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 Three
Section F Supergun
Chapter 3 Government Knowledge - January 1989 until December 1989

Excerpt:
FORGEMASTERS ENGINEERING (1989)

F3.93 According to a Government document entitled ‘Iraqi Gun Project: Chronology of Events’, *156 Forgemasters Engineering Ltd participated in the Nottinghamshire Chamber of Commerce trade mission to Iraq in June 1989. The British Embassy provided briefing to Mr Birtles of Forgemasters about Iraqi commercial opportunities. On 13 July 1989, Mr Birtles telexed the Embassy in Baghdad to obtain information about the Iraqi “State Organisation for Technical Industries” (SOTI) from whom he had received an enquiry about a large order for steel forgings. The Embassy advised him “that SOTI was nominally under the Ministry of Industry and Military Manufacturing, and probably had close connections with defence-related projects.” On 2 August 1989, Forgemasters Engineering Ltd submitted an ELA for consideration by the Government. The ELA was given the number 1A-8209/89. The covering letter from Forgemasters addressed to the DTI said that the ELA was “for rough machined parts for gun barrels”. It also appears from the letter that Forgemasters had been advised by the DTI to make their offer to supply the equipment subject to the granting of an export licence. *157 The “precise purpose” for which the goods were to be used was stated to be “military defence”. The nature of the “ultimate user’s business” was said to be “armaments”. The value of the goods specified in the ELA was said to be £6,520,730.

F3.94 The ELA was discussed at the IDC meeting on 25 September 1989. *158 The minutes recorded that the MOD had requested drawings in respect of this ELA. These were considered at the meeting and it was agreed, subject to “final confirmation by MOD experts”, that the ELA should be recommended for refusal. On 10 October 1989, Mr Barrett put up a submission to the APS to the Minister (DP) recommending refusal. In support of his recommendation, Mr Barrett drew attention to the fact that the ELA covered the supply of rough machined parts for armaments manufacture and that the drawings “which supported the ELA show that the parts consist of components including barrels for the manufacture of large calibre guns of up to 155mm”. The proposed ground for refusal was “lethality”. *159 By minute dated 16 October, the APS to the Minister said that Mr Clark was content with all the recommendations made save that in respect of Forgemasters. The Minister had therefore asked for further details of the rationale which had led the MODWG to recommend refusal. *160

F3.95 In a reply dated 19 October, Mr Barrett said:

“...2. The MOD WG and IDC’s approach to all ELAs to supply equipment to either country has always been to consider first of all whether the equipment fell [foul] of the first guideline, that “We should maintain our consistent refusal to supply lethal equipment to either side.” Ministers have always accepted that this covers not only equipment which by its very nature is lethal, but also equipment which falls into this category by association, for example spares for main battle tanks or fighter aircraft, the sole purpose of which is to act as a weapons delivery platform. In this particular case, you will recall from my submission that the drawings of the parts involved .... showed that they consisted of components, including barrels, for large calibre guns ....” *161

On 25 October, the APS recorded that Mr Clark was content with the recommendation in the light of Mr Barrett’s explanation. *162 On the same date, he informed the DTI of Mr Clark’s endorsement of the recommendation. The ELA was refused on 3 November 1989.

Endnotes:

*156 - The chronology went through a number of drafts. I am citing from a draft which appears to have been submitted to Mr Peter Lilley in November 1990: DTI/141.2.9888 at 9924-34 (see paragraph F4.75 infra)

*157 - DTI/119: Letter from Forgemasters to the DTI dated 2 August 1989

*158 - FCO/6.1.97 at 98

*159 - MOD/30.2.11

*160 - MOD/30.2.159. See also paragraphs D6.227 to D6.248 supra for cases where Mr Clark disputed the recommendations of officials.

*161 - MOD/30.2.169

*162 - MOD/30.2.205. Mr Barrett’s reaction was “Whoopee!”

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