§ 2.41 p.m.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what reply has been given to the General Synod of the Church of England, which has proposed that information should be made public about arms sales, in order to ensure that arms are not sold to regimes where there are "proven abuses against human rights, especially torture".
§ Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYALMy Lords, a letter sent today to the General Synod refers to the Government's view that there are substantial benefits to be derived from defence sales, but that this does not mean that the Government consider that the United Kingdom should export arms indiscriminately. We follow a policy of responsible restraint and examine each case on its merits.
The reply goes on to refer to the major reservations which customers and suppliers share about the disclosure of information, in view of the important political, commercial and security considerations involved. Experience with the proposals tabled in the UN for a register of arms confirms these difficulties. The record of the recipient Government on human rights is one of the factors taken into account in reaching a decision.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, should not the people of this country know where arms are sent on their behalf? As the most crucial issue which affects both them and their children is war and peace, I should like to ask whether arms are being sent to some of our allies who have been found guilty by the United Nations of denying human rights and even of torture? Does that not destroy our integrity when we rightly condemn the Soviet Union for its treatment of dissidents?
§ Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYALMy Lords, I have already said that the way in which a potential client 541 Government conduct their affairs is one of the issues that we take into account. We would not export arms to a country which is guilty of torture.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, will the noble Lord say why it is that, if it is the customers who object to the information being released, we follow a different rule in these matters from that of the United States? Will the noble Lord say what examples there are of arms sales being prevented, other than the very minor case of the armoured cars which we did not in the end sell to El Salvador? In particular, why are the Government continuing to sell arms to Argentina, a State which has been condemned by the State Department in the United States and in respect of which there has recently been a report by the Organisation of American States confirming that torture has been used universally as an instrument of policy in that country?
§ Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYALMy Lords, I do not think that it would be proper for me to go into individual cases. There has recently been a case where arms sales to Argentina have not been sanctioned. As regards the general point about disclosure of arms sales, the position is that it is extremely difficult to do a commercial deal if the customer is anxious that It should not be disclosed.
§ The Lord Bishop of DERBYMy Lords, I should like to press the point which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised regarding the comparison with the United States of America. The United States Congress is given much more information about arms sales than British Governments ever give to Parliament. Would the Minister not accept that there is a good case for greater openness in this country?
§ Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYALMy Lords, I can only say that one has to try to hold a balance between one's desire to conclude the deal and the desire to justify one's moral conscience. On the whole, at present, we do our best to vet most carefully any deals which are proposed, while at the same time doing what we believe is in the commercial and industrial interests of this country as a whole.
Lord JANNERMy Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord why on earth we allowed arms to be supplied to Amin from this country? For that is the situation according to the reports which have appeared in the American Press which conducted an investigation into the supply of arms to that country. Why have we supplied the PLO whose men are being trained in the USSR—about whom everyone here is complaining—so that they can be utilised against not only Israel but our country and every other civilised country?
§ Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYALMy Lords, first, I was not aware that we had supplied arms to the PLO. As regards the general point that the noble Lord has made, I should point out that in many cases, even if we do not supply arms, other people will do so. We must use our judgment as to what is the balance of advantage for this country. I believe that we do so reasonably well. I may add that we try not to supply arms to people who we think, potentially, will use them against us.
§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOEMy Lords, will the noble Lord answer the question raised by my my noble friend Lord Brockway and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, about the difference in the information given to Congress and here?
§ Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYALMy Lords, we cannot be responsible for another nation's policy. Our policy is to pursue the arms sales which we believe to be in the interests of this country, and we believe that those interests would be damaged if we had to disclose every sale in great detail.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to say upon which principle the Government stand? He has put forward two propositions. The first is that the Government, in selling arms, take into account that the receiving country may or may not be engaged in violations of human rights. The second proposition is that we must remember that, if we do not sell arms, somebody else will do so. Therefore, presumably if the second principle operates, the first goes out of the window?
§ Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYALMy Lords, I do not think that that is necessarily true at all. We would not sell arms to what we would regard as repressive régimes—that is quite clear policy. I do not say that we always get it right and régimes change, as indeed, the nature of the Amin régime changed. However, we must bear in mind that, in many cases, arms sales open a door to commercial deals and ultimately exercise political influence which is beneficial to this country.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, would the noble Lord be good enough to say what principle was operating when they supplied money to Savak?
§ The Lord Bishop of GUILDFORDMy Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that the sale of arms by one nation to another implies that they share certain assumptions about peace-making and the ordering of the international community, and that, therefore, such sales raise important moral and ethical issues as well as commercial and political issues and issues of security? Will he not agree that these issues ought to be the subject of widespread public debate because they concern the standing of our particular country in the world? Furthermore, will the Minister agree that such debate can be conducted only if there is widespread information about the kind of arms that are being sold and to what extent?
§ Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYALMy Lords, I do not think that I can go all the way with the right reverend Prelate. We have diplomatic relations with countries, but that does not necessarily imply that we approve of their regimes. On arms, our attitude is that, unless there is a pressing reason and there is clear evidence of a repressive regime, we arc inclined to pursue the sale of arms to them. Incidentally, we believe that there is no reason to assume that another country does not have the right to buy arms to protect itself, which is a point which is made in this pamphlet, which gives rise to the original Question.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, is the Minister not aware that an honourable friend reputedly put down a Question on the Order Paper in another place concerning the sale of arms by this country to 544 Ethiopia, a regime of psychopathic violence against its own people? Does the noble Lord not consider that if people are debarred from obtaining even the slightest bit of information about the destination of arms sales, there will be widespread suspicion by the public that the criteria, which the noble Lord mentions, are not being properly observed and that we are selling arms to régimes which inflict torture and violence on their citizens?
§ Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYALMy Lords, I cannot answer for what happens in another place. I believe that there is no evidence that we sell arms to repressive régimes.
§ Lord PARRYMy Lords, will the Minister not agree that there is a strange logic in assuming that young athletes who go to a country in order to compete in games alone, give support to the régime, while selling guns to another country does not?
§ Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYALMy Lords, I do not think, if I may say so, that the question of what athletes do or do not do has a great deal to do with the selling of arms.
§ The Earl of ONSLOWMy Lords, is it not true that the party opposite sold guns and tanks to the Shah's régime, which was supported by Savak, because it was concerned with jobs for our own people here? Are they now suggesting that the present Government should adopt a different standard?
§ Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYALMy Lords, it is difficult for me to answer for the party opposite. Indeed, I doubt whether they would agree with me if I answered for them. The noble Earl is perfectly right that the proposed arms sales to Iran would have offered a great deal of employment in this country, most particularly in the Royal Ordnance factories which are now in serious difficulties as a result of the default on those contracts.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, does the Minister deny that arms are being sold to Indonesia, Singapore, Pakistan, Turkey, Argentina and Ethiopia, all of which are imprisoning political opponents without trial?
§ Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYALMy Lords, I do not think that I could accept either of those propositions. I do not accept that those are all repressive regimes and I am not at all sure that we arc, in fact, selling arms to all of them.
§ Lord DENHAMMy Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, has been trying to ask a question for some time, but we have had about nine minutes on this Question. Perhaps I might suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, asks his question and my noble friend answers it, and then we might move on.
Lord JANNERMy Lords, has the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, obtained a copy of the regulations which apply in the United States of America in respect of the supply of arms, and will he read them to see how different they arc from ours? Does he realise that, in addition to all the questions that have been asked, my question was not only about a régime? My question was as to why we are supplying arms to terrorists. The PLO are terrorists and they are being trained in Russia. We keep on talking about civil defence and other associated matters, but at the same time we are allowing the arming of people, who ultimately, if a crisis does arise, will be using those arms against us. Why have we supplied arms to terrorists?
§ Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYALMy Lords, as the noble Lord requests me to do, I shall certainly study the American regulations. I do not think that I could necessarily agree with the noble Lord about the status of the PLO and I am perfectly certain that we would not involve ourselves in supplying arms to terrorists of any complexion.