| Home Page |
Column 783
House of Commons
Tuesday 19 June 1990
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker-- in the Chair ]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
Hasmonean High School Bill
[Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
To be a read a Second time tomorrow.
Oral Answers to Questions
DEFENCE
Widows' Additional Pension
1. Mr. Holt : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many widows of service men killed in Northern Ireland have not received £40 of additional pension following the recent legislation.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton) : All widows of service men killed in Northern Ireland before 31 March 1973 should now be in receipt of the new tax-free special payment of £40 per week in addition to their war widows' pension. Widows of service men killed in Northern Ireland on or after 31 March 1973 do not receive the special payment, but are, of course, eligible for an attributable family pension under the armed forces pension scheme in addition to their war widows' pension.
Mr. Holt : I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. In my book, when the Government give an award of £40 to a lady who was widowed at the young age of 20, having been married for four months and who has now been a widow for 19 years, but then take away £28 of the award, because they are balancing the books, the Government's generosity is not to be applauded. Will the Government look again at that matter, bearing in mind the fact that there are only 34 such women in this country?
Mr. Hamilton : When my hon. Friend raised the matter in an intervention during the Army debate, I did not quite understand him and I apologise for that. When we legislated on the matter, the House meant that pre-1973 widows should all receive £40. I do not think that it was the intention of the House that certain women who had ex gratia payments paid between 1969 and 1973 should be in receipt of moneys above that.
Mr. William Ross : Does the Secretary of State recall from his own period in Northern Ireland just how emotive monetary compensation is to widows and members of the Ulster Defence Regiment who have suffered? Will he give an undertaking that he will properly compensate the 28 members of the UDR who were arrested for publicity
Column 784
purposes one Sunday morning during the Stevens inquiry? Will he not only compensate them for their loss because of moving house and so on, but ensure that such crazy action never happens again?Mr. Hamilton : I do not know whether compensation has been considered in that case, because this question refers to war widows before and after 1973.
Mr. Viggers : While there are always other categories of people for whom hon. Members may wish to campaign, would not it be quite wrong for us not to pay tribute to the Government's generous support for widows, for example for pre-1950 groups and for those who are now benefiting from the increased payment that was recently announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State?
Mr. Hamilton : I thank my hon. Friend for his question. What has been done has been very much appreciated. The £40 tax-free payment has gone a long way towards removing the perceived injustice.
Radar Stations
2. Mr. Ron Davies : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about radar stations in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark) : In addition to questions tabled in this House and in another place, I have received representations from many right hon. and hon. Members and from members of the public.
Mr. Davies : Given that the proposed station at Brawdy covers 7 sq miles of Pembrokeshire national park and that 35 masts are proposed, half of which will be at least 135 ft high, is the Minister of State surprised that there is widespread vocal public opposition? Will the Minister confirm that that station was initially envisaged during the era of the Reagan cold war? Now that even this Government have recognised that the cold war has ended and have started cutting public expenditure, does he agree that it should be one of the first schemes to be scrapped?
Mr. Clark : Of course, the project is subject to the exigencies of the planning process, and my Department will adhere to them scrupulously. As for the ending of the cold war, this is an essentially non-provocative measure. It is a requirement to maintain the air defences of the United Kingdom at their peak efficiency at all times, and I regard this as an entirely passive and neutral measure.
Mr. Nicholas Bennett : May I thank my hon. Friend for addressing 700 people at a public meeting in St. David's last month on this important subject? Has he considered whether alternatives to a ground-based over-the- horizon radar could be used, such as AWACS aircraft? Apart from the investigations of 166 MOD sites, what other locations have been considered?
Mr. Clark : The AWACS aircraft is an alternative means of getting the same cover, but it would mean that the majority of AWACS were deployed in one particular sector, instead of being free to be used in others. I fully accept that my hon. Friend has articulated the high level of public discontent about the proposal, but if, when the trial period ends, the radar has not been found successful, it will, of course, be removed.
Column 785
Major Weapons
3. Mr. Hardy : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions in planned provision of major weapons or weapons systems he expects to arrange during the next two years.
Mr. Alan Clark : We are examining options for change in the deployment and structure of our forces, which is likely to affect the balance of expenditure in the equipment programme ; it is too early to say what that change might be.
