Libya (Hansard, 28 April 1986)

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)
I beg to ask leave to move succinctly the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
to consider the contrast between the Prime Minister's explanation for permission to use the F111s from British bases and the explanation that is being given by the Pentagon and the contrast on the use of nuclear weapons. I have to persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is definite. It may be unfortunate from the point of view of Parliament that an in-depth interview, such as none of us can give the Prime Minister, was administered by Mr. Gordon Clough yesterday on "The World this Weekend." In answer to Mr. Clough, the Prime Minister reiterated what indeed she had said in column 726 of Hansard of 15 April—that permission was given for the use of F111s because they were more accurate on particular targets, with the implication that they would save innocent lives.
I think that you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that Aviation Week and Space Technology, the most serious American journal, is very close to the Pentagon. In a major article on 21 April it said: The Navy's carrier aircraft could have hit all the Libyan targets at the same time, but they would have been tight on assets. There were a lot of good reasons to include the Air Force F-111s,' a senior military official said. 'In most of the contingency planning for large air strikes by the Sixth Fleet, the F-111s from Britain are factored into the operation.' The senior Pentagon official went on:
'"The Libyan attack provided a good proving ground for the F-111s to be flown in the Mediterranean … The ability to fly over France would have helped the mission considerably. `Understandably, after the All-Navy action in Libya last month the Air Force wanted a piece of the action.' The official added 'The fact that the Defense Dept. budget is under consideration—and here was an opportunity to show how well the money is being spent on aircraft and weapons—was not overlooked by both services as a side benefit to the mission. 678 Another reason to include the F-111s in the operation was that it showed the support of Great Britain for our antiterrorist activities.' Nowhere in that explanation is the point made by the Prime Minister. From the Americans we have contingency planning, proving grounds, the Defence Department's budget and Britain's support.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Will the hon. Gentleman bring his remarks to a close? He has had three minutes.

§ Mr. Dalyell
That is the definite aspect.
The urgent aspect is that there could be a repeat.
The important aspect is that nothing is more important than the truthfulness of the British Head of Government. Frankly, I think that the House of Commons has been given cock and bull tales and that yarns have been spun for us.
The matter also includes the nuclear—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has had more than his time.
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the discrepancies in the Prime Minister's explanation on the F111s and the American version. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he raises is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Further application under Standing Order No. 10.

§ Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. There is a further application under Standing Order No. 10 and then I shall take points of order.

§ Mr. Heffer
It arises directly—

§ Mr. Speaker
That may be, but I have called the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins).