Salisbury Democracy Alliance

Tag: arms sales

  • Democracy Café: January

    January 2024

    It was probably not surprising that the Post Office scandal should be one of the chosen topics for our first café of 2024. After two decades, the persecution of nearly a thousand subpostmasters (male and female) burst into public consciences with the transmission of an ITV drama Mr Bates vs the Post Office. Despite extensive coverage, someone noted, in Private Eye, Computer Weekly, the BBC on the radio and on Panorama, and the Guardian, the scandal had failed to excite public interest to any degree and certainly not in parliament. 

    The government has suddenly woken up following the outrage highlighted in the ITV drama and was proposing a law to offer mass invalidation of the sub postmasters’ convictions. This will be debated in parliament next week (w/c 15th). The question posed therefore was what are the implications of the government’s proposals to carry this out? Would it set a precedent which might have unfortunate consequences for our constitution? This had generated a lot of concern for example from Dominic Grieve, a former attorney general. 

    One comment was this was an example of ‘heart over head’ and perhaps it would be better to let things quieten down before pushing through legislation which could have momentous effects. To counter this it was noted that the people affected had already waited two decades for justice during which a number have died without having been exonerated and four had taken their own lives. 

    The basic question was ‘what instrument do you use to put things right?’ People were convicted on bad evidence. A problem is that there were some who had defrauded the Post Office who would also be exonerated. It was suggested that the bills of attainder – not used since 1820 – might be a mechanism however, this was used to dispossess (attaint) people of their rights and property not to put it right. 

    The important role of whistle-blowers was introduced. Such people received little support and took enormous risks by revealing corporate wrong-doing. There were several comments which noted the failure of some many elements of the state apparatus to deal with matters of this sort. The judiciary had failed, partly because the corporations could fund an army of high powered lawyers whereas the defendants were individuals with few if any resources, but secondly for allowing the Post Office to sue on the basis of a loss of money but offer no evidence of actual theft. It was simply a system which was hideously unfair and unbalanced. 

    But to the main point of the debate: the dangers of parliament overturning the judicial process. It was noted that we have a dual system and a separation of powers which has been supremely important in protecting our liberties. The example was quoted of Boris Johnson and his attempt to prorogue parliament which was ruled illegal by the Supreme Court. More recently, the government had produced a bill to say that human rights in Rwanda were satisfactory and it was a safe country when the Supreme Court had decided that there was significant evidence it was not. Both were examples where the government had acted in defiance of the law and reason. Passing a new law – however well intentioned – risked giving powers to the legislator we may come to regret. 

    Anger was expressed at the ‘system’ as a whole i.e. the entire paraphernalia of governance. Parliament, government, MPs (with a few honourable exceptions), much of the media, the courts and the legal process, all had played a part allowing the scandal to proceed. Putting things right was being done at a snails pace. Someone described the judicial element as ‘rotten’.  Nobody has apologised and nobody has – so far at least – been held to account. It was noted that legal aid has all but disappeared leaving the ‘wronged individual’ powerless against corporations and other well resourced organisations able to swamp courts with batteries of lawyers. 

    Better scrutiny was needed it was suggested and taking the prosecution rights away from the Post Office needed to happen. Independent investigation was sometimes needed. However, this would require the CPS to be better resourced since it would, like the legal system as a whole, be unable to handle the increased case load. Indeed, if the subpostmasters were to continue using the legal route, the under resourcing would result in yet more years of delay. The contrast with aircraft safety was noted. Pilots have long had the ability to report problems (like near misses) anonymously thus avoiding career risks. Also, major accidents are thoroughly investigated independently. 

    Needless to say the Horizon system was mentioned and the fact that Fujitsu has failed to account for itself. This led to a discussion of large IT systems and their part in this scandal. Large IT projects were inherently flawed it was suggested. Specifications were constantly changed. And we have AI to look forward to …

    As to causes, the bonus system for directors and others at the Post Office was a factor. Basically a reluctance to admit problems – especially systemic ones – which might be costly and hit profits and hence bonuses. Also a belief in the infallibility of IT systems. The contrast between commercial and government IT systems was noted. The former were more incremental: they were introduced and subsequently modified in line with consumer involvement and interaction. Government IT projects tended to be huge and introduced in a ‘big bang’ which meant problems and glitches were present from the start. 