Mr. Hardy : Does the Minister agree that the reductions that have already been decided or that are in preparation have serious implications for industry and employment? Have meetings, consultations or preparations already commenced or is all to be left either to market forces in the United Kingdom or to perhaps redoubled and less than wise efforts to increase defence sales to the third world?
Mr. Clark : I always welcome it when Opposition Members draw the attention of the House to the industrial consequences of changes in defence policy. I often wish that they had been more outspoken when their own party argued so irresponsibly for reductions in defence expenditure. We are in constant touch with industry on that subject and confer frequently on every aspect of our procurement programme.
Sir Antony Buck : Will my hon. Friend confirm that his major consideration in any revisions that he makes will be to ensure that our armed forces are the best equipped, not only in NATO, but throughout the western world--and the eastern world as well?
Mr. Clark : I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend, whose distinguished career as a Navy Minister was characterised by that preoccupation. We intend at all times to maintain the quality of the equipment that we provide for our forces and I emphasise that the changes that my right hon. Friend is contemplating in his options exercise are not resource-driven. They arise out of a general public expectation, plus an opportunity to restructure our forces.
Mr. Menzies Campbell : Will the Minister confirm that when he considers the possibility of change, he will not allow himseld to be dictated to by the Treasury, but will ensure that the principle that he employs is that of responding to the substantial political changes that have taken place behind what we used to call the iron curtain?
Mr. Clark : Of course, the restructuring process arises from an opportunity that itself is a function of the changes in central Europe, the disintegration of the Warsaw pact and other characteristics. As the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate, the changes and restructuring will take place in consultation with other Departments and Ministers, of whom my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is one.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith : All of us recognise that, as the Minister responsible for procurement, my hon. Friend faces a difficult task. Nevertheless, in recognition of the changing circumstances, especially in Europe, may I offer him my appreciation--I am sure that this view is shared my hon. Members of all parties--of the prudent decision that he took yesterday to announce the cancellation of the order for further Tornados?
Column 786
Mr. Clark : I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. Plainly, there will be changes in our procurement programme to conform with the restructuring as it emerges. However, I should not wish the House to feel that those changes will be precipitate. Their effect will take some time to be felt. There is obviously a requirement that they should be carefully phased and take place in consultation with both industry and the forces.
Mr. O'Neill : On the last point, will the Minister of State confirm that this morning the Secretary of State expresed his unhappiness about the way in which the Tornado decision was taken? That was on the "Today" programme on the radio. Can the Minister say whether that anxiety was attributable to the Treasury or to the efforts of Minister of State for Defence Procurement?
Mr. Clark : Plainly, that is a question that should be addressed to my right hon. Friend. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to do so at any time in the next 43 minutes.
Mr. Beaumont-Dark : Does my hon. Friend accept that it is a strange world in which we live? Over the past seven years the Opposition parties have urged Her Majesty's Government to cut defence expenditure. As soon as we obey and do what we think is in the best interests of this country, and cut defence expenditure, both Opposition parties start to whinge and whine about the effects on their constituents.
Mr. Clark : My hon. Friend is right. There is a curious paradox, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I observe with some amusement. I emphasise that we are not talking about cuts. The options exercise is devoted to restructuring our forces in the light of political changes. It might be that incidental to that, resources will be released, but it is not a resource-driven exercise.
Armed Forces (Restructuring)
4. Mr. Duffy : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on the restructuring of the armed forces ; and whether he will make a statement.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King) : I have received several representations from hon. Members and from members of the public. I sought to set out in my speech yesterday the considerations that are guiding our work on "Options for Change".
Mr. Duffy : The Secretary of State will recall that during his speech yesterday anxieties were expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the way in which he is conducting the review. The need to proceed on an orderly and planned basis and to avoid arbitrary cuts was among the most polite recommendations that came from Conservative Members. Has he considered the impact of all that on morale in the services? One suspects that the professional heads of the services are kept at arm's length despite the Secretary of State's disclaimer last night. What steps is he taking to reassure the service men as well as their professional leaders?
