Return to an Address of the Honourable the House of Commons
dated 18 July 1996 for the Appendices to the Report of the Inquiry into the Export of Defence Equipment and Dual-Use Goods to Iraq and Related Prosecutions laid before The House on 15 February 1996*

Volume Two
Section D Arms and Defence-Related Exports to Iraq
Chapter 7 Other Allegations of Illegal Arms Exports to Iraq

Excerpt:
BAGHDAD INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION

D7.63 On 13 January 1989 an application was made by BMARC for AWP clearance in relation to “various equipment for [the] Baghdad International Exhibition.” *85 The application was added to the list of AWP applications for consideration at the MODWG meeting of 8 February 1989. The lists were distributed on 1 February 1989 to the members of the MODWG. *86

D7.64 On 8 February 1989 the application was duly discussed by the MODWG. Lieut-Colonel Glazebrook attended the meeting and made a manuscript note, “New Rules”, against the entry of the BMARC application on his list. “New Rules” referred to the Minister (DP)’s ruling that “any equipment exhibited must come back to UK after the exhibition.” *87 The ruling had arisen from an IDC recommendation that United Scientific Holdings plc be granted clearance for a number of items of equipment to be exhibited at the exhibition. A minute dated 2 February 1989 from Lord Trefgarne’s APS to DESS2 stated that “Lord Trefgarne however wished it to be made quite clear to USH that these licences were solely for the purpose of the exhibition and the equipment must come back to the UK.” *88 This “ruling” had been discussed at a meeting on 6 February 1989, attended by, inter alia, Mr Barrett and Miss Johnson (RM1c). In a minute dated 10 February to Miss Johnson, *89 Mr Barrett stated:

“2. It became clear at the meeting that, in the absence of any extraterritorial UK controls under which HMG could insist upon the return of any equipment exhibited, Minister (DP)’s ruling meant that no functioning hardware could be exported for the exhibitions. In discussion it was agreed that UK firms’ exhibits, given the international nature of the exhibitions, should be limited to unclassified level and could include only graphics, sectioned dummy or inert dummy equipment, models, videos and brochures....

4. Minister (DP)’s agreement in principle to UK participation in the exhibitions was also caveated by the need to ensure that it is made clear that UK participation did not in any way imply HMG’s willingness to agree to the supply of any of the equipment either to the host government in particular, or to any other country attending.”

D7.65 An internal Astra memorandum dated 24 February 1989 from Mr J McNally to Mr J G Sellens and entitled “Info Re Baghdad Exhibition” stated that the writer had spoken to “Publication Clearance at the MoD” and that “no actual hardware would be permitted” at the Baghdad Exhibition. *90 The memorandum recorded that the reason for this decision was a “ministerial edict” and that the writer had been told by the official at the MOD that “most of the items we proposed to take were OK, eg sectioned cannon, sectioned ammunition, dummy rounds were acceptable because they could not be used as weapons”. The writer noted in the memorandum that he did “not know whether this means an export licence is unnecessary” and had “asked shipping to investigate”. The final paragraph of the memorandum said “I have written to [the official at the MOD] asking for urgent clearance of the hardware...”

D7.66 Mr Barrett responded to the minute of 2 February by a minute dated 6 March 1989. In his minute Mr Barrett referred to the Minister (DP)’s agreement “in principle that equipment could be exhibited at the Baghdad International Exhibition for Military Production .... subject to export licences being obtained, that the licences were solely for the exhibition and that the equipment must come back to the UK.” *91 Mr Barrett went on to explain:

“Unfortunately, companies cannot ever absolutely guarantee to bring equipment back from an exhibition; nor can they, in legal terms, be made to bring it back. Although they could be given a ‘temporary’ licence, DTI legal advice is that the ‘temporary’ caveat has no standing at law. In the light of this and the Minister’s ruling MOD officials advised companies earlier this week that they should not take equipment to the exhibition. Subject to approval, they could, however, take unclassified brochures, videos, models etc, but with no guarantee that they would be allowed to sell it to any country, including the host country.... The advice was intended to be helpful because there is little time left to companies to obtain export licences, book and pay for space, and make shipping arrangements ....”

Having considered Mr Barrett’s minute, the APS to the Minister (DP) replied to Mr Barrett on 8 March 1989 stating that, in the light of Mr Barrett’s advice, other companies wishing to exhibit equipment at the Exhibition could do so, “subject to the granting of the relevant export licence which both the Interdepartmental Committee and subsequently Ministers, have to approve on a case by case basis.” *92

D7.67 On 21 March Mr Barrett sent a minute to Lord Trefgarne *93 seeking approval of ELAs for equipment to be exported to the exhibition. The minute referred to an IDC meeting held on 14 March which had discussed the need to obtain IDC approval of the ELAs. Mr Barrett explained that “The IDC recognised that 7 April was the deadline date for shipment by air (the deadline date for shipment by land having already passed), and agreed in principle to allow equipment to be exhibited, subject to scrutiny by the MOD Working Group, and subsequently Ministers, to ensure that only equipment was exhibited which complied with current Ministerial guidelines.”

D7.68 Mr Barrett’s minute of 21 March went on to record that “The MODWG met on 16 March, both to consider the latest batch of export licence and AWP applications for Iran and Iraq, and to consider a list of the equipment which companies wished to display at the Baghdad exhibition.” A copy of the list was attached to the minute. Mr Barrett explained that the list also included “exhibits which consist solely of graphics, sectioned and inert dummies, models and brochures” which did not require export licences. The list included 24 entries detailing various graphics, sectioned dummies and inert dummies which BMARC proposed to display at the Baghdad Exhibition. The list did not include any BMARC hardware. It appears, therefore, that BMARC did not pursue the AWP application made in January 1989. The Inquiry has no evidence that BMARC applied for or was granted any export licence for the purpose of exhibiting its equipment at the Baghdad Exhibition.

Endnotes:

*85 - MOD/24.1.257 at 273

*86 - MOD/24.1.257 at 273

*87 - MOD/24.1.317

*88 - MOD/24.1.295 at 297, see paragraphs D3.170 and D3.171 supra

*89 - MOD/24.1.317

*90 - AST/102, Appendix III, p. 68

*91 - MOD/24.2.55. The minute was principally concerned with whether BAe could take the Hawk trainer to the exhibition. See paragraph D6.36 supra. See also paragraphs D3.170, D3.171 and D6.419 supra

*92 - MOD/24.2.95. On 9 March, at the request of Mr McDonald, Lord Trefgarne’s APS asked Lord Trefgarne “to agree that ELAs can be cleared at official level”. Lord Trefgarne did not agree. He said that he wished to see all ELAs for the exhibition. See paragraph D6.419 supra

*93 - MOD/24.2.133

* The Full report is available from The Stationery Office Ltd., PO Box 276, London, SW8 5DT.