Arms Sales and Human Rights

HL Deb 10 February 1987 vol 484 cc602-37

9.11 p.m.

Lord Brockway rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their policy of supplying arms to nations which deny human rights.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to ask the Unstarred Question standing in my name on the Order Paper; namely, to ask whether Her Majesty's Government will reconsider their policy of supplying arms to nations which deny human rights.

When I do not myself do research I like to acknowledge those who have done it—on this occasion the Campaign Against the Arms Trade. With remarkable thoroughness and in detail they have covered the ground of this debate. I thank that organisation myself and I am sure that other Members of the House would also wish to do so.

I wish to approach this subject within the international situation. Our Government, the American Government, some of the governments of the West, and those who stand behind them, abhor the Soviet Union because it has established a form of communism which they regard as a challenge to the capitalist economic system. I do not believe that that ideological conflict is the motivation of most people in their attitude to the Soviet Union. I think that among the mass of people opposition to the Soviet Union has been on account of its record in the treatment of dissident opinion—the sending to prison camps in distant Siberia for long periods, often for life, of those who dare to express an opinion which is not that of the Government. There have been occasions when there have been other reasons for criticism, for example, the invasion of Afghanistan and the treatment of Solidarity in Poland, but the continuing criticism of the Soviet Union has been its treatment of dissident opponents.

In view of that we must be very careful indeed to keep our own hands clean. That is particularly true now in view of the historic decisions that have just been taken in the Soviet Union; namely, the liberation of many prisoners from Siberia to which I have referred and the beginning of democracy in its constitution. I do not think that we can yet estimate the profound effect that these changes will bring about in the future, but the fact that they are taking place makes it even more necessary that we should have a clean record in our attitude towards human rights.

I think it can be claimed that in this country we give recognition to human rights. Occasionally the National Council for Civil Liberties raises incidental issues, but overall in this country we recognise the right to liberty of thought, writing and speech. But that is not enough. In addition, we have to think of our attitude toward the denial of human rights in other countries. The Campaign Against the Armaments Industry lists eight countries to which we supply arms, either directly or in conjunction with our allies, despite their denial of human rights. They are: Chile, Indonesia, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Iraq, Iran, Turkey and South Africa. I should add Israel in view of its attitude toward the Palestinians.

It is relevant to remind the House that during the dictatorship in Argentina, before the invasion of the Falkland Islands, this country provided that dictatorship with an extraordinary assortment of arms. I have enabled that fact to be recorded in the proceedings of this House. I propose to give particular attention to South Africa, though it is not typical of other countries, because in the first place it is the greatest offender so far as concerns human rights.

Secondly, and this is controversial but I do not want to shirk the issue, in November 1977 the United Nations imposed a mandatory arms embargo on South Africa. No arms could be sent to South Africa. There is evidence, which I shall indicate, that the armaments industry, unable to send arms to South Africa, decided to seek to build up the armaments industry in South Africa itself. It had remarkable success. The industry grew from deep weakness to a condition today which in many areas surpasses what is happening in other parts of the world; and 90 per cent. of that success is based on foreign assistance, largely from this country.

The armaments industry sought to build up the industry in South Africa in three ways. The first was by the smuggling of arms. I was so astonished by that that I wrote to the Minister who is to reply to the debate. The evidence is given by the authoritative South African Armaments Corporation, which declared that arms, components and spare parts had been smuggled.

I ask the Minister three questions. First, how was it possible for arms to be smuggled through our customs system at the airport? The dates involved are probably the end of 1979 or the beginning of 1980. Secondly, was any attempted arms smuggling discovered? Thirdly, if it was discovered, were the persons involved prosecuted? Perhaps the Minister will answer those questions when he replies. I do not suggest that the smuggling was extensive but it is disturbing.

The next effort made by the armaments industry was astute. It sought to provide technology to South African industry as a whole so that that industry might be able to provide the elements of an armaments industry there, such as computers, military communications equipment and radars. All were provided so that the growing armaments industry in South Africa might have these essential elements.

The third way was by direct investment. There is a voluntary embargo on new investment in South Africa, including the armaments industry. First, it is only voluntary. Secondly, in the case of many investments it is permitted. I do not have any doubt that the armaments industry of this country took advantage of that situation and invested heavily in the armaments industry in South Africa. I have asked the Government to give details of such investment. They have not felt able to do so. I wish that they had; it would be very interesting.

I have dealt in particular with South Africa. Other speakers will be able to discuss other nations to whom we provide arms despite their denial of human rights. I wish to refer to one only, Indonesia. In Indonesia there are executions of political opponents who have been guilty of violence. That is the climax of a broad denial of human rights. The British representative in Indonesia has sought to persuade the Government to cease these executions but has failed to do so. I wish to suggest that persuasion is not enough. We should not be providing arms to Indonesia and other countries like it which are denying human rights. This is the test. If we as a country provide arms to other territories which are denying human rights, we are failing to accept the challenge which is now being made in the Soviet Union.

9.27 p.m.

Lord Thomas of Swynnerton

My Lords, I must begin by repeating to the House an apology which I have already made to the noble Lord who has initiated this discussion and to my noble friend the Minister who will conclude it. I shall not be able to remain until the end of the debate. I wish to apologise to the House for this discourtesy.

Secondly, I must express my gratitude with other noble Lords to the noble Lord who has just sat down for beginning a debate on a matter which is of the greatest interest. Why is it that Gladstonian or Wilsonian (I mean of course Woodrow Wilson) policies as a rule are not able to be put into effect? I believe that the simple explanation of why these high-minded reflections of statesmen, particularly those out of power or not in a position of authority, are not carried out is that so often in politics it is a matter of choosing between two evils. That is certainly the case in relation to international politics, perhaps more so than in relation to domestic politics.

The most obvious example which comes to mind is that during the war it was thought essential by this country to give substantial assistance to the Soviet Union, whose attitude to human rights was at that time just as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has described; namely, one of flagrant denial of all rights of discussion, association, or even any criticism of the government concerned. It was on a scale which made it difficult to draw a distinction between it and the Nazi enemy we were fighting. It would no doubt have been possible to take a high-minded attitude towards the Soviet Union in the course of the Second World War. No doubt there were those who died on the Murmansk convoys who might have survived. However, the odds are that had we adopted such an attitude we would not have won the war in the grand alliance with the Soviet Union.

Noble Lords may well be thinking that in referring to the events of the 1940s I am speaking of battles long ago forgotten. That is not the case, because the Second World War was one incident, though a major one, in the general breakdown of world and European civilisation which we have seen since 1914. Since 1945 we have seen problems and challenges similar to those we saw in relation to Nazi Germany coming, on the one hand, from the Soviet Union in the form of Soviet imperialism, or, on the other hand, latterly in the shape of Moslem fundamentalism. It does not look as though we shall get away from this world of evil forces which we feel we must face in order to maintain our civilisation and our liberties.

Therefore it is often necessary, and with great reluctance, to give assistance to odd bedfellows. That is why since 1945 we have found ourselves supporting, propping up or even making alliances with such disparate rulers as Salazar in Portugal, Soeharto in Indonesia—the country to which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, referred—the Shah in Persia or Iran, the kings of the Arab world or General Zia in Pakistan. On all these occasions it is perfectly reasonable to have moral doubts as to the character of the regime concerned, and of course there are disadvantages. However, when the case is examined on its merits—and that is the important point—the advantages have been seen to outweigh the disadvantages.

It would be a different matter if we were living in a world such as seemed to be possible in 1914 or perhaps briefly in the 1920s: a world which was moving slowly and no doubt fumblingly towards a great society in which war was banished; in which the pursuit of power was unknown; in which the support of wars of liberation by one imperial power or another was not to be expected. However, that is not the world in which we live; nor does it seem as though we are likely to live in such a world in the future.

There are two or three additional points which I should like to make. The phrase "human rights" sounds admirable, and of course we are all certain that we enjoy human rights in this country. However, when one defines a country which does or does not practise human rights one gets into many more difficulties than might appear to be the case.

Perhaps I may refer to a country which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, did not mention—namely, Peru. In my opinion that country has an admirable government trying with great difficulty to resist an intolerable guerrilla movement, the Shining Path Movement. In the course of last year Peru's policemen succumbed, so that for a short time it seemed as if human rights were not being guaranteed there. Nevertheless, it would be difficult to imagine that this was a country which for that reason alone was one which we should not support, if necessary with weapons.

Another case is that of El Salvador. Undoubtedly, that is a country where human rights are not preserved. The security forces are constantly in breach of what we should call normal standards of decency. Nevertheless, the government, with tremendous difficulty in the face of varying support from the United States—based, as a matter of fact, on interpretations of what degree of human rights is being observed there—has managed to struggle through a crisis of very considerable dimensions and has offered a chance of decency—perhaps no more—to its unfortunate, overpopulated country.

I believe no one would say that human rights are preserved in Peru or El Salvador as they are in Western Europe. Nevertheless, there is a chance that human rights will survive there in the future. This is an indication of the difficulties of basing a policy specifically on the question of whether human rights are or are not observed in a particular country.

There is another point which should be borne in mind when considering wars of liberation or guerrilla movements in the Third World—a phrase which we continue to use for want of a better one. Most of those who have taken to the hills in an effort to estabish a revolutionary government in the countries concerned have carefully pondered the reflections of the Brazilian revolutionary Carlos Marighella. He has tried in writing to encourage those who wish to overthrow a democratic or a military regime, and has specifically encouraged them to try to snare the armed forces or the security forces of the country concerned into gross abuses of human rights which themselves will worsen the situation and perhaps cause an international crisis or, at all events, make it much more difficult for the country concerned to secure external assistance. Therefore I think no one would say that the Question, posed with the elegance which one would expect by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is an easy question to decide.

