House of Commons Hansard Debates for 28 Feb 1990

Column 275

Storm Damage (Government Assistance)

3.32 pm

Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West) : I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,

"the time limit on Government assistance towards storm damage costs."

The matter is specific, in that it refers to the terms of the Bellwin scheme, under which, after councils have met a certain threshold cost of damage repair, the Government provide 75 per cent. of the further costs. We all know the limitations : many things that we think should be covered are not--for example, the 4 million lost trees. There is no help with replanting trees or with homes that have been engulfed, and pensioners receive no help with rebuilding fences and walls.

Today I am concerned only with the time limits of the scheme. Under the Bellwin scheme, except in north Wales, only work completed by 31 March this year qualifies for Government assistance. Even if the damage took place on 30 March, the repairs would have to be completed by the 31st. Many areas in all parts of the country have suffered from the recent storm chaos. Homes have been engulfed by floods ; there has been severe damage to buildings, sea defences and communications. We cannot be sure that we will not face more such damage in the next couple of weeks.

The matter is urgent because councils are already at their wits' end trying to complete January's repairs. Now they have been hit by these most recent storms, when their own direct labour organisations and the independent contractors are already tied up trying to deal with previous remedial work. Councils have only four weeks from Saturday to find contractors, negotiate contracts and complete the work.

It is not possible to comply with their arbitrary deadline. Storms do not tidily occur well before the end of the financial year, so that full cost of uncompleted work could fall on next year's poll tax payers. Councils and victims of the storms need this arbitrary and unrealistic deadline lifted, and we should debate the matter urgently.

Mr. Speaker : The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,

"the time limit on Government assistance towards storm damage costs."

As the right hon. Member knows, under Standing Order No. 20 I have to announce my decision without giving reasons to the House. I have listened with care to what he has said on this matter, but, as he knows, the decision that I have to take is whether to give the matter precedence over the business set down for today or tomorrow. I regret that in this case the matter that he has raised does not meet the requirements of the Standing Order and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Column 276

Points of Order

Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will have noticed in today's Hansard a written answer by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) in reply to a question from me in relation to possible local income tax rates in Scotland. I received that answer at 7.15 last night, after leaving a Committee. I know that it was not available on the board at 6 o'clock because I took other mail from the board at that time. I have here a news release from the Scottish Conservative party in the name of Mr. Brian Meek, the leader of the Conservative group on Lothian regional council. It starts by saying :

"Commenting on the approximate rates of local income tax released today".

That clearly relates to the question and answer that are in Hansard today and which I received at 7.15 last night. The press release is timed just after 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon. It is quite clear that the Scottish Conservative party and Mr. Brian Meek were given before I got it the information that was meant for me. That is a serious breach of parliamentary etiquette. It is not the way in which Ministers should act.

It also raises the more important constitutional issue of the very worrying relationship between the Scottish Office press department and the Tory party press office in Scotland. While a mistake may have been made on this occasion, it could only have been made if the press office in the Scottish Office gave special privileges to the Tory party in Scotland that it does not give to any other political party in Scotland or to any organisation there. I should be grateful for any help and guidance that you can give me on this matter, Mr. Speaker.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Thehon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is correct in thinking that a mistake was made yesterday. I am glad to repeat to the House the apology that I have already made to the hon. Gentleman. There was a breakdown in communications. It was believed that the written question had been answered and that the information was in the public domain. I therefore very much regret that the written answer did not arrive on the board until 6.45 last night and at the Library at 6.30 pm. I shall take steps to ensure that this mistake is not repeated.

Several Hon. Members : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : Order. I am not certain after that apology whether there is much more to be said.

Mr. Donald Dewar (Glasgow, Garscadden) : Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not making something out of nothing. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for his apology. He made it in personal terms which I entirely accept. However, I am genuinely worried about the possible repetition and what is suggested about the methods that are used. It would be in the interests of everyone if we accepted the principle that a written answer is the property of the hon. Member who put down the question until the time that the answer is in his hands. We want an assurance that the Scottish Office

Column 277

will look closely at its methods and make very sure--cast-iron copper-bottomed sure--that the Scottish Conservative party is not getting the kind of flier that clearly occurred in this case.