    Did we come to a conclusion on the main question? Truthfully, no. The subpostmasters had suffered a serious misjustice and people wanted it to be put right – and quickly before yet more of them die. But allowing the government to side-step the judicial process was a worry. There was an overriding feeling that so many parties to this scandal had been found wanting and had failed lamentably, that to give them yet more powers was a cause for concern. 

    The second half was around the topic of arms sales and why do we continue to sell arms to a variety of countries? [the implication being they were dubious countries]. 

    The introducer of the question noted the sales of arms to Ukraine, and Israel (a large number of other countries could be named) and that these sales seemed to be an accepted fact and no one seems to question it. One person said they were conflicted: although they were against many aspects of arms sales, supplying Ukraine which was under attack seemed different from supplying Israel and their bombing in Gaza. It was noted that an Israeli arms company, Elbit Systems, has a number of plants in the UK, one in Bristol and another in Portsmouth.

    It was pointed out that countries have a need to defend themselves and thus a need to develop arms and armed forces to use them. The issue was about selling them. Campaign Against the Arms Trade*, CAAT has long campaigned on this issue. It was pointed out that the government does have controls on what arms are sold to what states in a system of licensing and end user certificates. However, in recent years, more weapons are being sold under ‘open licenses’ where these controls do not exist. 

    The contrast with Northern Ireland was noted and the prolonged period of violence during the Troubles. Despite bombing attacks in Northern Ireland and on the mainland, the conflict was eventually resolved, not by bombing the Republic, but by negotiation and dialogue leading to the Good Friday agreement. 

    Psychological factors are frequently ignored. For example, the feelings in Russia which has endured a series of invasions from the West over the centuries of its history, about the expansion of NATO up to its borders. This was part of the motivation for the invasion of Ukraine. 

    The paradox of the world’s biggest sellers of arms were also the members of the UN Security Council was pointed out. So while they were debating issues of ceasefire in Gaza in the UN, they were busy supplying weapons to the world. On the topic of weapons, the question of small arms was sometimes overlooked. It was these weapons which caused so much misery in the world especially to women and children who were almost always the biggest sufferers in these conflicts. The problem here though was that control of these sales was almost impossible since there were many producers of Kalashnikovs around the world. So although we might wish to clamp down on UK sellers and brokers, they can be sourced easily from other countries. If we don’t sell them, someone else will. 

    It was pointed out on the other hand that arms sales were part of wider government policy issues and British interests for example oil and arms supplies to the Saudi government. Supplying weapons to the Saudis was it was argued, in our interests. It was noted that arms sales came with conditions. 

    It was perhaps unsurprising that Israel emerged in this context with the war in Gaza in full spate. It was noted that after bombing a refugee camp, it was claimed that the ‘wrong weapons’ had been used. [We did not discuss this but there are a number of articles available on line concerning the use of what are termed ‘dumb weapons’ i.e. unguided munitions which are less precise than the guided ones. It is these which have caused so much collateral damage]. It was also claimed that Israel was using weapons from US stores in the country. 

    How significant were arms sales to our economy in any event? [Comparable figures are quite hard to obtain and what are or are not arms sales is ambiguous. One estimate is £86bn making the UK the second biggest supplier of arms in the world and the GDP (2022) was £2.27tn. So sales are just under 3.8% of the economy. It is claimed that there are 135,000 people employed]. It was suggested that if we ceased to sell arms to the world it would not be of great consequence to our economy.  

    There was discussion about whether international development was a better use of our resources. This was reduced from 0.7% of the economy to 0.5% around 2 years ago. This was part of a wider discussion about removing the anger and helping countries to improve their water supplies for example. It was noted that many countries did not sell arms. 

    The issue of morality was introduced which the subtext to the topic being discussed and that there were people trying to develop a better world. Arguably, we did not discuss this adequately – perhaps a topic for the future. 

    A surprising comment was the fact that Costa Rica has no military force. It is one of only 21 states in the world not to have one.

