§ 5.15 p.m.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Employment (Lord Strathclyde)My Lords, with the leave of the House, this may be an appropriate moment to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on export controls in relation to Iraq. On Tuesday 10th April customs officers at Teesport detained eight large steel tubes destined for Iraq which they considered might require an export licence under the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1989. Subsequently, customs obtained related documents from firms believed to be involved. Experts from the Ministry of Defence later inspected the tubes and documents and advised that all the indications were that the tubes were components of a large-calibre armament, albeit of a scale outside anything previously experienced. The tubes were therefore seized and customs are making inquiries to see if any individuals or firms within the UK have committed customs offences.
"The House will want to know that, in the summer of 1988 the DTI was approached by two of the companies now known to be connected with 41 the manufacture of these components. In June 1988 Walter Somers asked if licences were needed for the export of metal tubes to Space Research Corporation in Belgium. In July, Sheffield Forgemasters asked if licences were needed for the export of tubes to Iraq for use in the polymerisation of polyethylene, and Walter Somers in August made a further inquiry related to that contract.
"On the information available at that time, it was decided that the export licences were not needed for these goods. Until a few days ago, my department had no knowledge that the goods were designed to form part of a gun. If my department had known that purpose then it would have advised that licences were necessary, and they would not have been granted.
"The Government recently became aware in general terms of an Iraqi project to develop a long range gun based on designs developed by the late Dr Gerald Bull. The goods that were seized at Teesport, and related documents, are consistent with what is known of Dr Bull's design. Subsequent to the seizure the Government have also received information about further aspects of the gun's development. The Government are enti rely satisfied that these tubes form part of a gun and that the customs action was correct.
"I would like to congratulate customs for last week stopping the export of these parts of the gun. I understand that it will not be possible to build a Complete full-sized gun from parts that have been supplied from the UK. I hope that the House will understand that, while customs inquiries are continuing into possible criminal offences, it is not possible to go further into the details of this case."
My Lords, that concludes the text of the Statement.
§ 5.17 p.m.
§ Lord Williams of ElvelMy Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place. It is by any standards an extraordinary story. We now know that the customs were right and that the tubes were destined to make a gun—that is, if the Government are to be believed. And we assume that the Government are right. We assume that the custons acted on information obtained from we know not where. However, I shall not inquire too deeply into that.
The extraordinary part of the story is the role of the DTI over the past year or so. It is on that matter that I wish to focus. The DTI had access to the specifications of these tubes at the time and knew from Walter Somers of the export of other equipment related to the project to the Space Research Corporation —the corporation which was owned and run by Dr Gerald Bull, a noted expert in long-range guns—obviously for re-export. Are we to believe that the DTI, which had the specifications of these two pieces of equipment in its hands, did not rumble the fact that this could be an Iraqi project? Is that seriously to be believed? If so it is an extraordinary commentary on the performance of the DTI at the time.
42 I suppose that we have to believe the Statement when it says:
Until a few days ago, my department had no knowledge that the goods were designed to form part of a gun".If that is the case why did the DTI not make the proper inquiries when it knew from Walter Somers that Space Research Corporation was involved? Space Research Corporation was known to be a corporation owned by Dr. Bull which was involved, not in petrochemical equipment, but in the design of long-range guns. Why did the DTI not check who was Walter Somers' client? If it had checked, the department might have come to a different conclusion.What are we to make of the fact that the Government now say that a complete, full-sized gun cannot be constructed from the parts that have been supplied from the UK? What parts have already been supplied from the UK? Is it the case that 44 pieces of the alleged gun have already been exported to Iraq? If that is not the case what is the figure? What is the situation?
Over the last week we have had a succession of different briefings from different government departments on the nature of the object. We now know from the Government, in an official Statement, that they believe that it was a gun. This is yet another case of the DTI having failed on reasonable examination to pick up the truth when it was presented to it in June and July 1988. There have been many cases in the last year or two where the DTI has been at fault. It passes all belief that a properly organised department, with all the documents in its hands, should not have spotted that something was pretty odd about the contracts. By all means let us congratulate the customs, but let us yet again ask serious questions about the performance of the DTI and whether it is not guilty of negligence in this matter.