Several Hon. Members : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : Order. I will hear Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I sought yesterday at Question Time to catch your eye on five questions but was unsuccessful. Having listened to your response to the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) when he disrupted questions today with points of order, may I take it that, if I had disrupted questions yesterday, you would have given me advice as to the question on which I might be called?

Mr. Speaker : The hon. Lady is being a little too sophisticated. She obviously does not come very often into Scottish questions, during which there is a good deal of chat between both sides of the House.

Mr. Norman Hogg (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am glad that the Leader of the House is in his place, because this point concerns the transfer of questions from the Scottish Office to other Departments. It is difficult to understand what is going on. You were kind enough to call my hon. Friends the Members for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), who had questions on the Order Paper for answer today. My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston tabled the following question :

"To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, how many old age pensioners in Scotland"--

Mr. Speaker : Order. Is this not just an extension of Question Time? [ Hon. Members : "No."--] Order. I say to the House and to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) that I am constantly being urged to speed up the rate of progress in Question Time, and I try to do that, in the interests of those who have questions high on the Order Paper. I cannot possibly expect to get in every hon. Member who wishes to be called.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Hogg : The point that I am making, Mr. Speaker, is about the transfer of this question by the Scottish Office to another Department. If I repeat the question to you, I think that you will agree that it is pertinent to the Scottish Office and has nothing to do with any other Department. It was :

"To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many old age pensioners in Scotland are liable to pay only 20 per cent. of the poll tax."

That question was transferred. Neither I nor my hon. Friends understand that.

That decision was conveyed to my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston in a letter from somebody called Catherine McGoldrick. That is a highly improper practice. The question was in order and should have been dealt with by the Scottish Office. It is not acceptable for Scottish Members to be treated in this way when other questions are being tabled by English Members.

Column 278

Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman has had his say. This is not a matter for me to understand, either. I do not transfer questions--that is a matter for the Ministers concerned. I am not responsible for such things.

Sir Hector Monro (Dumfries) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Notwithstanding what you said about Scottish Question Time, because of the numerous points of order from Opposition Members, we reached only question No. 14, which is unfair for those in the first 25. Will you make it clear to the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, that all points of order will be taken after questions, not during them?

Mr. Speaker : Points of order are taken at the correct time, which is after applications under Standing Order No. 20. Points of order arising during Question Time must be taken then if they need my immediate attention. I am sure that the House will accept however that, in a way, they are self-policing.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to reflect further on the inevitable difficulties caused to our procedures if, as is the case, a junior Minister in the Scottish Office is also chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland, because he is covering the same geographical area. In those circumstances, what confidence can hon. Members have that other political parties in Scotland are being treated equitably with the Conservative party by the Scottish Office?

Mr. Speaker : That is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This relates to written questions. An interesting suggestion was made--that written questions should be the property of the hon. Member who has tabled the question until such time as that hon. Member has possession of the question. You will be aware that hon. Members often do not pick up written questions until late in the day, and that questions are also supplied to the media. Therefore, before making a decision on that suggestion one must recognise that that system would not work because of the way that this place operates, and consequently that is a request which cannot be honoured.

Mr. Speaker : The point that was raised was about the availability of the question--that the question should have been available at 3.30.

Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are aware that I would not raise a point of order with you unless it arose out of a serious intervention, as was the case at Question Time. It was suggested that I had an interest to declare. Normally I would have brushed that aside, but in view of the strictures levelled by a senior Committee of the House on the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Browne) and the fact that our proceedings, especially at Question Time, are well televised and noted by the electors of Scotland, I wish wholeheartedly to declare my interest, which is--

Mr. Speaker : Order. It is not necessary for interests to be declared during Question Time.

