Arms Sales to Argentina (Hansard, 2 March 1983)

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead)
My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no knowledge of any such discussions. This equipment is, however, subject to export licensing control and we are confident that this will prevent any supplies reaching Argentina.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that I have in my hand the sales brochure for the Ranger system? Will he give the House some information about it? Is it true that the Government finance the production of this system through Thorn EMI—of the mine laying equipment at Woking and the mines themselves at Stringfield Road, Hayes? Secondly, is it the case that these mines were sold to Argentina before the Falklands war and that they are now the main agent for injuring British forces? Finally, since my Question was tabled, have the Government made any investigations into the alleged resumption of sales to Argentina by Thorn EMI, either directly or indirectly?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I was not aware of what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, was holding in his hand. So far as the definition of this particular weapon is concerned, it is a means of laying a minefield very swiftly. The answer to the noble Lord's third question, about these mines being sold to the Argentine before the Falklands crisis, is that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur answered a supplementary question put by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, on 23rd February, when my noble friend made it clear that 11 different types of mines, including antipersonnel, anti-vehicle and anti-tank mines, had been identified as coming from five different countries. But the five countries who supplied to the Argentine weapons which were used in the Falklands did not include this country. So far as the alleged resumption of sales to the Argentine by Thorn EMI is concerned, 1136 I am surprised that the noble Lord asks that question, because my original Answer made it quite clear what the situation is on that score.

§ Lord Bishopston
My Lords, in view of our commitment to the defence of the Falklands, which involves the lives of many of our forces in the Falklands area and also those of Falklanders themselves, and other resources, is the noble Lord the Minister really satisfied that the situation is logical and right in relation to recent events? The noble Lord must be aware that Members of both Houses, from all parties, and indeed the country, have expressed a concern about these matters. Does the noble Lord the Minister not agree that he ought to put a statement in the Library outlining the Government's policy, not only to reassure noble Lords but also to give guidance to the country on this very important matter?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I have given an absolute assurance to the House so far as the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, was concerned. With regard to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, I believe it would be right to point out two aspects. First, manufacturers of defence equipment keep in close and regular touch on overseas sales prospects with Ministry of Defence staff, and they are fully conscious of the risks of military equipment being transferred to Argentina by third parties. This is a serious point and it is important that I should make it in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston. So far as any direct sales from this country to Argentina are concerned, we have a total embargo on that respect.

§ Lord Bishopston
My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister consider my question about placing a statement in the Library so that Members may be reassured about the policy in relation to our own country and also in relation to other NATO members?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, knows that I try to be as helpful as I can be to him and his noble friends, but this is one of the very few occasions when I believe that my Answer is better than a statement in the Library.

Lord Bruce of Donington
My Lords, in the light of reports which have appeared since about arms being supplied indirectly to the Argentine, will the noble Lord the Minister repeat the assurance that he gave the House on 15th February-reiterating the undertaking given by his noble friend the day before-that it will not be possible, owing to the restrictive nature of the IMF conditions, for the £275 million advanced to the Argentine through the IMF by British banks to be in any way used for the rearmament of the Argentine?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, that is not actually what I said on 15th February. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will not think that I am being unhelpful, but I have nothing to add to what I did say then.

§ Lord Hatch of Lusby
My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister be so kind as to answer my first supplementary question? Is it the case that the Government are financing the production of this main 1137 system through Thorn EMI? Secondly, in his first reply to my first supplementary question, I believe that the noble Lord the Minister slightly misunderstood what I was asking, when he told the House that these mines were subject to an export licence. Does an export licence apply to the sale through intermediaries, or is there any other way in which the Government can prevent the sale of these deadly weapons, through an intermediary country, to the Argentine, which we all know is now rearming?

§ Lord Belstead
My Lords, I do not consider that the first question arises from the original Question, and I simply do not know the answer. The question was: is there Government help with the funding of the production of this particular weapon? So far as the second question is concerned, this is where the end user certificates come into play.

§ Lord Derwent
My Lords, is it in order for a noble Lord to ask five supplementary questions?

§ Lord Belstead
Well, my Lords, if each question is better than the last, then they are always welcome.