There is another point. From time to time governments have embarked on policies based primarily on human rights. The most obvious recent example is President Carter's Nicaraguan policy. It does not seem to me that the consequence of that was wholly successful. Not only did he mismanage the principal affair with which he was there presented, but when it came to the point a régime was established in Nicaragua which many people—indeed many of those who have fled from Nicaragua—now believe is worse than what preceded it. I know that this is not a view shared by all Members of your Lordships' House, but it is certainly a view which is upheld by many who have fled from Nicaragua in the years since 1979. It is a view also held by some who actually took part in the government which immediately succeeded the dictator Somoza upon his overthrow in 1979.

The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, mentioned South Africa. There is no doubt whatever that Africa as a whole poses a question which concerns most noble Lords when thinking in terms of human rights. It is perhaps not the moment to speculate why it should be that virtually the whole of Africa (not just South Africa) is an area where human rights are not adequately respected. Maybe one of the reasons why this has happened is that the colonial powers, once having established an empire, left too soon. All that can be said, disagreeable though it may be to have to admit it, is that in many of the states of Africa the army is one of the few sources of loyalty and authority. The dissolution of such an army may well result in a worse state of affairs than exists at the present time.

Therefore in general I should like to be sceptical about the thrust of the Question. However, I should make two concessions to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. First, there is no doubt that military aid to a country (particularly a dictatorship) is an act of intervention in the country concerned, and should be looked upon as such by the provider of the weapons. There can be no doubt whatever that it offers an opportunity to play a part in the life of the country concerned. In the past we have not always seen the opportunity which this position has offered to us. The obvious case must be that of Iran in the time of the Shah, where surely it could have been seen that the piling up of armaments concentrated in the hands of a central government, itself increasingly separated from the nation, was likely to result in delusion and disaster, which indeed it did.

However, there is a good example of a sensible use of the provision of external assistance: that has been the operations of the United States in Central America (I am not referring to Nicaragua at the moment) in the last few years since the Central American emergency. Such a view is not very widely held, I know. The United States does not get a very warm hearing in this country or, indeed, in your Lordships' House. It is fair to say that in consequence of assistance on many occasions to the countries concerned we see in that isthmus, not wholly without American responsibility, a chain of democracies, fragile and frail though they may be, which the area has not seen before.

The second point I should like to mention is that we are talking about countries which break human rights. I have suggested that there are occasions when we do not really know exactly what human rights consist of. It is fair to go further than that and to wonder whether or not those countries which are proud of having human rights well established should not be anxious to collaborate more than they do. After all, the world is now dominated by chains of associations of different types of countries; for example the Commonwealth, the French union, the union of Arab states, the union of African states. Some of these unions are based on the idea of geography or religion. In the democratic states we do not have the habit of meeting together and discussing the problems which are facing us and the challenges which we are likely to meet. This is an idea that the Government might like to consider as a real initiative if they wish to preserve on a global scale the liberties of which they, and indeed we, are so proud.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, there are a number of points which I should like to take up arising from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton. First, I should like to dispute his contention that politics is always a matter of choosing between two evils. I think that the whole career of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, shows that that is not so. He has frequently—in fact, almost entirely—found himself on the side of the right and the just and has fought for those principles over a career that spans some 80 years. We are very grateful to him this evening for raising such an important issue yet again in your Lordships' House.

I should like also to disagree with the noble Lord's analysis of the effects of the United States policy in Central America. It is not true to say that, as a result of US interference in the isthmus, a chain of democracies has been established. The movement towards democracy in Guatemala, for instance, has nothing to do with United States influence. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, will recall, the United States withdrew entirely from giving military aid to the Guatemalan regime, and its relationships with the dictatorship were somewhat cool. Therefore, the advent of a democratic government under President Cerezo is the result of the working of internal forces.

Obviously we hope that that process will continue and develop, and that the military not only will return to barracks but will remain there and will cease to interfere in the rural life of the population; and that the wave of murders and terror which have afflicted the Guatemalan people over a period of some 40 years will at last, under the benign influence of President Cerezo, come to an end. That will be nothing to do with American influence, which has been wholly malign in the isthmus. In particular the American policy on Nicaragua—not under President Carter but since then—has been completely misguided and has brought to nought the efforts of the Contadora powers to reach a peaceful settlement throughout the whole region.

I should like to follow the noble Lord in his discussion of Peru, which is an entirely different case, and, indeed, to enter on a discussion on the sale of arms to regimes such as that of General Zia, the Shah of Persia and so on if there were time. I say only that I thought it was a rather cynical discussion. What happened when our backs were to the wall and we were faced with the threat of occupation by Nazi Germany ought not to be the guideline for our conduct in a period of more or less peace, which has lasted since the end of the Second World War and in which the developments of the theory and practice of human rights, principally in the United Nations, have led us to a completely different view, I hope, of the relationships between states and in particular in regard to the sale of weapons by one state to another when the second state has been a gross and persistent violator of human rights.

I want principally to continue the references of the noble Lord to the case of Indonesia in the context of that country's continued violation of the human rights of the people of that country and in particular in the context of the military conflicts in which it is engaged against the people of East Timor and West Papua. Before I go into that matter in some detail, I want to say that the existing guidelines on arms sales to human rights violators must surely be grossly inadequate when they allow us to trade in weapons of mass destruction with evil dictatorships such as those of Indonesia and Chile and in so-called non-lethal weapons systems with psychopathic regimes such as that of Ayatollah Khomeini's brutal and atavistic theocracy in Iran or the equally thuggish and murderous Government of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

In the latter case, we say piously, to quote a Written Answer given by the Foreign Secretary on 29th October 1985: We should not, in future, approve orders for any defence equipment which, in our view, would significantly enhance the capability of either side to prolong or exacerbate the conflict".—[Official Report, Commons, 29/10/85; col 454.] In other words, we are prepared to sell both sides any defence equipment which in our view only prolongs the war to a minor extent, and we make this casuistical distinction between lethal and non-lethal arms knowing perfectly well that all military equipment enhances the power of its operator to cause death and mutilation.

We supply spare parts and even whole engines for the Centurion tanks used by both sides, and we sold 300 military Land-Rovers to Iraq in July 1985, balancing the export of a 32,000 tonne fleet auxiliary and two 2,500 tonne landing craft to Iran, which were no doubt used to help in the recent crossing of the Shatt el Arab in which tens of thousands of casualties were suffered by both sides.

This is an utterly immoral trade, and if only the governments of the United States, Europe and Israel had joined together in placing a total embargo on all sales of defence equipment to both Iran and Iraq it would have saved countless lives and immense suffering. I say for that reason, and for many others, that the guidelines must be reviewed as a matter of urgency.

Yesterday former President Eanes of Portugal, in an address to foreign correspondents in Lisbon, said that the existing colonial power, de jure, should support financially and by all other means the Fretilin liberation movement's armed struggle in Timor. This faces us with a challenge, and particularly in Britain, because of our just insistence on the sanctity of Chapter IV of the United Nations Charter which prohibits the use of force between states, and particularly the transfer of sovereignty by means of military aggression. It was on this principle of course that we fought a costly war in terms of lives and resources against Argentina.

But how much greater than the crimes of the military junta in Argentina has been that of Indonesia, which first of all invaded the territory of East Timor in December 1975 and continued military operations against the resistance forces there over the years in the face of repeated condemnations by the General Assembly of the United Nations, but also while occupying East Timor grossly and persistently violated the human rights of the inhabitants, massacring and starving to death somewhere between a quarter and a third of the population and imprisoning and torturing many thousands more.

Even today, 11 years after the original invasion, the Indonesian armed forces continue to kill and maim people. As recently as 16th January the Foreign Secretary wrote to me saying: Military activity continues in both East Timor and Irian Jaya … We do … believe Indonesian military activity to have been stepped up in those areas where low-level conflict persists". This confirmed reports such as that of Jill Jolliffe in the Guardian of 21st November 1986, claiming that war was raging in East Timor again. The article claimed that planes and tanks were being used against the guerrilla forces and that large numbers of troops had been deployed there.

I ask the Foreign Secretary to consider once again—and not for the first time—whether Britain should sell arms and other defence equipment to a regime which was engaged in a ethnocidal war against a tiny neighbour, and I call it ethnocidal rather than genocidal, accepting the distinction made by Leo Kuper between the attempt to extinguish a separate cultural and linguistic identity and the eradication of the people themselves.

I believe that the objective of the Indonesians is to integrate the territory of East Timor into their unitary state, and that they will only kill those who resist their plans, just as the Nazis did not systematically exterminate all the inhabitants of occupied France during the last war but only those who continued the struggle for liberation.

The Foreign Secretary replied: we do not agree to the supply of equipment which, in our judgment, is likely to be used for continued repression". He said that the Government: are aware of suggestions that British supplied defence equipment may have been used by Indonesian forces in East Timor and Irian Jaya, but to the best of our knowledge these suggestions have never been substantiated". We believe, however, that evidence exists to show that our equipment probably has been used for internal repression, including the attacks on the people of East Timor and West Papua.

