LETTER: FLEXIBLE GUIDELINES AND SECRETIVE DECISIONS

Mr Roger Vignoles
Sunday 18 February 1996 19:02 EST
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.

From Mr Roger Vignoles

Sir: We may expect to hear Richard Needham's argument ("The price of openness is jobs and trade", 16 February) peddled with increasing frequency during the next 10 days, along with other knowing smokescreens on the lines of "it's a murky business, the arms trade". Whether or not the Government should issue guidelines on sensitive exports is a fair question, as is that of whether we wish to encourage the export of arms to unsavoury regimes. There is nothing to stop Parliament debating both issues, together with how they bear jobs in this country. But, as Mr Needham knows perfectly well, that was not the point of the Scott inquiry.

The fact is that the guidelines were in place and MPs had a legitimate right to know whether they had been changed in any way. If, as Mr Needham suggests, it was merely a matter of acting within those guidelines more flexibly, why didn't Mr Waldegrave just say so, rather than making statements to the House and writing 27 letters to individual MPs that deliberately concealed the truth of the matter?

Incidentally, Mr Needham makes an interesting Freudian slip by referring to "every minister involved in arms sales to Iraq". I thought the whole point was that they were not.

Yours faithfully,

Roger Vignoles

London, NW5

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