§ Lord Bonham-CarterMy Lords, I do not propose to repeat the very relevant questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. As he indicated, it is yet another example of total inactivity on the part of the department of utter passivity, which is what the DTI has now become. Whether it is the Fayeds or Iraq, unless someone else tells the department to do something, it apparently assumes that all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
In this case it was not as if the department was not approached. It was asked by Walter Somers in June 1988 whether export licences were needed. It was approached in July 1988 by Sheffield Forgemasters, and Walter Somers made a further inquiry in August 1988. The contracts in question were for metal tubes for the Space Research Corporation, owned and run by Dr. Gerald Bull, who, as far as I know, was not an expert in the construction of petrochemical plants. Did the department think that that was a normal commodity for him to want? Did it not consider that the export of tubes to Iraq by Sheffield Forgemasters required a certain amount of investigation on its part? When in September 1989 Astra discovered contracts for advanced propellants and boosters for a giant gun, was the DTI totally unaware of the fact? If it was 43 not, did it think that that was a perfectly normal contract for a British firm to be engaged in?
It makes one wonder what is going on in that ministry. It appears to be quite incapable of drawing conclusions from the strongest possible evidence. That is either negligence or extreme stupidity. There can be no other explanation for this amazing catalogue of events and mistakes.
§ Lord StrathclydeMy Lords, perhaps I may respond to the two noble Lords who have just spoken. Before doing so I should make the general comment that I find myself in a certain amount of difficulty. I cannot go into the details of what passed between my department and the companies involved while customs investigations are continuing. I am sure that noble Lords on all sides of the House will agree that it would be wrong to prejudge the case until that investigation is complete.
However, two specific points were raised by both noble Lords, in particular concerning the 44 pieces which have already been exported. The eight large tubes which were apprehended last week are the crucial components. We do not believe that the design can be completed without those eight tubes.
As to the point that because of the involvement of SRC the DTI should immediately have smelt a rat, I have to say that whether a licence is needed depends on the item and not necessarily on the end user. SRC, as a company, is involved in several other businesses, including purely civil businesses, as well as in the manufacture of arms.
The point that I should like to make is that the plan has been foiled. Customs have done their work. The export of the weapon has not been allowed to be completed. We should all be grateful for that.
§ 5.27 p.m.
§ Lord Boyd-CarpenterMy Lords, can my noble friend confirm what I believe he has just said; namely, that the tubes already exported are insufficient either in quality or quantity to enable the cannon to be constructed? Can he confirm that to be so? Can he also confirm that his department, quite apart from this case, will look and continue to look with some suspicion on applications for licences to export materials of this kind to Iraq given the way in which that country has behaved over the past year or so?
Finally, whatever might have been said about the Department of Trade and Industry, will my noble friend allow me to join in the congratulations to Her Majesty's customs who appear to have acted with alertness and intelligence?
§ Lord StrathclydeMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his intervention. I can confirm that it will not be possible to build a complete full-sized gun from the parts that have been supplied from the UK.
As to tightening up export control procedures, we must continue to rely on our existing checks and informative sources. The UK has an excellent record of export control. Let us not forget that we have 44 succeeded in withholding the essential components of the gun. If a similar case should arise we would use the same solution and stop the export.
§ Lord GisboroughMy Lords, to what extent will it be possible for Iraq to obtain the remaining pieces from other countries which might be prepared to supply them? Is my noble friend satisfied that no other country is likely to fill the gap?
§ Lord StrathclydeMy Lords, I do not know whether other countries are capable of creating the tubes which are missing. I suspect that Britain, which has an excellent record in that kind of development, is possibly the only country which could do so; otherwise, presumably, the Iraqis would have gone elsewhere in the first place.