Labour feels the sting of Scott's criticism
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir Richard Scott last night accused Labour and the Opposition of not doing enough to question the Government's continued use of the export laws which were applied in the Matrix Churchill case and other illegal- arms prosecutions.
In his first public speech since publication of his arms-to- Iraq report, he told Essex University's Law Society that "the story of the use of export control powers since the end of the war is a story not only of an abuse of executive power but also of a failure by Parliament". He added: "That last failure was underlined by the unopposed passage of the 1990 Act."
Avoiding mention of the political aftermath of his report and the non- resignation of William Waldegrave and Sir Nicholas Lyell, the ministers most heavily criticised, he concentrated his attack on the laws which propped up the Government's actions, calling his lecture: "Export control powers - 40 years of abuse of power."
His words will have done little to appease Labour, sensitive to suggestions that it effectively waved through the legislation that later formed the basis of the Matrix Churchill trial.
From 1945 to 1990 the Government continued to rely on laws brought in during wartime, in 1939, to control the export of goods helpful to the enemy. The laws were draconian and allowed officials to introduce whatever specific export controls they saw fit. They were never intended to apply in peacetime but, said Sir Richard, they were rigidly enforced for 45 years after the end of the war.
This policy "justifies strong criticism". Failure to put the code on a firm legal footing was "deliberate, not a matter of inadvertence or oversight. It was prompted by considerations of administrative convenience and political expediency".
Sir Richard said it could not sensibly have been argued "that the emergency which had occasioned the passing of the 1939 Act had not come to an end". This continued reliance on powers conferred in 1939 was "a continuing abuse of power."
In 1990 the collapse of the Berlin Wall and ending of the Cold War forced Whitehall officials to think again about the export laws and make them permanent. But instead of taking the opportunity to force a discussion on the whole issue, the Opposition did nothing.
The 1990 Act in effect repeated the 1939 emergency powers.
The Opposition, persuaded by the Government to wave the bill through, should have done more, said Sir Richard.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments