Arbuthnot backs arms industry campaign
R.A.McCartney | 10.12.2007 00:04 | Analysis | Anti-militarism | Other Press
James Arbuthnot is the Tory chairman of the all-party Commons defence committee. As a government minister he helped conceal the facts when there were allegations of major fraud on UK arms contracts. This week he's taken a vocal lead in the arms industry's campaign to get even more taxpayer's money. Meanwhile no one is even talking about the continuing problem of fraud on arms contracts.
Several news organisations this week have published articles about supposed cuts in military spending (Notably "Cabinet split over £15bn proposed defence cuts", Guardian, and
“Treasury seeks £15 billion cut in defence” Telegraph.co.uk, United Kingdom – both on Tuesday December 4 2007). It would be nice to think the government might cut £15 billion from the UK's bloated annual military budget. After all, we have the second highest military spending in the world, when we only have the fifth largest economy. Unfortunately, what was under consideration was not “cuts” in military spending, but how big an increase there would be. The Telegraph informed us that “Although Gordon Brown recently announced a £2.8 billion rise in defence spending by 2010, Government pledges to replace the Trident nuclear deterrent and build two new aircraft carriers mean that cuts must be made elsewhere”. These “cuts” it was claimed “could be... up to £15 billion over the next decade “. Of course, it could be a lot less too. In any event, its not a cut in overall military expenditure. Its not even a cut in spending on arms procurement.
Both The Guardian and The Telegraph quoted James Arbuthnot, Tory chairman of the all-party Commons defence committee. "Now is not the time, when the public are becoming convinced that the armed forces should receive more money and support, for the government to start cutting back the defence budget”.
Anyone who's been following my recent articles on Indymedia (for example “Thatcher gave Pergau Dam arms company 'unjustifiable' £300m contract”) should aware of the 1985 BATES contract. It was one of the 20 largest contracts listed in the 1991 Statement on Major Defence Projects, issued by the National Audit Office. I've presented evidence consistent with claims of massive fraud on this contract, and clear proof of government ministers helping the the company which held the contract to escape public exposure and criminal investigation. However, I haven't previously mentioned Arbuthnot's part in this.
The government announced it had accepted delivery of the BATES System in July 1993, and the press were told a price of £300 million had been agreed. Despite this, in February 1997 the Tory minister James Arbuthnot refused to answer a Parliamentary question about the price of BATES, claiming that there were continuing negotiations. This was plainly just a device for covering up the truth. I honestly think he ought to be subject to a criminal investigation to see if he can be prosecuted for his part in the alleged BATES fraud: aiding and abetting; being an accessory after the fact; or whatever the correct charge would be.
To add insult to injury, one of the journalists who put his name to this tripe about “defence cuts” was The Guardian's David Hencke. He is aware of the issue of fraud on UK arms contracts. Indeed he wrote about BATES in "MP fears loss of Marconi papers" published on page 2 of The Guardian, March 17 1988. Dale Campbell-Savours was afraid documentary evidence supporting fraud allegations against a Marconi company was going to be destroyed. He put forward a Parliamentary motion to try to prod the MOD police into preventing this. In the last three paragraphs of this article, Hencke wrote:
“The motion also highlights MoD police enquiries into the Bates (Battlefield Artillery Target Engagement System) for the army, on which Mr Campbell-Savours has handed over information to the MoD police. It claims that the information reaching him does not come from the person GEC-Marconi say is responsible.
“Information passed to the Guardian yesterday claimed that the cost of the contract had risen from £100 million to £200 million despite it being a fixed price contract.
“The information appears to back allegations by Mr Campbell-Savours that modifications to Bates allowed the company to increase charges”.
As stated in previous Indymedia articles, official documents now substantially confirm the allegations which Campbell-Savours was making at that time. In 2004, the former head of British Aerospace confessed that the company had regularly bid for UK government contracts with the intention of making excessive profits on changes to the specification. When Kevin Tebbit, then Permanent Secretary at the MOD, was asked in February 2004 how he could be sure this was not still happening, his only response was to blame it on Cost Plus contracts. BATES was a Firm Fixed Price contract, the toughest type of contract the MOD can award. There is therefore every reason to suppose that the practise of using changes to the specification as a means to make excessive profits on UK government arms contracts is continuing.
This week also saw the publication of a report into the Nimrod crash in Afghanistan which killed 14 aircrew. The report is being used as another example of supposed inadequate military spending. For instance, in a letter to The Times David Wragg claimed “The Ministry of Defence is indeed to blame for the 14 servicemen killed in the Nimrod accident (report, Dec 5). These aircraft have been kept in service for far too long”, Wragg went on to complain about “penny-pinching” and said the MOD should have “built all-new aircraft” instead of upgrading the Nimrod.
BBC's Panorama (4/6/07) said that British Aerospace were awarded a contract in 1996 to update the Nimrod aircraft. It also said this had been delayed & that the price had doubled from £2 billion to £4 billion because of repeated changes to the specification!!!
.
“Treasury seeks £15 billion cut in defence” Telegraph.co.uk, United Kingdom – both on Tuesday December 4 2007). It would be nice to think the government might cut £15 billion from the UK's bloated annual military budget. After all, we have the second highest military spending in the world, when we only have the fifth largest economy. Unfortunately, what was under consideration was not “cuts” in military spending, but how big an increase there would be. The Telegraph informed us that “Although Gordon Brown recently announced a £2.8 billion rise in defence spending by 2010, Government pledges to replace the Trident nuclear deterrent and build two new aircraft carriers mean that cuts must be made elsewhere”. These “cuts” it was claimed “could be... up to £15 billion over the next decade “. Of course, it could be a lot less too. In any event, its not a cut in overall military expenditure. Its not even a cut in spending on arms procurement.
Both The Guardian and The Telegraph quoted James Arbuthnot, Tory chairman of the all-party Commons defence committee. "Now is not the time, when the public are becoming convinced that the armed forces should receive more money and support, for the government to start cutting back the defence budget”.
Anyone who's been following my recent articles on Indymedia (for example “Thatcher gave Pergau Dam arms company 'unjustifiable' £300m contract”) should aware of the 1985 BATES contract. It was one of the 20 largest contracts listed in the 1991 Statement on Major Defence Projects, issued by the National Audit Office. I've presented evidence consistent with claims of massive fraud on this contract, and clear proof of government ministers helping the the company which held the contract to escape public exposure and criminal investigation. However, I haven't previously mentioned Arbuthnot's part in this.
The government announced it had accepted delivery of the BATES System in July 1993, and the press were told a price of £300 million had been agreed. Despite this, in February 1997 the Tory minister James Arbuthnot refused to answer a Parliamentary question about the price of BATES, claiming that there were continuing negotiations. This was plainly just a device for covering up the truth. I honestly think he ought to be subject to a criminal investigation to see if he can be prosecuted for his part in the alleged BATES fraud: aiding and abetting; being an accessory after the fact; or whatever the correct charge would be.
To add insult to injury, one of the journalists who put his name to this tripe about “defence cuts” was The Guardian's David Hencke. He is aware of the issue of fraud on UK arms contracts. Indeed he wrote about BATES in "MP fears loss of Marconi papers" published on page 2 of The Guardian, March 17 1988. Dale Campbell-Savours was afraid documentary evidence supporting fraud allegations against a Marconi company was going to be destroyed. He put forward a Parliamentary motion to try to prod the MOD police into preventing this. In the last three paragraphs of this article, Hencke wrote:
“The motion also highlights MoD police enquiries into the Bates (Battlefield Artillery Target Engagement System) for the army, on which Mr Campbell-Savours has handed over information to the MoD police. It claims that the information reaching him does not come from the person GEC-Marconi say is responsible.
“Information passed to the Guardian yesterday claimed that the cost of the contract had risen from £100 million to £200 million despite it being a fixed price contract.
“The information appears to back allegations by Mr Campbell-Savours that modifications to Bates allowed the company to increase charges”.
As stated in previous Indymedia articles, official documents now substantially confirm the allegations which Campbell-Savours was making at that time. In 2004, the former head of British Aerospace confessed that the company had regularly bid for UK government contracts with the intention of making excessive profits on changes to the specification. When Kevin Tebbit, then Permanent Secretary at the MOD, was asked in February 2004 how he could be sure this was not still happening, his only response was to blame it on Cost Plus contracts. BATES was a Firm Fixed Price contract, the toughest type of contract the MOD can award. There is therefore every reason to suppose that the practise of using changes to the specification as a means to make excessive profits on UK government arms contracts is continuing.
This week also saw the publication of a report into the Nimrod crash in Afghanistan which killed 14 aircrew. The report is being used as another example of supposed inadequate military spending. For instance, in a letter to The Times David Wragg claimed “The Ministry of Defence is indeed to blame for the 14 servicemen killed in the Nimrod accident (report, Dec 5). These aircraft have been kept in service for far too long”, Wragg went on to complain about “penny-pinching” and said the MOD should have “built all-new aircraft” instead of upgrading the Nimrod.
BBC's Panorama (4/6/07) said that British Aerospace were awarded a contract in 1996 to update the Nimrod aircraft. It also said this had been delayed & that the price had doubled from £2 billion to £4 billion because of repeated changes to the specification!!!
.
R.A.McCartney