Mr. King : The hon. Gentleman raises a serious point, which worries me very much. We face a remarkable change in the circumstances in Europe. That provides an occasion for examining options for change. That is being done in what I hope is an orderly and sensible way within the
Column 787
Ministry of Defence, by the service official staffs involved. The chiefs of staff are, of course, aware of what is happening. My colleagues and I recognise the earnest importance of letting all service men know what is proposed as soon as we are in a position to do so. We shall also inform the House and our allies in NATO as soon as possible. This is not an easy exercise. It is easy to make criticisms. We are attempting to approach the subject with the seriousness that it deserves.Mr. Brazier : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that whatever new structure is created as a result of "Options for Change", one of the highest priorities will be to make it clear to service men in all three services and at all levels that the armed forces will remain an attractive career for men and women of high calibre and that issues such as overall remuneration, opportunities for house purchase, opportunities for families to find employment and education for service children will be high on the agenda?
Mr. King : My hon. Friend takes a close interest in those matters and I commend him for it. We are anxious to ensure that in any changes and adaptations that we make, we come out with a balanced force structure and that we take proper regard not merely of front-line conditions but of support arrangements and of the conditions under which service men, who continue to be needed and whose work will continue to be important, operate. We must also ensure that they have proper opportunities for accommodation, to which my hon. Friend attaches great importance.
BAOR (Nuclear Weapons)
5. Ms. Ruddock : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the safety of nuclear weapons assigned to the British Army of the Rhine.
Mr. Archie Hamilton : We are satisfied with the safety of all our nuclear weapons, including those assigned for use by the British Army of the Rhine.
Ms. Ruddock : Will the Minister confirm, however, that serious defects have been found in the W79 artillery shell--I hope that he will confirm that that is deployed in Europe--as well as in the W88 and W69 warheads in the United States? A serious accident could occur simply if a warhead such as the W79 fell off the back of a lorry, which could result in a large spread of radiation. Is the Minister aware of the seriousness of the matter? Why have the Government been so secretive about it? Is it perhaps because the case for nuclear disarmament is now overwhelming?
Mr. Hamilton : The Government do not have to be secretive or open about that, as it is a matter of concern for the United States authorities- -they are their warheads. I am sure that the hon. Lady realises that we make our own warheads and do not have American ones.
Mr. John Marshall : Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is still a huge imbalance in nuclear, chemical and conventional weapons in Europe? Does he agree that to disband our weapons, as the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms. Ruddock) would like us to do, would be extremely irresponsible?
Column 788
Mr. Hamilton : That is absolutely right. There is still an enormous superiority of nuclear weapons held by the other side, but that would not make any difference to members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament or many Opposition Members who have always been against nuclear weapons and have not appreciated the effects of and the advantages that we have gained from the nuclear deterrent.
HMS Invincible
6. Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has made an assessment of the implications for public safety from the presence of HMS Invincible in British ports.
Mr. Archie Hamilton : The Ministry of Defence would not allow Royal Navy vessels to operate or to make port visits if we considered it unsafe to do so.
Mr. Hughes : Does the Minister accept that it is no courtesy to the people of London to allow a nuclear-capable aircraft carrier to dock for a week's visit near the centre of our most densely populated city if the public cannot be guaranteed that there are no nuclear weapons on board? Can the Minister tell the House whether-- [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Member has a right to express his views on this matter.
Mr. Hughes : Will the Minister tell the House whether there were nuclear weapons on board HMS Invincible last week when it was in Greenwich? If there were, will he give an undertaking that, in future, there will be no non-operational visits of nuclear warships to densely populated ports around the country?
Mr. Hamilton : The hon. Gentleman must be totally unrepresentative of his constituents in Southwark and Bermondsey if he is decrying the visit to the port of London of one of the finest ships in the Royal Navy. I happen to know that that visit was much appreciated by many people living in the area. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about with such a load of alarmist nonsense. We never confirm or deny whether there are nuclear weapons on ships and the hon. Gentleman should know that. We regularly practise safety routines regarding such things. If there were any nuclear weapons carried on our ships, we are happy that that would be safely done.
Mr. Jacques Arnold : Will my hon. Friend comment on the exhibitionist stupidity of the Greenpeace protestors in their small boats off Gravesend when the Invincible recently came up the Thames? Had those protestors been successful in diverting the course of that ship, considerable danger would have been caused to my constituents had it gone aground and blocked the channel. Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that it did not do so is a credit to the seamanship of the Royal Navy and the river pilots?
Mr. Hamilton : I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not know what Greenpeace was trying to achieve, but it is absolutely true that it caused great danger by its activities. That could have resulted in serious accidents, which would have been extremely regrettable.
