A JUMPED-UP PRESS OFFICER

John Redwood says Mr Mandelson's blundering over Pinochet is further proof that he is an embarrassment to the government

I DO NOT like dictators. I have no time for politicians who abuse power. There can be no excuse for torturing or murdering people who should expect protection from a civil government. It makes no difference whether this is done in the name of a left- wing or a right-wing cause. As a democrat, I do not think the end justifies the means.

I was nonetheless surprised by Peter Mandelson pre-empting both the Foreign and Home Secretaries on General Pinochet. Clearly he had not approached the Foreign and Home Offices to follow their line. It looks as if he failed to read any proper briefing on the diplomatic and legal complexities of this case before blun- dering in. In his rush to make another ges- ture towards the Left, he has left his colleagues with yet more proof that power has gone to his head.

After all, we have seen the Peter Man- delson who opposed the minimum wage converted into its champion and enforcer. We have seen the Peter Mandelson who feared Brussels social measures would damage jobs rush through the Working Time Regulations in the summer vacation. Now he pops up on television as the scourge of an emeritus dictator without so much as a by-your-leave or a legal brief.

The shadow Foreign Secretary has made clear that the United Kingdom has to fol- low proper procedure. If Spain requests an extradition, our courts must consider the case. Whatever they think personally of the General, whether they see him as the con- queror of communism or as an undesirable dictator, as the faithful friend and ally of Britain or as an exponent of a kind of poli- tics they do not like, they must consider his likely defence that he enjoyed diplomatic immunity as a senator from Chile as well as anything he and his critics have to say on the substance of the charges.

'It's not minimalism — I was burgled.' The Foreign Office must be deeply embarrassed by Mr Mandelson's crude political intervention in a sensitive diplo- matic tangle. The Chilean government is no friend of General Pinochet. Many of its members were his political opponents and suffered as a result. They do not want him extradited. They think they do have to accept the constitutional compromise which gave them the democratic govern- ment, and gave the General a life senator- ship. They are lobbying Britain to leave well alone.

The Spanish government is reported to be unhappy about the actions of a Spanish judge in seeking the extradition. They would prefer the matter to be left to the Chilean authorities, where nine charges are outstanding, but where so far they have decided to allow the General parlia- mentary immunity from them.

The Home Secretary must be even more embarrassed by Mr Mandelson's foolish explosion. This country prides itself on the separation of the judicial process from the legislative process. Even the nastiest crimi- nal is innocent until proven guilty. Every minister has instilled in him from day one in a department that he must not attempt to influence a particular court case by pub- lic or private expression of opinion. If a matter is sub judice, it is a matter for the courts. The request for extradition, if con- firmed by the Spanish authorities, has to be settled under the existing law in an unprejudiced court. If politicians do not like this situation, then they have an advantage open to no others in our coun- try — they can propose a different way of handling such cases in future by changing the law and or changing the international treaties to which we have assented. That is power enough.

Peter Mandelson said, 'The idea that such a brutal dictator as Pinochet should claim diplomatic immunity, I think, for most people in this country would be pret- ty gut-wrenching stuff.' He intended that the government should have absolutely no truck with granting diplomatic immunity to the General.

General Pinochet entered Britain on a diplomatic passport. He has done so before. He also enjoys immunity in Chile by virtue of his parliamentary office. Even Fidel Castro, no lover of the General's politics, thinks the immunity should mean something. Is it true, as the Guardian stat- ed, that the British authorities were aware of the visit long before it became public? Did they know that the General thought he had immunity at the time?

We need to know what General Pinochet and his staff were told before his present and recent visits to the United Kingdom. Was he given any assurances about his safe passage? Did his staff ask about such matters at any stage?

It has been reported recently that the Foreign Office was consulted before the arrest. Were ministers involved in this con- sultation? What conclusion did ministers reach about the arrest? Or what did offi- cials say and do on their behalf?

It is also suggested that the warrant was triggered 'after a warning from the British authorities that Pinochet was about to check out of the hospital and flee the country' (Observer, 18 October). Who delivered this warning? Had ministers ini- tiated or approved this course of action? Was there any contact between the British and Spanish authorities about this issue?

Does the Foreign Office see this an Opportunity to put some flesh on the bones of its emaciated so-called moral foreign Policy and send a message to current world dictators that there will be no safe haven for them either, should the day come when they need to wander the world in search of medical care? Does the Foreign Office think this matters more than the attitude of democratic governments in Spain and Chile?

I certainly wish to know what disciplinary action will be taken about Mr Mandelson's capacity to embarrass the government. Just a few weeks ago, he was offending most northerners with his disparaging comments about 'horny-handed sons of toil'. Now he has decided to upend Robin Cook and Jack Straw, who have to reassert due pro- cess after Mr Mandelson's wild remarks.

This is a time to remember that the Labour government of the 1970s recog- nised the Pinochet regime, and was happy for Britain to trade with Chile under Pinochet. The government would be better off seeking a more moral foreign policy by Pressurising those who are still in power and are currently abusing human rights. What are they planning for such leaders who have not retired and are not seeking hospital treatment in Britain? Ministers have to make decisions and uphold the constitution: they are not just jumped-up Press officers. Peter Mandelson is spinning himself and the government into trouble. He should concentrate on the crisis in man- ufacturing, before everyone knows him as the Minister for Manufacturing Collapse.

The author is shadow Trade and Industry Secretary.