    Finally, we could not have a democracy café without mention of the media and it was commented that we have need of more neutral reporting. Two sources were mentioned: Bylines and Declassified. 

    Peter Curbishley

    *Disclosure: the writer is a member

    Books mentioned:

    The Blunders of our Governments, Anthony King and Ivor Crewe, 2013, Oneworld. A large section is devoted to IT failures and one of the points made is the irrelevance of parliament in the process. Decisions were made by ministers and civil servants and parliament told later or not at all, p361f

    [Not mentioned but relevant] The Shadow World: Inside the Global Arms Trade, 2011, Andrew Feinstein, Hamish Hamilton.

  • Democracy Café

    September 2023

    Met during a blisteringly hot day, probably a record breaker for September, and we were pleased to welcome two new members to the fold. The most popular topic concerned the state of the prison estate. The situation in our prisons had made the news this week following the escape of terror suspect Daniel Khalife from Wandsworth prison a couple of days ago where he was being held on remand. Coincidentally, he was recaptured while we were meeting. Many statements about our prisons were made which few could disagree with. We were reminded of Douglas Hurd’s comment that prison simply made bad people worse.

    The rapid movement of prisoners around the estate meant training programmes often went uncompleted making rehabilitation largely ineffective. The high absence rate – said to be 30% at Wandsworth – combined with high staff turnover, meant the proper management of prisoners and their rehabilitation was compromised. The language of some of our judges at sentencing drew some criticism. The majority of our prisoners were from poor backgrounds and often had poor literacy skills. This was not to excuse their behaviour but did seem to point to a range of social issues behind crime. Many were ‘damaged people’ someone said.

    The Nordic model was mentioned several times. The example of the Netherlands was quoted and the fact that the country was busy selling off its prisons and reducing the number of prisoners. That has not led to an increase in serious crime levels which remained largely unchanged. This seemed to demonstrate quite clearly that the notion of ‘prison works’ is fallacious. Other Nordic countries were doing much the same.

    So why did we stick to the prison works model and continue to pack our prisons with more and more people sometimes two to a cell? We have just under 86,000 prisoners in England and Wales and the highest per capita prison population in Western Europe (House of Commons statistics [accessed 9 September]). Insanity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results. Yet we go on packing our prisons. Why is this?

    The role of the tabloids immediately came up and several thought that it was political suicide to seek to reform the system, reduce the prison population or try other sentencing options. Any politician daring to reduce sentences, and hence the size of the prison population, would likely face immediate screaming headlines suggesting the public would not be able to venture safely out of their homes or be murdered in their beds, followed by the swift departure of said minister to the backbenches or Northern Ireland. To spend money on the estate and to replace Victorian era prisons was deemed almost impossible some thought summed up in the quote “you’re going to spend money on the man who robbed me not on my pension”.

    As ever in these debates, the causal factors are what interests. Politicians follow the tabloids and the tabloids follow public opinion. So why do the public adhere to the idea of more draconian sentences and a desire for vengeance? One answer was a need to educate the public. If the facts of prison life and our high rate of recidivism was made more evident then maybe people could be weaned off the kneejerk ‘prison works’ model. That prisons are ‘holiday camps‘ is still a sentiment expressed including by some politicians. All was not gloom however and it was suggested there was a slight shift in tabloid comments towards victims and away from the criminals. The New Zealand model of confronting offenders with victims was mentioned. But changes in opinion can happen and the example of homosexuality was put forward: where once it was a crime and homosexuals suffered persecution and criminalisation, the Sexual Offences Act (1967) changed the climate considerably in favour of toleration. In the context of prisons it was strange that the Howard League for Penal Reform seldom gained a mention.

    Rory Stewart was mentioned in connection with his attempts, as the Minister concerned, at reform by reducing the number of pointless short sentences and introducing more rehabilitation efforts. He did not last long in post. The privatisation of the probation service by his predecessor Chris Grayling MP was a disaster and had to be undone. Why was not more use made of parole? someone asked.

