HL Deb 28 April 1983 vol 441 cc1045-7

3.18 p.m.

Lord Brockway

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Argentine Government has now paid Williams and Glyn's Bank over £3.8 million, the cost of two destroyers, sister ships of HMS "Sheffield", fitted with Exocet missiles, built by Vickers at Barrow-in-Furness, and, if not, whether and when the Export Credits Guarantee Department is required to compensate the bank at the taxpayers' expense.

Lord Cockfield

My Lords, the ships in question were ordered in 1969 and delivered in 1975. The final instalment of £3.8 million was paid in 1982. Apart from a sum of £7,000 in respect of interest, no cost was incurred by ECGD. No cost to the taxpayer is involved.

Lord Brockway

My Lords, may I ask the Minister is not this an extraordinary situation, that as late as 1975 a licence was granted for export of this warship to Argentina, when the White Paper was already indicating that there was a danger of invasion by Argentina? Will the Government consider ending this anarchic state of the arms traffic by initiating action to refrain from providing arms to any country which is regarded as repressive by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, and finally providing arms only to United Nations peacekeeping forces?

Lord Cockfield

My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I need to remind the noble Lord that when the ships were ordered in 1969 there was a Labour Government in office. It is with equal diffidence that I have to remind him that when they were delivered in 1975 another Labour Government was in office. I am not in any way criticising either of those Governments, but I do not think I am expected to answer for the actions they took during their periods of administration. The remaining questions asked by the noble Lord are not related to the Question on the Order Paper.

Baroness Wootton of Abinger

My Lords, does not the noble Lord consider that they ought to improve on the actions of the Labour Government?

Lord Cockfield

My Lords, I think that the important point is that there is now an absolute ban on the export of arms from this country to the Argentine.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, in view of that answer, and the continual answers of the Minister's noble friend, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, that there is an absolute ban, how does he equate that with the continued manufacture of parts of warships in this country to be sent to third countries who are now supplying the Argentine with replacements for the armaments that they lost 12 months ago?

Lord Cockfield

My Lords, that issue has been discussed in your Lordships' House and in another place on many an occasion. I have nothing to add to what has already been said. The deliveries to which the noble Lord refers were made under existing contracts. The exports to the Argentine were made by third countries. We have expressed both publicly and privately our regret that those exports should be made to the Argentine.

Lord Bishopston

My Lords, will the Minister recognise that when, under previous Governments, certain agreements were made there was a very different régime in charge in Argentina? The situation has changed since, as he well knows. Will the Minister recognise the need for some consistency and make a policy known on the matter of the export of arms? Although he says there is a ban on exports from this country, he must be aware that machinery and parts do get sent to Europe to become parts of vehicles and ships which go to the Argentine. Having regard to the presence of British troops in the Falklands, will the noble Lord consider whether that is to our disadvantage in the near future; not least, of course, with the workings of the IMF which has recently, with Government support, encouraged more financial aid for the Argentine régime?

Lord Cockfield

My Lords, the noble Lord's long list of supplementary questions—all and every one—are not related to the Question on the Order Paper, which refers to two ships which were ordered in 1969 and inquires whether any loss was incurred either by the ECGD or by the Government. I have answered that question fully and completely.

Lord Shinwell

My Lords, is the Minister aware that no-one has asked him to concern himself with the activities of previous Labour Governments? He has not been asked to do that. When certain conditions were forced upon a Labour Government that Government took the appropriate action in the interests of the country. Therefore, we do not ask the noble Lord, with all his ability, to reply for the Labour Government; he has enough to do in replying for the Conservative Government. Does he not agree that the facts speak for themselves?

Lord Cockfield

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that the facts speak for themselves. Not I nor even Atlas could take on the task of supporting an explanation of all the actions that occurred under a Labour Administration.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, can the Secretary of State say when either of these two ships was last in a British port for refitting? Was it not in January 1982 at Portsmouth?

Lord Cockfield

My Lords, I am not aware of that. So far as my information goes, the ships were delivered in 1975. Whether they made any later visit to this country I do not know and cannot answer.

Lord Glenamara

My Lords, is it not illogical for the Government to ban the export of arms to the Argentine—as they have done—but to permit British banks to supply credit to the Argentine with which they purchase arms elsewhere?

Lord Cockfield

That, my Lords, is also a question which has been dealt with on numerous occasions in your Lordships' House. The reasons for the lifting of the financial sanctions have been explained not only here but also in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.