Column 789
Mr. Corbyn : Will the Minister kindly answer the question : can he confirm or deny that nuclear missiles are on the Invincible? Does he agree that every time nuclear-armed vessels are stationed at a port, they pose a danger to the entire population? Should a fire break out on one of those ships, a nuclear dust cloud would be emitted, which could result in the deaths of millions of people throughout the country.Mr. Hamilton : I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not hear what I said earlier--we never confirm or deny that there are nuclear weapons on any of our ships. Safety routines and procedures are carried out at all the ports where such ships may go. Exercises that simulate accidents are regularly practised with local authorities. We are confident that it is unlikely that such an accident would occur, but, if there was one, we have the capability to deal with it.
Namibia
7. Mr. Robert G. Hughes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution his Department made to the United Nations transition assistance group deployed to Namibia.
Mr. Archie Hamilton : British troops, drawn mainly from 30 Signal Regiment, provided communications support for the United Nations transition assistance group deployed to Namibia from March 1989 to April 1990. In addition, the British contingent assisted the UN High Commission for Refugees both in Namibia and Angola, and supplied communications for about half the election stations during the voting that took place in November. The skill and professionalism of those service men and women deployed has rightly been praised by the authorities concerned.
Mr. Hughes : I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Will he confirm that that was only one of 12 peacekeeping activities undertaken by the British Army this year, and that every year it takes part in many admirable exercises concerned with keeping the peace in the world? Does he agree that it is strange that the British press does not seem to understand the enormous role played by the Army and that, as a result, the British public does not give the Army the credit that it deserves, simply because it does not get the coverage that its activities deserve?
Mr. Hamilton : There is a problem. We try to make sure that our chief of public relations makes the most of events as they happen. The problem is that many of them become routine activities and cease to be of great interest to the press. The Army is playing a valuable role and I know that it is much appreciated.
Environmental Protection
8. Mr. Roger King : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department is taking to protect the environment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Michael Neubert) : My Department has an important role to play in the protection of the environment, and an account of our contribution is given in this year's "Statement on the Defence Estimates". My right hon. Friend the Secretary of
Column 790
State has recently assigned to me responsibility for the oversight and promotion of good environmental practice, consistent with necessary military objectives.Mr. King : I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that it must be the aim and objective of his Department to release as much surplus defence land in the United Kingdom as possible? What progress has been made since 1979 on achieving that?
Mr. Neubert : The Department has large holdings of land, but strictly for necessary military purposes. The extent of the training that is required and the range of modern weapons lead us to need more training land than we have, although we have no major prospects of purchase in the near future. I assure my hon. Friend that when that military need lapses, we dispose of the land in question. A recent example was Gruinard island, off the west coast of Scotland, which was taken over in the darkest days of the war for protection against the then threat. When it was no longer needed, it was decontaminated by the Ministry and restored to the heirs of the previous owners in good condition ready for raising sheep.
Dr. Thomas : Does the Minister accept that the continued use of national parks for military and defence purposes is contrary to the basic objectives of those parks, which are to conserve the environment and promote public access? For that reason, will the Department now withdraw its proposal to construct a radar station in the Pembroke coast national park, reopen the many acres of Dartmoor that are dangerous to the public because of live ammunition and cease its low-flying exercises over Cumbria and north Wales?
Mr. Neubert : No. We need to use national parks, and we work closely with the national parks authorities. Where there is a proven defence need for the nation and where there are no alternative sites, we are obliged to conduct some activities in national parks. But in the course of holding land and using land such as national parks, we conserve great tracts of the countryside that otherwise might not survive.
Mr. Key : Does my hon. Friend agree that were it not for the fact that the Ministry of Defence owns large tracts of our most precious countryside, managed by the excellent defence land agent, we should not be in possession of such ecologically valuable land today?
Mr. Neubert : My hon. Friend is absolutely right and, representing Salisbury plain, he has reason to know that that is an area of countryside that is protected, rather than the reverse, by the activities of the military. For example, there are no fewer than 1, 700 ancient monuments on Salisbury plain, and operational restrictions are observed to ensure their continued preservation.
Mr. Boyes : Will the Minister assure the House, as the Labour party has, that the Government will not dump decommissioned nuclear submarines at sea? Because of the problems of monitoring and retrieval, it is an unacceptable option. Will the Minister reassure the people of this country that the Government will fully accept the London dumping convention that nuclear waste should not, in any circumstances, be dumped at sea?