Mr. Douglas : My integrity was impugned by a Conservative Member. I am happy to declare that I am withholding payment of the poll tax, as is Mrs. Douglas. We are doing so in the interests of standing beside those who cannot pay.

Column 279

Mr. Speaker : Order. What I say to the hon. Member--I say it to the whole House--is that if we have supplementary questions from a sedentary position, Ministers tend to answer them, and that delays our proceedings.

Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During Question Time, the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) raised the question of the treatment of defaulters under the community charge. He is a well publicised defaulter. Should he not have declared his interest?

Mr. Speaker : That is not a matter of order for me.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 16 MARCH Members successful in the ballot were :

Mr. Timothy Raison

Mr. William Hague

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Ordered,

That European Community Document No. 9903/89 on accounts of insurance undertakings be referred to a Standing Committee on European Community Documents.-- [Mr. Fallon.]

Column 280

Security Service Act 1989 (Amendment)

3.47 pm

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Security Service Act 1989 to provide that a complaint may be made to the Security Service Tribunal in respect of the actions of the Service whether or not the complainant has been the subject of inquiries by the Service ; to widen the orders of reference of the Tribunal to include investigation of complaints about any activity of the Service, provided that the Tribunal shall be satisfied that such complaints are neither frivolous nor vexatious ; to require that reports on certain categories of investigation shall be laid before Parliament ; to give Members of Parliament a right of access to the Tribunal in matters directly affecting them or their constituents ; and for connected purposes.

The long preamble to the Bill represents an honest, serious stab at lessening the chances of the recurrence in future of what generically we can call the Colin Wallace affair. In plain language, an enhanced social service tribunal might act as some deterrent to the kind of thing that happened to the Wilson and Heath Governments in the 1970s--set out by Wilson in his evidence to the Royal Commission on the press in May 1977-- happening to a Kinnock or, for that matter, to a Baker, a Patten or a Heseltine Government in the 1990s.

I have never indulged in blanket criticism of the security services. The late Sir Maurice Oldfield and others have been friends but, equally, prima facie it seems that elements of the security services have run amok. The proposal in my Bill is about making all elements of the security services accountable.

The tribunal route to accountability has its attractions. The tribunal is a filter. It can refuse to countenance the frivolous or vexatious. Equally, when confronted by a book such as Paul Foot's "Who Framed Colin Wallace?"-- or, in my opinion, Captain Fred Holroyd's "War Without Honour"--the tribunal would surely say, "It is our job to look at this stuff properly." The cases should not be time-limited ; the tribunal should be able to investigate as far back as it deems necessary.

The tribunal is already in existence, so I am not suggesting setting up some expensive new apparatus. Its members are men and women with the necessary familiarity with the security services and their modus operandi. Lord Justice Sir Murray Stuart-Smith, Mr. Justice Simon Brown, Sir Richard Gaskell, last year's president of the Law Society, and Sheriff John McInnes are all familiar with security matters. In the Wallace case, a tribunal should call Sir Percy Cradock, chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, and Sir Christopher Curwen, security co-ordinator, to ask the reasons for their advice. It should also call Mr. Dennis Payne.

The tribunal members are presumably considered sufficiently reliable to handle delicate and highly classified information. Assuming--and it is a whopper of an assumption--that the House of Commons really wants to find out the truth of what occurred in the Wallace affair, I am not enchanted by the alternatives. You yourself judge, Mr. Speaker--rightly, in my view-- that the Privileges Committee is not a suitable body to conduct an investigation of what happened a quarter of a century ago and 15 years ago, and the subsequent concealment.

Should any hon. Member be interested, I can explain further--from personal experience of being hauled before the Privileges Committee and questioned by the late

Column 281

Duncan Sandys, Elwyn Jones and others--why the Privileges Committee should not become involved in a Wallace-type affair. I can also explain from personal experience, having given evidence before the Franks committee for one hour and 55 minutes, why I do not believe that such a committee--the committee considering the Falklands consisted of the Lords Barber, Lever and Watkinson, Sir Patrick Nairne and my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees)--is the ideal set-up.

