Letter: Thatcher's confusion

Lord Ennals
Monday 13 December 1993 00:02 GMT
Comments

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: No, I was never a prime minister, but I was a Labour minister in the Department of Defence and the Foreign Office, and a cabinet minister from 1976 to 1979. I am staggered by some of Baroness Thatcher's statements to the Scott inquiry on arms supplies to Iraq - and I hope that Lord Justice Scott is, too.

First, in view of the massive military battle with Saddam Hussein, all the lives lost and the vast public expenditure, how can she argue that the issue of British arms to Saddam was not important enough for her to be bothered with (ministers only bothered her with 'big things')?

Second, is it conceivable that intelligence reports about how UK arms exports to Iraq were being used were being kept from the then Prime Minister?

Third, would a group of junior ministers, William Waldegrave, Alan Clark and Lord Trefgarne, change government policy guidelines without consulting the Prime Minister, unless they had strong reasons to believe that she would go along with these secret changes? If they were wrong in their assumptions, why were they not sacked?

Fourth, how could Mrs Thatcher (as she then was) tell Parliament in 1987 that there had been no changes in government policy when there clearly had?

Either Lady Thatcher is admitting incompetence in handling vital issues of state (not exactly her style), or she is laying herself and the Government open to accusations of deceit and deception.

Yours faithfully,

DAVID ENNALS

House of Lords

London, SW1

9 December

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in