We supplied, over a period of some years a number of Saladin, Saracen and Ferret armoured cars to Indonesia. I cannot be specific about either the numbers or the dates because the Government always do their best to conceal knowledge of these transactions from the public at large. But Amnesty International has photographs which have been published—I have one here—showing armoured cars being used against student demonstrators in 1978. The authenticity of these pictures has never been challenged and it is logical to assume that if a government buy large numbers of armoured vehicles and they have no obvious external threat they will use them against their own people.

I should emphasise that in addition to the continuation of the struggles in East Timor and West Papua and the student unrest I have mentioned, there have also been crackdowns against Moslem protesters, for example, at Tanjung Priok, Jakarta in 1984 in which the death toll has been estimated variously at somewhere between 60 and up to 200 people. Troops opened fire without warning on unarmed demonstrators. Although the armoured cars may not have been deployed on that occasion they would probably have been brought out if the protest had continued, but they are always there as a threat against anybody who challenges the regime.

The second major series of arms contracts which we have entered into with the Indonesians has been for the supply of Hawk advanced trainer aircraft. The first deal for eight aircraft was concluded in April 1978 when the aggression against East Timor was at its height. But when my honourable friend Sir Russell Johnston condemned this deal in correspondence, the then Minister of State, the late Lord Goronwy Roberts, told him: certain foreign observers who have been allowed to visit the territory have reported that the scale of skirmishing there has been greatly reduced". That was in a letter dated 29th June 1978. It is not entirely accurate to refer to a war in which at least 100,000, probably 200,000, people died as "skirmishing". The letter is a good example of how British governments have spread deception about the level of Indonesian military operations over the years, no doubt quite unintentionally.

As the unnamed foreign observers, with very few exceptions, who have visited East Timor since the occupation 11 years ago have been stooges of the regime, are prepared to accept the lies and propaganda which have been fed to them by the Indonesian forces, the parliamentary Human Rights Group, of which I have the honour to be chairman, wrote to the Indonesian authorities some four years ago asking whether we could send some of our members to visit the territory to assess the situation for themselves. We were refused point blank.

On 1st October last year I wrote, as chairman of the group, to the Indonesian Foreign Minister. Our colleague, Robert Tickner MP, the chairman of the Australian parliamentary Human Rights Group, wrote simultaneously to the Indonesian Foreign Minister via the Indonesian Embassy in Canberra. Our friend Mr. Tickner received an answer after some weeks that it was inconvenient for a visit by Members of Parliament from Australia and Britain to go to East Timor because of the preparations that were taking place for the so-called elections in April.

We had a reply from the ambassador here dated 11th December saying: We regret to inform you that your request has been unsuccessful". The ambassador did not explain why our visit was not welcome but obviously it had nothing whatever to do with the elections. I suspect the Indonesians would like entirely to prevent the outside world from knowing what they are doing in East Timor. Particularly they do not want anybody to observe the military operations that are currently taking place in the territory.

In the nature of things, it is very difficult for us to prove that British weapons are being used. I say here that I do not think the onus of proof should be on us at all. The Government, with their far greater resources, their ability to use intelligence from American satellites, an ambassador in Jakarta and other observers who may have been more successful than we have in penetrating the territories of East Timor and West Papua, know much more about military operations than we do and they should take full account of that intelligence. However, the Jakarta newspaper, Kompas, reported on 14th January that a new air force squadron using Hawk fighter aircraft was established in mid-January, for purposes of advanced training and tactical combat". The aircraft were said to be fully equipped with rockets and machine guns for ground attack operations.

Whenever we have raised the question of the sale of Hawks in the past, we have always been told that only the trainer version was on offer. Now we have the statement of the air force chief of staff, Air Marshal Suhardi, that another version equipped with weapons is actually in service. The United Nations representative of the East Timor freedom fighters, José Ramos Horta, has said that the aircraft, fully equipped with weapon systems, have been sited at the military airfield at Baucau in East Timor.

I shall not at this hour catalogue the rest of the arsenal we have provided to Indonesia over the years. Let me just say that if we abandon the principles of self-determination and of the inviolability of national boundaries we are embarking on a very dangerous course indeed. The island of Timor may be remote and on a world scale its people may not be of great significance, but they are heroic people who have fought tenaciously for the rights enjoyed by nearly every other former colonial people in the world. If we not only fail to support them politically, as former President Eanes urges, but, on the contrary, we actively encourage the aggressors in their illegal and brutal occupation, we are fatally undermining the international rule of law, the maintenance of which is necessary for the survival of the whole world.

10.2 p.m.

Viscount Buckmaster

My Lords, in welcoming the debate on this Question and in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for introducing it so clearly and so sincerely, perhaps I may say at the outset that I am firmly opposed to the supply of arms and even of non-military material such as clothing, transport, and so on, for countries which flagrantly and persistently violate human rights.

However, I do not want to go into too much detail on this matter because noble Lords speaking subsequently will doubtless expand on it with more ability than I could command. I want to devote the rest of my short speech to considering the extent of human rights violations in two countries which in my view are particularly bad offenders. I refer here to Iran, which the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Avebury, mentioned, and also Israel, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, himself.

Let me deal first with Iran. Your Lordships may remember that I had a Starred Question on 26th January about the extent of human rights violations in Iran and I received an Answer which struck me as encouraging. I will say no more than that. But whatever the representations we and other governments may have made to the Iranians, they appear to have had very little effect.

In a supplementary question, I said that human rights violations in Iran were on a larger and more horrifying scale than anywhere else in the world, including even Latin America. No one contradicted me at the time, though I see the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, puts South Africa at the top of the list. He may be right. I have never been to South Africa but I have a good deal of information on Iran.

According to well-documented evidence produced by the Mujahedin opposition which I have studied—and I have one of their leaflets which is widely circulated in Britain and which some of your Lordships may have seen—many thousands of Iranians have suffered torture, some to the point of death; and many have been children, some as young as 13 or 14. For this horrible task 3,771 torturers were employed in 576 prisons throughout Iran in the past few years. There are full details of that in the booklet to which I have referred, and we are told that there are 64 different types of torture which are employed, most of them too horrible to mention in your Lordships' House. However, I shall mention a few of the less terrible: the drawing rack, burying alive, suspension of the prisoner by a meat hook, blocking the urinary tract and burning alive. I see the noble Lord, Lord Rea, pricking up his ears.

According to Khomeini: Killing is a mercy, for it seeks to rectify the person. A person sometimes cannot be rectified until he is cut up and heated up". Khomeini has also justified the appalling slaughter of children, some as young as 12 or 13, in the war against Iraq. This has been done in flagrant violation of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child. In Khomeini's own words: So long as there is a need for troops at the front, it is obligatory to go to the front and parental consent is not needed". The total of children killed so far in this terrible war probably runs into six figures and may even approach half a million. The Guards Corps Minister has disclosed that during one offensive alone in 1984, 57 per cent. of the fighting force were children. He has also indicated that the total number killed or wounded in this engagement was about 50,000.

In 1986, Akrami, the regime's education minister, was quoted in an interview with the newspaper Kayhan. He said: Last year more than 100,000 schoolboys, 30,000 teachers and about 8,000 students from teacher training colleges and technical colleges served at the front". The Iranian press also published horrifying accounts, which some of your Lordships may have seen since they have been referred to in the British press, of boy soldiers sent in waves to clear minefields and facing almost certain death.

I have said enough about Iran; I could have said very much more but I hope that I have presented a fairly convincing picture of the extent of human rights violations in that area. Let me now turn briefly to human rights violations committed by the Israelis against the Arab population in the occupied areas and particularly in the Gaza Strip. In this area, the fate of the Palestinians under Israeli rule is particularly harsh. Three-quarters of the population of the strip are refugees and the military occupation has been particularly heavyhanded. Furthermore, the economy has been systematically crushed by petty restrictions imposed by the Israelis.

I have a Motion down in my name for a short debate, and I hope that I may be lucky in the next draw, which I believe is tomorrow. If I am not, I shall re-table the Motion as an Unstarred Question to call attention to the situation in Lebanon and the Arab areas of what was formerly Palestine which are occupied by the Israelis. However, let me make three brief points in conclusion in referring to human rights violations in the Israeli occupied areas, and particularly in the Gaza Strip.

First, unlike the West Bank, the Israelis have never allowed elections in Gaza. Secondly, repression has been manifesting itself in many forms, particularly in Gaza, once more, ever since 1970. Many student demonstrators and some merely suspected of causing the trouble have been shot. Thousands of people—the relatives of suspected activists—have been detained in concentration camps in Syria and elsewhere, and thousands have been dispatched to Jordan. Thirdly, and finally, the Israelis have taken over the control of and access to the water resources in the Gaza Strip as a means of curbing the influence and power of the inhabitants. I have spoken about this matter on two, if not three, previous occasions. This list is by no means comprehensive but the hour is late and I do not wish to add to it.

Many other countries fall into the same category of flagrant human rights violations. I have referred to particular countries but, as we all know, many countries commit minor violations of human rights—I think 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the countries in the world. I am not concerned with them tonight. Uganda is one example of a flagrant violator. I hope that we may hear a little about this from the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who like myself knows the area. I hope that I have said enough to indicate the extent of human rights violations in the two countries I have considered.

10.11 p.m.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, it would be presumptuous of me to thank my noble friend Lord Brockway or to congratulate him on this debate. He and I have worked together for the same causes for 50 years and the Question which he has put down tonight is only a part of that very long association.

We are talking about armaments expenditure in the past 12 months of 900 billion dollars. The total world military expenditure in one day alone would finance two World Health Organisation programmes to combat malaria. The cost of one nuclear submarine would fund the education budget of 23 developing countries inhabited by 160 million children. That is the scale of the subject before us tonight; but how is our country involved in this massive expenditure?