At one time, I supposed that the Security Commission was a good vehicle for an investigation, but a friendly letter from its distinguished chairman and Law Lord, Lord Griffiths of Govilon, made it clear that he could act only on a reference from the Prime Minister. The House can judge how likely it is that that would be forthcoming. As for the type of inquiry held under David Calcutt QC, I heard the master of Magdalene college, Cambridge, say on the radio that he would stick precisely to his terms of reference, and that only the decision of Parliament could widen its scope.

Nor am I happy about the investigation by the Select Committee on Defence. Select Committees have many virtues, but politicians who want to keep their political noses clean with colleagues--of any and every party--are not the most impartial of investigative inquiry practitioners when the political chips may come down. None of us who heard it in the Committee Room will quickly forget the supercilious stonewalling of Sir Leon Brittan when he was asked direct questions by members of the Defence Select Committee.

As for parliamentary questions, whether on account of the Osmotherly rules or plain bloody-minded obstruction, the cat-and-mouse saga on Wallace suffered over the past three years by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and myself is a disgrace to parliamentary democracy. All we ask for are some truthful and candid answers, but the resolution of the issue by means of parliamentary questions is about as likely as a quick solution to Jarndyce v. Jarndyce.

Let me give some examples of the advantages that a tribunal would have. Were Army intelligence services and MI5 really unaware of homosexual abuses at the Kincora boys home before 1980? Did General Leng order his intelligence staff to alert the police as early as 1974, after they had shown him a dossier naming the men and boys involved, and, if so, what happened? Those are some questions that the tribunal could ask ; I share the widely reported distaste of Sir Michael Quinlan at the fact that nothing was done.

The tribunal could ask whether Colin Wallace's document of 8 November 1974 was a forgery, as suggested by the Hughes report. I understand that Judge Hughes is very embarrassed about that. It could also ask whether the Prime Minister's office is vulnerable to burglary, which is not a trivial question. On 24 July last year I asked the right hon. Lady :

"how many documents were received in relation to Colin Wallace and sent by or on behalf of Colin Wallace to No. 10 Downing street for onward transmission to the Hughes inquiry into the Kincora boys' home ; how many were sent on to Judge Hughes ; and what are the reasons for the difference between the two figures."

The Prime Minister replied :

"A file of papers relating to Mr. Colin Wallace was submitted to my office on 1 November 1984, but was returned to the sender on 24 November. No complete record of the

Column 282

documents was retained. No question arose at that stage of the papers being intended for onward transmission to the Hughes inquiry. When it was subsequently requested that the papers should be sent to the inquiry, such documents as had been copied and retained were duly made available."--[ Official Report, 24 July 1989, Vol. 157, c. 439. ]

The tribunal should be empowered to examine such questions as whether that short answer contains three grave errors of fact. First, in his letter of 30 January to the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall), the Minister of State for the Armed Forces conceded that the Ministry of Defence "have no reason" to doubt Mr. Wallace's assertions that the file was not returned to him but that a copy of the file was returned. I do not want to get thrown out for bad parliamentary language, but if I were to say the category that that would come under, I should be suspended for five days.

Secondly, that means that the original was retained, so a complete record of the document was retained. A similar comment applies to that.

Thirdly, we now hear from several Ministers that no documents of any importance were made available to the Hughes inquiry. Indeed, Judge Hughes made it clear that he did not see any documents from the Prime Minister's office.