    It was noted that even in Republican states in the US, positive reforms can take place. A cross-party consensus was clearly needed in the UK to ‘depoliticise’ this issue. Select Committees can also be effective it was noted. So this session did end with a soupcon of hope: that the tide of ignorance promoted by the likes of the Daily Mail – seemingly reflecting public opinion – may not in fact be the majority view and with education attitudes might be encouraged to shift. It was perhaps a topic which a Citizens’ Assembly could tackle? Bringing together evidence and experts is just the kind of exercise which a CA could bring about change.

    So overall, a sense of despair mixed with some optimism that things can change over time the key being sufficient numbers of the public to realise that the current system, in addition to being expensive and inhumane, was simply not working.

    Our second topic was something of an abrupt change and concerned Saudi Arabia and the planned visit by Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) to the UK. Should we treat Saudi Arabia as a partner? was the question. The proposer listed the problems of the country: the poor treatment of women and gays; the lack of free speech; the war engaged by Saudi in the Yemen and later in the discussion, the murder and dismemberment of Jamal Khashoggi, allegedly on the orders of MBS. It was pointed out that Saudi has now executed 100 people so far this year.

    The reason for this courtship as someone expressed it was twofold: Saudi was a major purchaser of our arms and secondly, they were a major oil producer which, following problems with Russia, was an important factor. Since arms sales were one of the nations growth industries, good relations with countries like Saudi were important. It was not just arms and oil someone said. Saudi was a kingdom and there were close relationships between MBS and our royal family with gifts of valuable bloodstock between the two.

    In relation to the Khashoggi murder, it was pointed out that the CIA had carried out a number of murders over the years so it was not all one-sided. We claim to have a special relationship with the US so how genuine was the outrage expressed about the Khashoggi murder at the time?

    In relation to arms sales, the UK’s role in promoting arms sales at the DSEI exhibition was noted. Also, it was often said that ‘if we didn’t sell arms, others would’ but a recent report by Campaign Against the Arms Trade questioned that. It reveals that sales of arms by both Russia and China have fallen recently: in Russia’s case because of the war in Ukraine which is consuming large amounts of military materiel, and by China because it is building up its store of weapons probably in preparation for an invasion of Taiwan. Further details can be found on the Salisbury Amnesty site in which these issues are discussed in more depth.

    The nub of this debate concerned government’s role in relations with other countries especially those where human rights were weakly observed or not observed at all. To what extent does – or should – morality be a consideration? We need to sell arms it seems if we want money to spend on schools and hospitals. We need oil to run our economy and to enable us to drive our cars. Saudi has a big role to play in each. Can we afford to adopt a moral position is the key question? As with the previous debate someone suggested we needed to look for that small event which might lead to significant change – a hint of the butterfly effect if you will.

    In sum, and not just in relation to Saudi, there was a real risk to democracy someone thought, perhaps a topic for a future debate. We did agree it was a hard subject.

    Finally, with a little time to spare, we briefly discussed the conviction and sentencing of Lucy Letby the nurse convicted recently for murdering babies in a neo-natal ward in Chester. The proposer made the point it was obvious she was an extremely sick young woman. There has been nothing about a psychological assessment or her future treatment. She will have to go on Rule 43 because of the likely risks from other prisoners.

    There was a call for her to be executed as an ‘evil person’ but this was not supported by those present. There was a risk of starting to find excuses for her behaviour: some people were just ‘evil’.

    Someone with hospital experience said that a feature of neo-natal units is that they are based on team working since premature infants needed constant attention. They thought others must have noticed which in fact did happen to an extent. It was noted that the hospital concerned was more interested in their reputation rather than investigating the incidents properly. Although every hospital was different, it was an example of ‘silo working’. Those who had medical friends did sometimes note the hostility that is sometimes expressed by clinical staff towards managers. There did seem to be a gulf between them and the Robinson programme on the BBC some years ago was mentioned where this hostility was amply illustrated.

    There did seem to be a similarity between the NHS and the prison system. Both organisations needed reform and investment yet did not get more than token activity by a succession of ministers none of whom seemed able, or were in post long enough, to tackle the major issues involved.

    Three interesting debates.

    Peter Curbishley

    Note: a claim about how Vancouver sentenced people was made but we have not been able to verify this.