I do not propose to deal with specific countries. I am simply concerned with the Government's policy. Britain is among a variety of countries which provide training for the police and military personnel of many countries, a large number with extremely poor human rights records. It is not only governments who follow this policy. Our Government allow private companies to take the same actions, to advertise their training programmes and to use the British Army equipment exhibition. If there is any doubt as to whether profit comes before principle in relation to the training of terrorists, it will interest the House to know that the British company AMAC offered to provide a 44-week training course for 17 Libyan security personnel. That course included such subjects as poisons, bugging, explosives, kidnapping and a whole variety of killing techniques. This country not only allows but promotes the training and the provision of a whole set of repressive forms of equipment.

I know that the Minister may quote—I hope he will not because it is irrelevant—the Export of Goods (Control) Order, but that is permissive. It is not mandatory. Under that order goods can be and are being exported for use in the destruction of human rights; yet most of this activity is kept from Parliament. We are never told about it. When we ask questions we are told that to give the information would be against national security. This Government are actively engaged in the promotion of arms sales. With their belief in market forces they consider that the sale of arms is a part of the national economy, and they have made it so. Britain is now the fourth largest exporter of weapons and is estimated to be the second largest exporter of equipment for internal security.

It is British policy actively to promote the sale of arms and of equipment for internal security. For example, in the Ministry of Defence itself the defence sales organisation was set up specifically to promote and to market British military and security equipment. It uses exhibitions. For example, it uses the British Army equipment exhibition at Aldershot. However, entry to that exhibition is by invitation only and we are not even told who is invited. The Ministry of Defence decides who shall be invited but the British public is not even allowed to see what is being exhibited there.

There is one specific question that I should like to put to the Minister who is to reply. How does he defend and how does he explain the decision taken on 21st November last at the World Bank when the United Kingdom voted for a loan to be granted to the Pinochet regime in Chile? Even the United States abstained. The United Kingdom voted in favour. It was only by 1.7 per cent. that the loan was eventually granted. Why was the United Kingdom on the side of supporting and financing the regime which is notorious throughout the world for its murders, its tortures and its oppression? We are talking about what my noble friend Lord Brockway was once associated with in a notable book—The Merchants of Death.

These are indeed the merchants of death—the merchants of death and torture throughout the world—with weapons and materials that are built and manufactured in this country. Why is it that this Government, who profess to believe in human rights if it is politically convenient when facing the Soviet Union, do not take action to ensure that whatever is produced in this country is never used for the purposes of torture, killing or maiming?

I commend to this House the proposal that has been put forward by Amnesty International for a new law. I believe that it is worthwhile quoting the three clauses of that law of which the first reads: The law should provide that:

1. 1. All military, security and police transfers be publicly disclosed in advance;
2. 2. Regular reports be issued by Her Majesty's Government on the human rights situation in the receiving country;
3. 3. Effective channels be established for Her Majesty's Government to receive information from non-governmental organisations".

The second clause reads: The law should prohibit the transfer to other countries of military security and police equipment and training where these can reasonably be assumed to contribute to human rights violations within Amnesty International's mandate". The third clause reads: The law should prohibit the manufacture of equipment which can only he used for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of prisoners. Prohibited items should include: gas chambers, guillotines, thumb screws, leg irons, and gang chains". Will the British Government pledge themselves to give support to such a humane law?

10.22 p.m.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe

My Lords, I confess that when I saw the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, on this Motion last week when I looked at the Order Paper I did not anticipate that the debate would take place at so late an hour. I thought also that it would give me an opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for his consistent commitment to the cause of peace, disarmament and human rights. It is a concern which I am happy to say I share with him. He must feel somewhat encouraged to see that there are no fewer than six speakers from the Alliance Benches here tonight contributing to the support for his cause.

I expect that in his reply the Minister will deal with some of the difficulties in the application of the Motion that is before the House. Undoubtedly, one of them will be that if Britain does not supply armaments then other countries may and probably will do so. I have never found that to be a very convincing argument. Certainly it does not stop the flow of armaments. However, I have never thought it good theology to argue that if someone else sins that justifies you in sinning also. So I suspect that there is a case for unilateral action that establishes Britain's commitment to some moral standards on this issue.

Then there is the difficulty mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, of the definition of human rights, because human rights vary from country to country. However, in the Helsinki Agreement some kind of international standards were established as being the basics of human rights observation. I suspect that it is those standards that we might apply in making our assessment of the countries which violate human rights. It is a case where we can, without risks, take unilateral action.

A good deal has been said tonight about the sale of arms to Africa. I watched the six o'clock news tonight. I saw ghastly pictures. of children dying in a large African state. They were the kind of pictures that stimulated the people's great support for Band Aid. Children are still dying of starvation in many parts of Africa. The news bulletins show those desperately sad pictures.

At the same time and in the same country young men were shown carrying arms and fighting a civil war. There is no doubt that the merchants of death described by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby—I well remember the book written by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, many years ago—who travel the African continent selling arms to countries such as Uganda, not for defence against neighbouring states but for the suppression of rival political groups within the country, are denying those countries the opportunity of buying the necessities of life—the food to relieve starvation. We must condemn that kind of business. As has already been said in this debate that is true of a large part of the African continent.

Two weeks ago I happened to be in Trinidad in the West Indies. It recently had an election. The government which had been in power for 30 years was defeated. The opposition won 32 seats and the government won three seats in the freely conducted election which was debated in the press, at public meetings and so on.

The new government was installed last week and the new Prime Minister took over. I asked myself how in that island, as in other parts of the West Indies, the democratic tradition is applied. It could not happen in many African states because the army would probably move in in defence of the government. It is largely because that island does not have an army that there is no power struggle. It has a police force but no army. It occurred to me that there is some relationship between the provision of arms to countries and the survival of democracy in those countries. The example I have given bears that out.

If we pursue the policy suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, we can make some contribution towards stopping the free flow of arms. We can encourage international respect for human rights. I agree with him that opportunities are opening up in the world. I am sure that people are sick and tired of what is going on. I am sure that they will respond to moral leadership. I am sure that the changes taking place in the Soviet Union present opportunities for initiatives in that field.

In this country we spend 5 per cent. of our GDP on armaments. In the United States it is 6 per cent. In the Soviet Union it is 16 per cent. Mr. Gorbachev realises full well that that colossal armaments burden is crippling any opportunities he has for economic prosperity. Changes are taking place to open up opportunities for initiatives.

I should like to see the Government take advantage of those initiatives from time to time. It is not a party matter; it is a matter in which the future of mankind is involved. It is too easy to say that we preserve peace through the uneasy balance of the nuclear weapons which each major power has at its disposal. It is a very uneasy, unhealthy balance that thus exists. I hope that as a result of this debate we may get some commitment from the Government that they are to break through in this field, break traditional attitudes and habits and give people some sense of moral leadership.

10.30 p.m.

Lord Rea

My Lords, I shall add only a few remarks in support of my noble friend Lord Brockway. As some noble Lords may know, just before Christmas I visited Chile, a country—as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has pointed out—with scarcely the best human rights record in the world. I saw and heard evidence that arbitrary arrest, incommunicado confinement and torture are alive and well in that country. I should like briefly to describe an experience with a moral which I had when I visited Valparaiso, the main port and naval base of Chile. It is a fascinating place with a ring of very steep hills covered with precariously perched shanty dwellings above the port area. The main avenue has royal palms, purple jacaranda trees and a statue of Admiral Lord Cochrane who, with British Government approval, assisted the Chileans to gain independence in the 1820s.

A sailor, on discovering that I was British, pointed out in the harbour a destroyer which we had sold to Chile in 1984. It is now called "Admiral Lord Cochrane". Formerly it was HMS "Antrim", launched in the 1960s and subsequently fitted with guided missiles. This Chilean sailor was somewhat surprised when I expressed less than wholehearted admiration and approval of this transaction.

My purpose in describing this incident is to illustrate how deals such as this can be used by repressive governments to enhance their standing in the eyes of their own people and in the rest of the world. They might say, for instance, "If Great Britain—the cradle of democracy and freedom—can sell our country such a powerful warship then they must approve of our government." Much is made in the media in Chile of the arrival of such a prestigious ship, and HMS "Glamorgan", just delivered to the Chilean Navy, will doubtless also receive a big reception if it has not already arrived in Chile.

The Government have said that they do not like to sell weapons which can be specifically used against the civilian population. In the first place this is not true. They do sell weapons which can be and are used against the civilian population. In Chile, for instance, Hawker Hunters attacked and destroyed the Moneda Palace in 1973—a time when President Allende was killed. The guns of the renamed "Admiral Cochrane" could easily be turned against the shanty town section of Valparaiso if the inhabitants were to become troublesome to the government.

However, it is the boost to the credibility of the Pinochet regime that these arms sales represent which I think is most to be regretted. The Government make verbal condemnations of human rights abuses by the Chilean Government, but these will carry little weight with such a military regime when we give them what they most want, expressed in language which they understand—language spoken by guns and missiles.

I feel that the Government should stop selling arms or supporting loans to Chile, as my noble friend has pointed out, or admit, if they do so, that they approve of the present regime. Their present policy of condemning abuses in Chile while supplying arms surely is hypocritical.

10.35 p.m.

The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for providing me with the opportunity of bringing to the attention of the House the specific case of the country of Morocco.