What happened to the originals of those documents? The Minister of State for the Armed Forces said that no explanation has come to light. Governments really ought not to lose documents of that sensitivity. A tribunal such as I suggest could examine whether the files were stolen from No. 10 Downing street ; and if so, by whom and for what reason. The copy which was returned to Mr. Wallace's friend, Mr. Holroyd, was passed to his Member of Parliament, the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). The hon. Gentleman subsequently reported to the police that the file has gone missing after being locked up in his House of Commons office. It reappeared mysteriously several days later, 30 miles away in the hon. Gentleman's constituency office.

All those matters should be looked at. When Monday's issue of The Times reported that the Cabinet Office is solemnly engaged in an examination of the bizarre allegation that MI5 has been using premium bond cheques, supposedly issued by ERNIE for paying freelance agents, it is really high time that the House of Commons did something. My proposal is sensible, cautious and practical. An honest tribunal of distinguished people and capable lawyers should be able to look at the Wallace case, the Holroyd case and, if necessary, the extraordinary business of ERNIE paying out money--as printed on page 2 of The Times, which is supposedly a major paper of record--and to find out what is going on in this country. My proposal for a tribunal is democratic ; it is not unduly expensive, it is practical and effective.

Question put and agreed to.

Security Service Act 1989 (Amendment)

Mr. Tam Dalyell, supported by Mr. Norman Buchan, Mr. Terry Davis, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Derek Fatchett, Mr. Martin Flannery, Mr. Doug Hoyle, Mr. Ken Livingstone, Mr. Kevin McNamara, Ms. Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Chris Smith and Mr. Robert N. Wareing, presented a Bill to amend the Security Service Act 1989 to provide that a complaint may be made to the Security Service Tribunal in respect of the actions of the Service

Column 283

whether or not the complainant has been the subject of inquiries by the Service ; to widen the orders of reference of the Tribunal to include investigation of complaints about any activity of the Service, provided that the Tribunal shall be satisfied that such complaints are neither frivolous nor vexatious ; to require that reports on certain categories of investigation shall be laid before Parliament ; to give Members of Parliament a right of access to the Tribunal in matters directly affecting them or their constituents ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 April and to be printed. [Bill 86.]

Column 284

Royal Air Force

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Fallon.]

3.58 pm

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark) : Nineteen-ninety is the 50th anniversary of the battle of Britain. Throughout the year, in different parts of the nation, there will be formal commemorations of those events of 1940, culminating in a major parade and fly-past over London in September. In these circumstances it is a particular privilege to be able to make my own tribute to the courage, determination and skills of the Royal Air Force, past and present and the House will carry that anniversary in the forefront of its mind during our debate this afternoon.

I suggest two reasons in particular. The first is the uncertainties in the international situation. For the first time in that period--indeed for longer, because it was clear from the time of the Munich crisis who our enemies were and where the battles would be fought--the familiar certainties of a clearly identified threat, a traditional confrontation, appear to have diminished.

The policies that the West has collectively pursued, and the international institutions that we have developed, have guaranteed us peace and security and freedom and prosperity. The people of eastern Europe now want to share our success. The challenge facing the West is how to accommodate their aspirations without jeopardising our own achievements and, above all, our security.

While the apparatus of Communism and of the Warsaw pact is disintegrating, we retain firm foundations on which to build. We have robust and healthy institutions--the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the conference on security and co-operation in Europe, the Western European Union and the European Community--within which we can co-ordinate our work towards a stable and lasting security order in Europe.

Political and military changes must go hand in hand. The current negotiations on conventional armed forces in Europe are of particular importance. They are an indication of the good faith of the East in reducing its overwhelming superiority in conventional armaments, and a CFE agreement will be a major step towards the new order that we are seeking.

