we know, the French did not supply any arms during that time.

Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport)

As Argentina has never declared an end to hostilities, and in view of the turmoil and uncertainty within Argentina, as shown by the fact that the Argentine Government even now will not negotiate through the International Red Cross for the removal of their own dead from the Falkland Islands, is not the presence of missiles within Argentina a grave and constant threat to our forces? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the Argentine Government will not declare an end to hostilities, it is necessary and incumbent upon us to ensure that those missiles do not arrive?

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

The Bank of England is providing the money.

Mr. Nott

If the French Government and Aerospatiale decide to ship additional missiles to Argentina—I have no knowledge that additional Exocet missiles have already been shipped, despite reports to that effect—any addition to Argentina's missile stocks is certainly to be regretted. I have made it clear, however, that with our present defence arrangements in the Falkland Islands—our early warning systems, our Phantom aircraft and our other air defence systems—I believe that we can fully protect the Falkland Islands against any new attack.

Mr. Frank Allaun (Salford, East)

If it is wrong to sell Exocet missiles to Argentina, why is it right to sell engines for destroyers made in Germany which will go to Argentina? The Minister says that this is a longstanding agreement, but did not the events of last spring alter all such longstanding agreements?

Mr. Nott

With regard to the Rolls-Royce engines, this was a longstanding contract entered into many years ago. Nevertheless, we approached the Germans and made it clear that we should regret any early delivery of frigates to Argentina. The reason why we are not supplying arms direct to Argentina is, as the hon. Gentleman says, that hostilities have not formally ended.

Sir Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)

Leaving aside for the moment the immorality of supplying any arms to a Fascist country with just about the worst human rights record in Latin America, why was it not made clear to the French Government that in the absence of any formal undertaking by Argentina not to renew aggression against the Falkland Islands it would be perfectly lawful to delay the fulfilment of the Exocet contract? Does the Minister agree that if the sale goes ahead the people, if not the Government, of this country are bound to conclude that we are being stabbed in the back by an ally? What has my right hon. Friend to say to that?

Mr. Nott

I have already told the House that we have made our views very clear to the French Government in this regard.

Forward to