I understand that the UK is supplying arms to the Moroccan army, and that included in the inventory are 105mm field guns, general purpose machine guns and mobile radio transmitters. The overseas trade statistics for 1986 include arms sales to Morocco, but these are somewhat obscured due to the fact that included in the figures, for some curious and I suspect devious reason, are our exports of gold and other minerals.

However, according to section 9 of the statistics, under the heading "Morocco", we exported goods to the value of £1,305 million. In attempting to obtain information concerning the export of military equipment from the UK to Morocco, I was informed by the Library that the information I sought was under the "suppressed information" category at the Ministry of Defence. So perhaps the figures do not tell the whole story.

It is well known and well documented that the present regime in Morocco is oppressive, highly obnoxious and often barbarous, its activities bordering on the medieval. That is the description of a country which says it is pro-Western and supports democracy. We are even having its ruler, King Hassan, on a state visit in July. There is no question that its government denies some of the basic human rights to its citizens, especially those who dare to criticise it.

It is engaged in a war in the Western Sahara which has been dragging on for 11 long years. Morocco's territorial claims on the Western Sahara have all been rejected by the International Court of Justice, the United Nations and the OAU. Thousands of refugees from that war have fled to neighbouring Algeria where they have been living in tent cities for all of those 11 years. They fled because they did not enjoy having napalm, cluster and phosphorous bombs dropped on them. Happily, none of these revolting weapons originated in the UK. They all came from the United States.

Moroccan soldiers and administrators control all towns including the capital city of El Aiyoun but the main bulk of the Moroccan army has retreated behind a fortified wall of sand built by them across 2,500 kilometres of desert.

Those Western Saharans who chose to remain in and those who were unable to escape from the occupied zone have since been subjected to all manner of restrictions and persecutions by the Moroccan authorities. There are numerous confirmed reports from reliable sources that many thousands of these Western Saharans have vanished without trace.

The Foreign Office insists that the UK is neutral and has maintained a neutral stance in this dispute. However, I have photographic evidence that that is not so. My pictures show clearly from marks and plates on the field guns that these are of British manufacture. They are modern, sophisticated weapons captured from the Moroccan army. Furthermore, the state visit, already referred to, indicates that the UK's position is far from neutral. Can we really say, on the one hand, that we treasure, value and support democracy, freedom, the rights of people everywhere to live in their own country unmolested, and that sovereignty is non-negotiable, as in the case of the Falklands; and yet, on the other hand, support regimes that not only deny basic human rights to their own citizens, but aggressively seek to impose those same squalid standards of sub-human behaviour on their neighbours, by supplying that same regime with military weapons?

I suggest humbug and double-standards are operating in the name of trade. The profit motive conquers all, including scruples. We send Morocco arms and tourists. They, in return, send us fruit and street drugs, as the recent news from the Spanish police has clearly shown.

10.40 p.m.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, the speech which my noble friend Lord Brockway made in asking his Question would have been a remarkable speech from anyone, as was one from him at any time during his long life, but made as it was in what I think is approaching his 99th year it was little short of miraculous.

Noble Lords

Hear, hear!

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will celebrate that fact when replying by on this occasion actually trying to answer the Question, not only the general Question but possibly one or two of the supplementaries as well.

I read in the press that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been telling the young Tories that Labour will initiate a communist state in this country. That nonsense does him no credit. If he believes it, we must all start worrying whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is losing his grasp, to use a phrase used in Washington. But if he does not believe it he was insulting his audience and perhaps insulting himself.

In reality, we have to concern ourselves now about this Government's mania for secrecy. This notably embraces the arms trade, except—as my noble friend Lord Hatch has pointed out—for the representatives of repressive governments such as that of Turkey who were freely invited to the last British arms exhibition, from which our own people were excluded. I understand from the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, an organisation very reliable for its information, that 28 of the countries which were invited were cited in the Amnesty report Torture in the Eighties. They were invited to see equipment—riot control equipment, guns and surveillance equipment—which would enable them to repress their own people a little more efficiently.

I should like to say a few words specifically about Turkey. Turkey took over the chair of the Council of Europe last year. Yet they were suspended from membership of that body three years earlier because of the military government's violations of human rights. The difference today is not that that repression has ceased but that it is now taking place behind the facade of a civilian regime.

NATO has demonstrated all along that it does not care what kind of government a country has so long as it is anti-Soviet. The same willingness to team up with repressive and torturing regimes so long as they are anti-communist is now being demonstrated in the Council of Europe, and there are even signs of it in the EC. They do not seem to understand—neither does the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, appear to understand; I am sorry that he is no longer in the Chamber—that this undermines their claim to be the goodies against the baddies. It is no use prating about the free world when you are shaking hands with torturers, who go on torturing after you have shaken their hands and sent them arms.

In that regard, Mr. Norman Lamont, when he was Minister of State for Defence, a predecessor of the noble Lord in that respect, led a team last year to strengthen the ability of the civilian government in Turkey in military respects, increasing among other things their ability to repress their own people. He took with him a very impressive delegation. Among them were leading representatives from Plessey, English Electric, Marconi, Thorn-EMI, Westland, GKN and Vickers, all of them eager and willing to sell anything they could to Turkey, with its government's permission.

The notion that you are going to make conditions—"We will only sell you this provided you are good boys"—is negated by the fact that so many people are trying to get in there and sell these armaments. Therefore, the possibility of laying down conditions under which such armaments shall be used is reduced. This delegation which was widely publicised in Turkey was ignored by our own media. That visit was preceded by a visit from the civilian president of Turkey, President Ozal. He was wined and dined at 10 Downing Street by the Prime Minister, and was surrounded by all the arms manufacturers, no doubt anxious to get a dip at the gravy—even though perhaps it tasted a little odd.

It also has to be borne in mind that a large number of Greek Cypriots are held hostage by Turkey, but we hear precious little about their human rights and nothing at all from the Government and their supporters. Where are they? Turkey is of course in illegal occupation of a large part of northern Cyprus. This unsavoury Turkish regime, in common with other dictatorships and pseudo-democracies which keep themselves in office by repression and torture, has a defence agreement with the United States, whose claim to be a defender of the free world would be laughable if it were not such a tragic farce. Noble Lords will not be surprised to know that the frightful Mr. Perle, who runs the American Defense Department when Mr. Weinberger is away making arrangements for Armageddon, has announced that a substantial American contribution to the modernisation of Turkey's forces will be forthcoming in order to make them even more formidable than they are now.

To be fair, the Turkish Government have the problem of trying to counter the threat of Moslem fundamentalism in their own country, which is perhaps the most illiberal force at work in the world today and rivals as perhaps the most dangerous one the Christian fundamentalism which has been professed by President Reagan and other Republican leaders. Irrationality is exceptionally alarming in a world armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons capable of destroying us all. Even so, that is no excuse for further increasing the armaments of a government who have just sentenced a former Prime Minister to imprisonment for speeches made during a recent by-election campaign. Of course I refer to a former Prime Minister of Turkey. Perhaps we had better advise the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, to steer clear of Greenwich for the next week or two.

The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, was regarded by our present Prime Minister as being soft on trade unions. There is no doubt that the Turks are showing the way to Mrs. Thatcher by disbanding their TUC and putting a large number of trade unionists in gaol. When I last heard, the sentences were still under appeal. The world will be a better and a safer place when the present Turkish regime is replaced by a properly elected one. The present regime was elected under circumstances which would not have been countenanced for a moment in Nicaragua, for example.

We ought to be telling the Government meanwhile that we have had enough of their particular brand of Tory fundamentalism and we want to get back to the democratic socialism which brought us through the years after the war. In the meantime, let the Government make it clear to the Americans that we will not take part in the game of further arming a regime which the European Commission of Human Rights has described as having: one of the worst human rights records in Europe". I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, when he comes to reply will address himself not only to the points raised by my noble friend but also for once to one or two of the points which I have sought to raise.

10.50 p.m.

The Viscount of Falkland

My Lords, I recall that in the early 1970s I was associated with a company that was selling hand-powered tools to a certain African country. We had arranged for a young African salesman to come here to learn the art of selling these tools in his own country, which happened to be Kenya. After his first weekend here—and the factory where he was learning was in the suburbs of London—I met him and asked him how he had spent his weekend. He had been to that most famous of places of public entertainment, Hyde Park Corner. He looked at me and said, "I have seen the most astonishing thing. I have seen a place where people are allowed to say the most incredible things". What he meant by "incredible things" was that people were allowed to speak their minds. We all know that there are all kinds and manner of speakers at Hyde Park Corner. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, has been a distinguished speaker there for many years.

What that young man had learnt in his first weekend was something of the human rights that are not readily available in a central African country. I cannot tell your Lordships how many hand-powered tools he sold when he had learnt his skills and went back to Africa, but we had certainly sold him something: we had sold him the idea of freedom of speech, the idea of a way of life that is totally unknown and unimagined in parts of Africa, even in those countries that are often held up as examples of what an African country should be, such as Kenya, a country where human rights have not been greatly evident in recent times.

The hour is late and I am grateful to the noble Lord for having introduced the subject. I too came into the debate to pay homage to him, a man who has stood up for morality and human dignity for 80 years. A man who can make a speech of such enormous power at his great age deserves support.

Talking of support, I do not think that it is of any significance, but it seems odd to me that we on this side of the House total some 12—or could it be an unlucky 13?—noble Lords, yet on the other side I see present only one noble Lord. It would be unfair to draw the conclusion that we on the Opposition Benches have the most concern about human rights.