The second reason is even more relevant. As everyone knows, the battle of Britain was a very close-run thing. There were two points when the attrition rate of aircraft and skilled aircrew was such that our survival-- and thus the survival of western democracy as a whole--was in jeopardy. That crisis can be directly linked to the neglect--founded in optimism, in parsimony and in political cowardice, for some of which the House of Commons cannot escape blame--of the early 1930s. [Hon. Members :-- "It was a Tory Government!"] Certainly ; I do not deny that. With that recollection in our minds, I am sure that the House would agree that we must--with the Royal Air Force of all the services--guard against a repetition of those mistakes. I propose to refer, first, to the operational achievements of the RAF in the past year, then to discuss the procurement aspect for the future, and finally to touch on certain personnel matters. The Royal Air Force continues to play a full part in the United Kingdom's military commitments outside the

Column 285

NATO area, with forces stationed in Belize, Cyprus, the Falkland Islands and Hong Kong. Aircraft of the air transport forces maintain regular support to those garrisons.

In addition to those continuing commitments, Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft have deployed to Oman on a series of training exercises with the Sultan of Oman's armed forces.

In March last year, the United Kingdom was asked by the United Nations, at very short notice, to send personnel to Namibia. A six-man air operations team was dispatched and, for the first three months of its deployment, it helped oversee the arrival of military and civil aircraft bringing in the various national contingents and their equipment and supplies.

This year, Royal Air Force aircraft will again be deploying to the far east to take part in a major exercise under the five-power defence arrangements. Those arrangements bring United Kingdom forces together with those of Malaysia, Singapore, Australia and New Zealand. Royal Air Force participation will include Tornado F3 and GR1 aircraft, together with tanker support, and underlines our continued commitment to the arrangements and the importance that we attach to the area.

In addition, the RAF has played a significant role in disaster relief. Following the passage of hurricane Hugo through the eastern Caribbean, it was involved in the provision of urgent assistance to a number of the Leeward Islands which had suffered damage. RAF Hercules shuttled over 49,000 lb of freight and 400 passengers from Antigua to Montserrat and St. Kitts. In addition, those aircraft carried personnel of the Bermuda defence force to the British Virgin Islands to assist in the restoration of essential services there. The Royal Air Force has also taken part in relief work in the United Kingdom following the January gales. RAF Hercules performed the particularly valuable task of carrying electricity-generating equipment to parts of the country left without power. Since Monday, when a sea wall was breached at Towyn, north Wales, four RAF search and rescue helicopters have airlifted 75 people from the town. RAF mountain rescue teams have also joined the police in helping more than 500 people to safety.

The RAF continues to play a vital role in more traditional search and rescue operations at home and abroad. In 1989, some 900 people were rescued in the United Kingdom alone. Some hon. Members, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller)--who is not in his place--have expressed concern at the recent redeployment of military SAR assets. As we expected, coverage over the country as a whole, particularly at night and in bad weather, has been improved. I am glad that these misgivings have proved unfounded.

The House will wish to congratulate the RAF on its achievements over the past weekend in going to the aid of injured passengers aboard the stricken Cypriot ferry the Baroness M. Following a call from the ship to the Cyprus marine radio station, the RAF rescue co-ordination centre in Cyprus scrambled three Wessex helicopters of No. 84 squadron and a visiting Nimrod from No. 201 squadron. Fifteen casualties were winched from the ship and taken to Larnaca international airport for onward transport to hospital.

Column 286

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) : Can my hon. Friend confirm whether the RAF has been able to establish the nationality of the gunboat that attacked this unarmed ferry on the high seas? Obviously that information would be of some interest to the House, not least from the point of view of the safety of other shipping in the area.

Mr. Clark : My understanding is that the gunboat carried Syrian markings.

The year 1989 was a special one for the Red Arrows. It was the team's silver jubilee year and it culminated in an open day air show, held in October at Scampton. Royal Air Force aircraft and display teams from France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Switzerland, as well as the Red Arrows, displayed their skills to an enthusiastic crowd, some of whom had come especially for the event from distant parts of the world. On those occasions when it is possible to send the Red Arrows abroad, they act as a marvellous demonstration of the quality of British aircraft as well as the excellence of the pilots who fly them. Such displays have a wider role to play in enhancing British prestige and trading prospects in those places.

Next Section

Home Page