Mr. Neubert : We retain the right to dump at sea, which is one of several options currently under review. Policy for
Column 791
the decommissioning of nuclear submarines remains open at present, so I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks today.Astra
9. Mr. Corbyn : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions his Department met Astra representatives in the last three years.
10. Mr. Litherland : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions his Department met Astra representatives in the last three years.
Mr. Alan Clark : Officials of my Department have met Astra representatives on a number of occasions in the past three years.
Mr. Corbyn : Will the Minister confirm that officials of his Department knew five months before the public revelations that a super gun for Iraq was being constructed? Does he accept that the main motive of his Ministry at present is to maintain trade and sales with Iraq in order to finance the re-equipment of that country's armed forces, despite Iraq's use of chemical weapons against Kurdish people in Iraq and its appalling human rights record? Does the Minister not believe that a proper relationship with the Government of Iraq would be no trade, no aid and no deals while the present repression continues against people in Iraq?
Mr. Clark : The hon. Gentleman is notorious for the company he keeps, so I am surprised that he should be so fastidious about who meets whom-- [Interruption.] I know that the House will be irritated by this, but I fear that I have to say that, in the light of charges laid against individuals and in the light of the continuing investigation by Customs and Excise, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further on those matters.
Mr. Litherland : The Minister gives no sign of shock or shame although he must have known that Astra executives informed British intelligence and the Ministry of Defence a long time before action was taken. Does not that smack of gross negligence? If there is anything to be fired, I hope that it will not be the gun, but the stupid, incompetent Ministers involved in this mess.
Mr. Clark : I am sorry, but I must refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I have already given.
Mr. Dickens : Will my hon. Friend explain why the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) who posed that question is so-- [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker : Order. I am not sure that that is the Minister's responsibility.
Mr. Dickens : Why did the hon. Gentleman pose the question about the gun in Iraq when last week, when there was a bomb in Islington, he left the Chamber before the question and returned afterwards? Mr. Clark rose --
Mr. Speaker : Order. I do not think that that has anything to do with the Minister.
Mr. Corbyn : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : This all takes time. What is the point of order?
Column 792
Mr. Corbyn : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) to make statements that he knows to be untrue?
Mr. Speaker : The House and the hon. Gentleman know that we have freedom of speech in this Chamber. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) must take responsibility for what he said.
Mr. Bell : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The parliamentary record in Hansard will reflect the views of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens). If his remarks were inaccurate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) has said that they were, he should be asked to withdraw them.
Mr. Speaker : Every hon. Member must take responsibility for what he says in this Chamber. What the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Dickens) said was a personal view, but it is not a matter of order.
Mr. Rogers : My question is quite separate from the big gun issue, so the Minister cannot plead sub judice in his answer.
What orders have been placed with Astra by International Military Services, a wholly-owned MOD subsidiary, for export to the middle east, and were those orders authorised by the Prime Minister's office?
Mr. Clark : Orders placed by my Department are commercially in confidence.
Dutch Defence Minister
11. Mr. Bill Michie : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next expects to meet his Dutch counterpart to discuss European defence and disarmament.
Mr. Tom King : I next expect to meet Mr. ter Beek when he visits the United Kingdom, at my invitation, in the autumn.
Mr. Michie : Will the Secretary of State confirm that at the NATO Defence Ministers meeting in Canada in May the Dutch proposed a unilateral withdrawal of all nuclear-tipped artillery shells and Britain opposed that? Will he further confirm that Germany and other central European nations will not have such weapons on their soil and that the Dutch are unlikely to have the strategic air-to-surface missile but that the British Government are falling over themselves to accept it?
Mr. King : No, Sir. At the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in Canada to which the hon. Gentleman refers, we agreed on the need for an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional weapons in Europe--and the agreement was unanimous.
Mr. Butcher : When my right hon. Friend meets his Dutch counterparts, will he express his thanks to the Dutch authorities for their recent prompt action in making arrests? When he gives them our thanks for helping to preserve the lives of British service men abroad, will he also offer his full support to the necessity for proper co-ordination, functional and organisational, in attacking terrorism in mainland Europe, whether it comes from Northern Ireland or elsewhere?
| Next Section
| Home Page |