In recent times there has been a major public opinion shift. After all, it is now a part of the policy of the Labour Party and a part of the policy of the Alliance to include these matters in their manifestos for the next election. Adding to that those members of the Tory Party who also share concern for human rights, it gives a considerable majority of the British public who are concerned about these matters.

I was concerned about something in the character of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, a noted and distinguished author and academic, whose books I have much enjoyed. However, for me he seemed to muddle the idea of what is the right of a human being, that right of which people are being deprived in many countries. It would not be too difficult for me to explain to my African salesman. It is of course a freedom that we have here and that we all take for granted—a freedom from the threat of institutionalised violence, which is so common in many of the African countries that I know well and, indeed, which we all know in countries in Latin America and other places that noble Lords have mentioned.

Many do not appreciate how such institutionalised violence threatens people down to the very bottom of society. Indeed, many of those people—the poor, the uneducated, students who express dissenting views—are most at risk from this institutionalised violence in societies that have the kind of regimes of which we, thankfully, are free.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, would the noble Viscount agree that this institutionalised violence of which he speaks is actively and positively supported by the United States administration in the resources which it provides to the Contras in Nicaragua?

The Viscount of Falkland

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I would agree broadly with what he says, though I should keep off that particular area of the world because I do not have any personal knowledge of it. But I would certainly say that the United States Government and indeed the British Government have appeared to be unsatisfactory in their support of regimes in many parts of the developing world, turning a blind eye in a cynical way to the kind of regime which would be totally unacceptable here to anybody of any political persuasion even on the far Right of the spectrum. To that extent I would agree with the noble Lord.

But as other noble Lords have mentioned—and I recall particularly an eloquent speech by the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea—there is a kind of cynical confusion of the importance of commercial and business matters with that of morality. That is something which probably has gone on through our history. After all, we were the promoters of the economics of slavery for 130 years. It took a vociferous and energetic minority to impose its morality then. What is going to happen now is that public opinion is going to be brought to bear. It is beginning to be. Public opinion is becoming more and more important in our lives.

Perhaps I may mention two aspects of military training, and I will then come on to the question about Uganda asked of me by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. Uganda is an extreme country. It is a country which is not typical of all African countries. When it was a British protectorate it was somewhat of a jewel. It was the centre of education in British East Africa. It was a country with artificial borders and with potential tribal and racial problems always present. After independence it did not take long before those problems came to the fore, and the country has not recovered to this day from the regimes of Amin and Obote. Even now considerable breaches of human rights are sustained.

That leads on to the military training aspect of what the Government encourage. During the period when we supplied military training and advice to Uganda I do not think that it did any good at all. In fact all those people were doing was training the people who were supposed to do the training. There was no actual feeding through of expertise to where it really mattered, which at that time was with the bands of brigands dressed up as soldiers who were committing atrocities on an enormous scale.

During that period, and even now, we seemed to turn our backs on the reality of the situation. I suggest that it was for us a political presence. It gave us an opportunity to involve ourselves in the country, to observe and to see which way it was going to go politically. I asked a Question in your Lordships' House just after the Obote regime had fallen about the function of certain private companies in this country which had been giving advice on the use of helicopters to the Obote government during its last days and training people in anti-guerrilla warfare. I was told by the Minister on that day that there was nothing whatever that one could do about the activities in the private area. I found that very surprising because it seems to me to be a matter of enormous concern that we can be so vociferous about individuals involving themselves as mercenaries while we go along with what seems to me to be corporate mercenary activity of this kind. I should hope that if an Alliance Government came to power we should see very strict control over such activity.

Public concern is there. Public concern needs to be activated and a change in the law is certainly needed to control the supply of weapons, whether they be purely military, whether they be security weapons or whether they involve other products used in countries which have endured a long and sustained period of breach of human rights.

On that note I sit down and say that this debate has contributed strongly to the feeling in this country that something has to be done for us to create a stronger moral stand in this sphere.

11.1 p.m.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, many noble Lords believe that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is a marvel to be able to inaugurate a debate as he has done this evening. I pay particular attention to his words about recent changes in the Soviet Union and the effect this ought to have on our own policy-making here. It is by now almost worthy of the name "a Russian spring". If one spends enough hours reading what is coming out from Gorbachev and his immediate colleagues, one has a very clear memory of the events of 1968 in Czechoslovakia; the way they talked. One's first thought is, "Oh, God, I hope they don't go too far". One's second thought is, "Well, there is no Soviet Union to invade them and stamp on it". Gorbachev is running a risk, but only a domestic risk, not an international risk.

We all listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, had to say. I agree with him that the solution to the problem under debate is not easy. That is about all I agree with in what he said. I am sorry that he was not able to stay to hear the rest of the debate, but I should like to express a word of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, the Minister, who is now alone, along with the duty Whip, on the Government Benches. We are grateful to him for staying with us while we discuss matters which are of interest, we think, to a large number of people in the country.

My first employer in this world was the Royal Navy. My second was Her Majesty's Foreign Office, and the job it very unwisely gave me was to represent it in an alarming body called the Arms Working Party, which supposedly controlled the export of arms from this country—a job which I did for three years. I learnt from this that money and prosperity are very desirable indeed. I also learnt the lengths to which any government—this was a Labour Government under Ernie Bevin—would go to secure them. The one great rule was, "Get the money". There was only one possible reservation that might be entered and that was, "Might it hurt us? If the people who want these arms might use them against us, to let them have them would be too silly. If not, we will take the money".

I note that in the 35 years between those two events even that has gone and we were ready to sell warships to the Argentinian dictatorship at a moment when it should have been quite visible to the Government that there was at least a risk that they would be used against us; and they were. I compare this with Lord Rea's reminiscence of Valparaiso—it is the same story really, except that there are no islands off Chile that belong to us.

I think it was during the same time in the Arms Working Party—I am sorry to be autobiographical— that I had what struck me as a great insight: that was about the economic nature of arms manufacture. I learnt then that it was uniquely non-productive. If you manufacture capital goods, you manufacture something which in itself creates wealth, commodities which are wealth. If you manufacture consumer goods you manufacture something which people will willingly buy and use for a while. If you manufacture the necessities of life you are sustaining human life itself. All of this can be regarded as wealth-creating.

If you manufacture stupid little toys—shall we say one-arm bandits or sweeties with no food value?—you are manufacturing something which is economically and morally quite neutral. Lastly, there is the category of armaments where you are manufacturing something which not only, if it is ever used, destroys wealth and human life but, even if it is not used, creates none and guarantees the consumption of the tax revenues of the state which owns it. So it behoves us to think whether there is anything we can do, as a race throughout the world, to get beyond this on economic grounds if on no others.

In those days there was one other thing which we would not do in the Arms Working Party. We would not sell arms to any country which was at war with another country to which we were also selling arms—or to any country which was likely to be at war with such a country. That was considered to be quite immoral, and it was supposed to be the duty of the government of the day to make up their mind which side they wanted to win and to sell arms to that side only; and, if they could not make up their mind, to sell arms to neither.

There was an historical case we all quoted to each other, some time in the 1860s, I think, when the Government of India and the India Office were backing one side in a war in the Yemen and the Foreign Office were backing the other side. "Never", we said to each other, "shall we get into that pickle again." I am not sure whether we have or have not, but some countries in the world have, and I believe that if we have not yet we may do so quite soon.

Before going further into that, let us look beyond the matter of controlled and approved arms exports—I mean controlled and approved by the Government—to the matter of the black market. Almost every night at the moment you can watch television programmes about the goings-on at an office in Victoria Street, a quarter of a mile from here, where the television people appear to be quite certain that they have evidence that Iranians are illegally buying arms in this country for export to Iran in their war against Iraq. Many noble Lords—and I among them—have put down Questions about this. We have got the answer: "We don't have any evidence that any crime has been committed." On one occasion, greatly daring, I went further and asked another question: "What steps are you taking to try to find if there is any evidence?"—to which came the standard answer that such matters are not discussed in a democracy.

To get a real grip of the legal arms exports, which are of course a thousand times the illegal ones, from every country, we shall have to look at the effect of the wealthy part of the world in the North on the poor part in the South, particularly through international organisations. We shall have to come to grips with the fact that the IMF once considered the Argentinian nuclear industry and rapped Argentina over the knuckles not for building up a weapons manufacturing capability, which they are doing, but for having a nuclear industry in the public sector and not in the private sector, as it should have been.

We shall have to face up to the fact that the IMF and the World Bank are giving and lending money to Brazil, which is then used for what is now the biggest third world arms industry. They are making cluster bombs in that country and ground-to-ground tactical military missiles. We are paying for this, and they are selling them to yet poorer countries down the line.

We shall have to come to grips with the politics of international arms dealing. We must remember who we are dealing with around the world—what sort of people we are dealing with. We must remember that the Saudi Arabians got AWACS—which they wanted in order to keep an eye on what was going on in Israel for the benefit of the whole Arab world; so one understands the motive—out of the United States by promising to pay money later on, on demand, to anticommunist forces somewhere in the world which the United States would have the right to specify. They were to be anti-communist forces of President Reagan's choice.

I think that we must look at the standard and the precedent which is being set by the United States overall in the matter of arms exports. The United States had a policy about hostages, which it went to great pains, very justifiably, to urge upon the rest of us. And the rest of us in Western Europe, broadly speaking, adopted it. It was that we do not barter for hostages, since that only encourages hostage-takers to take more hostages. So much is only common sense. It is probably true to say that the biggest hostage-taker in the experience of the United States was Iran, if one includes their own embassy people and what Iran is now doing in Lebanon.

There was a trial going on in New York of certain American private citizens who had been detected selling arms to Iran. That was against American law. The trial was nearing a conclusion, amid public approval, and there was about to be a conviction when it was revealed that the United States Government itself was selling arms to Iran in order to buy back hostages taken by Iran. As a rider to that bright idea, the United States was arranging for Iran to pay part of the purchase price for the arms to the Contras in Nicaragua.

We must look at how that situation could have arisen. I myself think that the obvious reason is that the Americans have no embassy in Teheran and for that reason they were not getting very good advice about whether this was likely to be a good plan. They in fact relied on the advice of two parties not well placed to give it. One was arms dealers who were used to black gun-running in and out of Iran, and the other was the state of Israel, which did at least have representation of some sort there.

The money went to Nicaragua, and it is worth following that story to the end of the line. Nicaragua has been fighting a war in which the rebels against the government are supported by the United States for six or seven years. There have been 22,000 people killed. That is the Nicaraguan government figure and I suspect, having travelled there quite a lot, that it is right. Scale that up to the British population and you get a figure of 440,000 over a period of six years. That is pretty close to what we suffered in the Second World War. The economic and industrial damage inflicted on Nicaragua, when scaled up, is also pretty close to what we suffered in the Second World War. One must not be misled by the smallness of a country into underestimating the suffering which is inflicted upon it.

The question now is what to do about this arms trading business. We must do what we can because they can be used to kill, which is bad. And we must do what we can because, as my noble friend Lord Taylor pointed out, the mere travelling of arms to poorer countries than our own constitutes in itself a militarisation of those countries. We are exporting not only guns but militarisation, a militaristic way of life, prestige for the colonels, and a form of government which is not democratic, through that machinery itself.

I should say that the first thing we must do, as many noble Lords have already said, is to publish some facts for a change. What is the justification for the Government keeping up this awful prudish silence about arms exports? We ask Questions in this House and in another place, and the answer is: "Oh, we don't talk about that", as though an indecent suggestion had been made at a Victorian teatable.

I think that it is probable that public opinion wants to know more about arms exports, and I am sure that it is the duty of the Government to find out a bit more about what public opinion wants. After all, arms exports are a means of execution of foreign policy. They are a weapon of foreign policy and always have been. What is the justification for having a secret weapon of foreign policy, a very large secret weapon of foreign policy, which is in itself lethal? Let us try it on. Let us behave as though we ourselves were a democracy and hear what people think.

Let us also go into this matter of end use certificates. When we are selling arms to a dicey government which we do not really trust to use them in the way we think they ought to, the Government insist on something called an end use certificate, which means that that government promise to use them only in accordance with the purposes for which they should be used. In practice there is very little control over whether they will do so, and none at all really over whether they sell on arms to someone else.

In the case of the United States, we do not even ask for end use certificates because our friendship with the United States is such that the Government cannot conceive of any purpose that would not be a shared one between us. Nevertheless there is evidence that Blowpipes which we have sold to the United States armed forces have turned up in the hands of the Contras. When we ask questions about this, we are told, "Oh no, such matters are not discussed." We come across the prudish silence once again.

I was reminded this week—because it was used by, of all people, a Soviet television commentator—of Oscar Wilde's saying that any map which does not show Utopia is not worth having. It is in that spirit that I think we—this Parliament, the parties, the press and the universities in this country—should begin to consider employing far greater resources and care than we ever have before, the present state of the "states system" in the world. The world consists of a system of sovereign states. The state of that system needs consideration. The part of that system which constitutes the arms trade deserves particularly close consideration because we are way back down the line.

We have thought about disarmament for 80 years. Thoughts about it have become sophisticated and highly developed. This is not the case with the arms trade. Hardly any thought has been given to it. The thought will have to be international. There should be international conferences which feel tentatively—we are like blind kittens in this—towards what could be a solution for mankind. It will be necessary to face the fact that there are East-West differences. Above all, there is the great difficulty inherent in the states system itself; that if I do not sell arms to other countries, some third country will. This is a difficulty, and the existence of it points to one solution and to one solution only—the real, true Utopian solution. I refer to the existence of an international convention on the arms trade.

Such a convention, one can see already, would have to be related downwards, as it were, to the domestic control of arms manufacture and sales within the member states of the convention, and it would have to look upwards and outwards, as it were, towards the disarmament process itself. One point that could be made in its favour, difficult though the task may be, is that it has at least one thing in common with the disarmament process, namely, that the verification of any agreement would be intensely difficult.

11.17 p.m.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, it is a convention but I want to begin, as I am sure the Minister will, by warmly congratulating my colleague the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, not only on giving us the opportunity to discuss this matter but also on something that has not been stressed—I refer to the tone and earnestness with which he asked his questions. I think that the Minister should not be too much on the defensive. It is not as though this Question or the speeches which have been made are attacking. I stress that word.

There is a certain puzzlement. If one looks at the words of the Question, one sees that it asks the Government, to reconsider their policy of supplying arms to nations which deny human rights". We could have a long debate on the issue of making, supplying and selling arms per se, but what is bothering the House—and I think it is bothering a great many people, as it has been referred to more than once in other speeches—is the feeling, perhaps without absolute evidence, that some of the arms which are made by people in the factories of this country are being sold to nations and regimes, if not directly then indirectly, and are then used in some of the horrifying incidents that we see on our television sets.

I am certain that the people who work in the Enfield small arms factory will share my unease at the possibility that some of the weapons that they make, and make well, are, by dereliction on the part of the Government—I do not say deliberately—finding their way into the hands of despots and dictators. Those workers have a good reputation of which they are proud.

The Question invites the Government, if not to come clean, to come a little cleaner than they have in the past. The previous speaker, and others, made fair points. We want to know why it is not possible for us to be told, and the country to be told, a little more about this corner. We are not speaking about national security. We are referring to what the Government are commercially satisfied they are able to do.

I shall condense much of what I wanted to say and simply refer to the points made by my noble friend Lord Hatch. He invited the Minister to respond to the plea made by Amnesty International. I shall not repeat it, but it simply relates to being satisfied that we are fully aware of the publicity, and so on. I am sure the Minister's advisers will have given him something to say on that point.

I did not have much difficulty in getting a long list of countries which are virtually prohibited from receiving arms and countries which are published as being supplied with arms transfers from Britain and other countries. The bible for this is the Export of Goods (Control) Order. It contains a schedule which lists countries that shall not receive arms. I then went to another source, a government agency, and was able today to obtain a long list of countries which are supplied with arms.

I am not in the business of trying to score points. I understand not the Minister's difficulty but the difficulty in a shifting situation of always matching what it is one wants to do or believes should be done when there are changes either in control, policy or action. My attitude tonight is not to accuse—with a capital "A"—the Government on a great many matters which they should answer for. However, when one considers the behaviour of some governments and some regimes that we believe this country is supplying with arms—the Minister can deny it, but some of the countries have been mentioned—frankly I am certain that the Minister will be appalled to learn that in some countries there are ordinary human beings like ourselves who are being terrorised.

Illustrations have been given from all sides of the House. I do not have personal experience but I have been deeply impressed by the sincerity of all who have spoken, including the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. Although I did not agree with some of his premises and conclusions, undoubtedly the noble Lord's speech contributed to making this an earnest debate.

If the premise of this Question is right, the Minister must answer this question. Why we are selling arms to countries which the Government are satisfied from all the evidence are denying human rights? We have a responsibility to ask that question, and the Minister has a responsibility to try to assure us with his answers.

Both this House and the other place have very good records of raising issues, but the Government do not have a good record of satisfying the questioners. The Minister may say that that is our style, but in none of the contributions to the debate this evening have I detected what I call a real partisan speech. They have been based on genuine, sincerely held unease at something for which collectively we may be responsible.

Reference was made to Nicaragua. Will the Minister take on board the fact that, since we have a close relationship with America (and rightly so), we cannot stand idly by if we know that America is party in Nicaragua to actions for which we believe we should rightly have received severe criticism should we have committed them? I should like to remind the Minister that as late as 27th June last year the International Court of Justice ruled that the United States of America had violated international law by training, arming, equipping, financing and supplying the Contra forces, or otherwise encouraging, supporting and aiding military and paramilitary activity in and against Nicaragua.

Not only are we right to be uneasy on the grounds of association with a country whose actions have been condemned and which persists in those actions, but we are open to the accusation that we act in exactly the same way. We are supplying arms to many other countries which have régimes that are guilty of actions that we cannot condone.

I am very conscious of the lateness of the hour. I had intended to give your Lordships a number of illustrations but all the questions that are legitimate for me to ask have already been put by other noble Lords. I honestly want the Minister to be helpful to the House. We have stayed late and are entitled to fair answers to what I believe are fair questions.

11.26 p.m.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I intended to begin by staggering to my feet and protesting that I was exhausted, which indeed I am, but I think that that would be a shameful proceeding in the context of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and his tenacity when asking his Question and sitting through the debate this evening.

We in Britain enjoy a degree of individual freedom and a respect for human rights of which we are justly proud. This respect of individual freedom and for the rights of citizens against the authority of the state is an integral part of our constitutional parliamentary and legal traditions. Partly because of this and partly because it is something with which we have all grown up, we tend to regard this state of affairs as part of the natural order of things. It is therefore right and proper for us to remember that many people throughout the world live in countries in which their governments do not share this fundamental concern for human rights. I want therefore this evening to outline briefly what Her Majesty's Government, in company with other like-minded governments, are doing to promote human rights throughout the world and then go on to explain how we seek to ensure that our defence sales activities are fully compatible with that concern for human rights.

The Government of course are firmly committed to the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms and deplore all violations throughout the world, wherever they may occur. The United Kingdom plays an active role in international human rights fora, including the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which opened its 43rd annual session in Geneva on 2nd February and the CSCE Review Conference currently under way in Vienna. We also regularly make our views known on human rights issues when meeting Ministers or representatives of countries where such violations OMIT.

Our human rights concerns are naturally shared by our partners in the European Community. In recent years we have made an increasing number of joint démarches with them in third countries and have expressed our joint concern in common statements at the UN and in the CSCE. Foreign Ministers of the Twelve set out their principles in this field in a statement issued on 21st July 1986, a copy of which is in your Lordships' Library.

However, it is not enough merely to express concern. We must use all the powers at our disposal to try to convince other governments of the fundamental importance of these matters. It may be superficially attractive by way of a salve to our own conscience to say that we will not have any dealings with a particular government in a country where human rights are being violated. But such an approach does nothing to help the victims of oppression in that country. Indeed, I believe that such an approach is basically misguided since it ignores our fundamental duty to use all the powers of peaceful persuasion at our disposal.

But let us be clear that this involves us in dealing with people and governments of whose activities we may sometimes profoundly disapprove. Indeed, it involves us in using the whole range of our diplomatic, economic, commercial, military and cultural contacts to emphasise the importance which we attach to the observance of human rights.

Britain is uniquely well placed to do this. We are a member of the European Community, a leading member of the Commonwealth and a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council. Britain still has a world currency and the second largest body of overseas investment after the United States. We are also a major trading nation and a major exporter of defence equipment in the world, along with the United States, the Soviet Union and France.

I make no apology for Britain's major role as an arms exporter since our activity in this field enables us to extend our diplomatic and political influence in a way which I believe is genuinely beneficial to the furtherance of human rights. It is in my view right and proper that we should be involved in helping our friends to contribute to their own security whether internal or external. Indeed, successive British governments have supported the sale of defence equipment whenever this is compatible with the United Kingdom's political, strategic and security interests. In political terms, the supply of equipment to friendly nations often backed by military advice, training and support, underlines our concern for their security and helps them to strengthen their ability to resist aggression. In economic terms, defence sales make a significant contribution to our balance of payments and sustain more than 100,000 direct and indirect jobs.

Most importantly, however, the customers for our defence exports are sovereign states which are fully entitled to acquire arms to protect their independence and to exercise their right of self-defence. It would be wrong for the United Kingdom to seek to deny to other states the right which we exercise ourselves. This does not mean, however, that the Government allow arms to be exported indiscriminately. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, finds all that so funny.

As a major exporter of arms and related equipment, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that we have a special responsibility to ensure that so far as possible we do not supply arms which are likely to be used for the violation of human rights or result in an escalation of regional conflicts.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, what I find funny is this Government claiming that it was in the interests of peace and the right of sovereignty to supply arms to Argentina and training to Libya.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I am grateful for that explanation from the noble Lord.

As I emphasised earlier, we authorise arms sales only where these are compatible with our political, strategic and economic interests and where these are consistent with our international obligations. We pay particular attention to whether arms exports might increase the degree of tension in an area or might be used for internal repression.

In the light of these various considerations, there are a number of countries to which we do not export arms or related equipment under any circumstances. For example, we do not sell arms to Argentina, Libya, South Africa, including Namibia, and Soviet bloc countries. I should perhaps also add that in the case of South Africa, we not only comply with the mandatory UN embargo on arms exports but we also comply with a voluntary UN Security Council Resolution 558 which prohibits the import of arms, ammunition and military vehicles from South Africa.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, how on earth can the Minister reconcile the high-minded principles that he has enunciated with the fact that we were prepared to sell weapons to Argentina so long as there was a military regime in power in that country but deny them when there is a democracy in power?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord may have forgotten that there has been a sea change in our relationship with Argentina, when of course they invaded the Falkland Islands in 1982.

In addition there are a large number of other countries where we permit arms sales only on a caseby-case basis after the most careful and rigorous scrutiny, taking into account both the potential for exacerbating regional tensions and the human rights situations in the countries concerned.

In the case of Iran and Iraq our defence sales policy reflects our declared impartiality in the conflict and I made our position very clear in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, yesterday afternoon. Since the beginning of the conflict we have not supplied any lethal equipment to either Iran or Iraq. In 1984 that policy was tightened and refined into the present ministerial guidelines which, as I explained yesterday, prohibit the supply of any defence equipment to either side which would significantly enhance their capability to prolong or exacerbate the conflict. We have also restricted arms sales to Israel since June 1982 in direct response to the Israeli invasion and continuing occupation of Lebanon. We have also restricted any arms exports to Angola. In Central America we have called for arms reductions and have placed severe restraints on our sales of arms to the region in view of our support for the Contadora peace process.

There are, in addition, a large number of other countries where human rights considerations dictate that we take special care in considering applications for the export of arms. In the particular case of Chile, for example, while we are prepared to permit the export of certain items of equipment for external defence, we take particular care not to sanction the export of any equipment which we judge is likely to be used for internal repression. Similarly, in other countries where there is concern over human rights, arms exports are scrutinised on an individual case-bycase basis to ensure that such exports do not contribute to the violation of human rights in those countries.

It is, of course, inevitable that, as a major arms exporter, we have to make difficult decisions in borderline cases on whether to permit particular exports in response to legitimate demands from governments for equipment to safeguard their external defence and to maintain public order, or whether to refuse supply on the grounds that the equipment might be misused and thus contribute to a violation of human rights. Such decisions are not easy and I would not suggest that we necessarily always get the balance exactly right in every case. What I would emphasise, however, is that all proposed arms exports to overseas countries are carefully considered on an individual basis and that the human rights situation in the country concerned is one of the principal considerations in deciding whether or not to sanction any particular export.

Perhaps I may now turn briefly to some of the points that have been raised during the course of this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for example, asked me about the position with regard to Indonesia, and was particularly anxious about the supply of Hawk aircraft to that country. Our understanding is that the Hawk aircraft are not used in East Timor. Suggestions of this kind that equipment we have supplied to Indonesia has been used for internal repression have not so far as we are aware been substantiated.

The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in his opening speech referred to the question of South Africa, and indeed was kind enough to write to me in advance of the debate giving me warning of the point that he planned to raise. I find it difficult to offer specific comment on the Armscor allegations without more detail. For example, it is not clear that the smuggling to which the noble Lord referred had in fact taken place through the United Kingdom. It might have been some other country. We believe that the arms embargo has generally been effective. Recent cases involving action by HM Customs and Excise include the Coventry case in 1985, where five British subjects were found guilty of breaching customs regulations, the Berox case in 1985, and the Clement Shaw case in 1986. These were dealt with under the so-called compounding procedure.

I turn again briefly to the question of Chile, which the noble Lord, Lord Rea, raised at some length. I understood him to say that he had recently visited that country. We of course share the noble Lord's concern about human rights abuses in Chile. We frequently make that concern clear to the Chilean Government both bilaterally and in concert with our EC partners. On 4th December we voted in favour of a resolution at the UNGA criticising Chile's record. That will be considered again at a current session of the UN Commission on Human Rights.

As regards HMS "Glamorgan", her sale to the Chilean Navy was entirely consistent with our policy. If I may say so, the noble Lord's imagination slightly ran away with him when he suggested something to the effect that that vessel could be used for bombarding the civilian population from her mooring in Valparaiso Harbour.

The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, referred to the question of Turkey. On the subject of human rights in that country, I can assure your Lordships that we follow the situation carefully, paying particular attention to allegations of violations. We have raised our concern on those issues with the Turkish Government on numerous occasions. During the Turkish Prime Minister's visit to the United Kingdom last February, the Prime Minister made a particular point of raising human rights. Mr. Ozal, who came to power only in December 1983 and who cannot be held responsible for events before then, showed himself to be well aware of the importance of making further progress. In our view he is genuinely seeking to improve the situation which he inherited. Moreover, the current position needs to be seen against the background of anarchy—with over 3,000 people killed and over 30,000 people injured—that existed in Turkey in 1980 when the military took over.

I should like to turn briefly to the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea, about the position in Morocco. As the noble Earl will appreciate I cannot comment on any specific arms sales, but I should emphasise that all arms exports to Morocco are examined on an individual basis. The human rights situation in that country and the war in the Western Sahara are two of the factors which are taken into account in deciding whether to sanction any particular export. However, as the noble Earl recognised, British arms exports to Morocco are very limited and we are by no means a major arms supplier to that country.

Some of your Lordships will no doubt continue to disagree as to the wisdom of certain decisions in relation to arms exports to particular countries. Nevertheless, I hope that I have said sufficient tonight to convince your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government attach very great importance to the question of human rights and that in administering our defence sales policy we take full account of the right and proper concern for human rights which has been so eloquently expressed in your Lordships' House tonight.

Lord Hatch of Lusby

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he has not answered the specific question which I asked him. How does he explain the action of the British Government on 22nd November at the World Bank when they voted in favour of a loan to the Pinochet regime when even the United States abstained on that vote?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, if the noble Lord cares to table a Question on that matter, I or another Minister will be happy to answer it.

House adjourned at sixteen minutes before midnight.