| Home Page |
Column 125
House of Commons
Tuesday 19 November 1991
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker-- in the Chair ]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
British Railways Bill
Order for consideration read.
To be considered tomorrow.
Torquay Market Bill
[Lords]
Read a Second time, and committed.
King's Cross Railways Bill
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the King's Cross Railways Bill may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session ; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with ;
That the Bill shall be presented to the House not later than the seventh day after this day ;
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the last Session ;
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the last Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table.
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the last Session.-- [The Chairman of Ways and Means.] Hon. Members : Object.
To be considered on Monday 25 November at Seven o'clock.
Oral Answers to Questions
DEFENCE
Royal Air Force
1. Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what he plans to do with the aircraft taken from the front-line strength of the Royal Air Force under "Options for Change".
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark) : Some will be used in fleet management or as long-term reserve ; others will be disposed of.
Mrs. Mahon : Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that surplus aircraft will not be supplied to the
Column 126
evil dictator of Indonesia? Will the discussions between the Secretary of State and that dictator on 19 September about military co-operation now be ended in view of last week's massacre in illegally occupied East Timor?Mr. Clark : I know that the hon. Lady would like to get rid of every aircraft in the Royal Air Force if she could. However, that view is not shared by the House or, I believe, by the hon. Lady's management committee. All export controls of armaments and all our customers are subject to the most rigorous control and scrutiny, as she knows. I certainly do not intend to reveal any of the discussions between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the leader of another state, as they would have to be confidential.
Mr. Wilkinson : My right hon. Friend will know that reserve aeroplanes cannot simply be trundled out of a hangar and launched into the air. What provision is my right hon. Friend making to ensure that there will be enough reserve air and ground crews to fly and maintain those aeroplanes in an emergency?
Mr. Clark : There are three categories of readiness : one month's recovery, three months' recovery and six months' recovery. As the reduction in the strength of the Royal Air Force in terms of air frames proceeds, there will be a number of crews on whom we can call should it be necessary to reactivate those aircraft.
Trident
2. Mr. Mullin : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the total estimated annual operating costs of Trident for the first five years of operation.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton) : We do not expect the running costs of the Trident force to be significantly different from those of Polaris.
Mr. Mullin : That is about £2 billion for the first five years. Is not it madness to be spending billions of pounds on a missile system which does not deter and may not work--and when we have no one at whom to point it? Cannot the Secretary of State think of better uses for the perhaps upwards of £20 billion which will be spent on the Trident missile system in capital and investments?
Mr. Hamilton : I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman should come out with those remarks about the deterrent in which we are investing just when his party is purporting to change its policy. Presumably he is about to resign the Whip, or something of that sort, from the Labour party in this place.
The nuclear deterrent has been very effective in ensuring the security of the west over the past 40 years. We are now left with major nuclear arsenals in Russia, the Ukraine, Byelorussia and Kazakhstan and there is great uncertainty hanging over those areas. It is a wise precaution to ensure that we continue to have the nuclear deterrent which has served us so well in the past.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend : Does my right hon. Friend agree that Trident really is the queen of the defence chessboard and that many of us believe that the price that we have to pay for it is well worth paying? Will he confirm that there is a good argument for at least one European country having nuclear weapons?
Column 127
Mr. Hamilton : Yes, indeed. Spending on defence is a way of reducing the chances of war. To that extent, the nuclear deterrent is very good value for money. I hope that the day when European defence does not rely solely on British and French deterrents will not come to pass, but there is clearly a risk that it could happen some time.Mr. Douglas : Having made a comparison with Polaris, how does the Minister reconcile having a strategic deterrent which is primarily devoted to NATO purposes when NATO is abandoning nuclear weapons to a considerable degree and when NATO per se would have no Soviet target for Trident?
Mr. Hamilton : As the hon. Gentleman will know, NATO is not abandoning nuclear deterrents. Some ranges of nuclear weapons are being eliminated and we totally support that. All the pronouncements from NATO of late have been to the effect that we regard nuclear deterrents as an important part of the armoury of NATO forces generally.
Helicopters
3. Mr. Speller : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to replace the Wessex helicopter used for search and rescue work with Sea King or other 24-hour capability helicopters.
Mr. Alan Clark : I hope to be in a position to make an announcement early next year.
Mr. Speller : I thank my right hon. Friend for anticipating an announcement some time next year. Is he aware that, off the north Devon coast, our search and rescue capacity is 30 minutes away at RAF Brawdy? Excellent though that capacity is, on a cold wintry night it is too far away. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to provide not only the extra helicopters that are needed but the extra security that is desperately needed all the way across the Bristol channel.
Mr. Clark : My hon. Friend poses several questions on the subject. I hope that they will not be interpreted as questioning the adequacy of existing services. The House will be interested to know that, in the six months since my hon. Friend last questioned me on the subject, there have been 992 call-outs from RAF Chivenor and 591 people have been assisted. I pay tribute to the RAF crews concerned and to their skill, dedication and courage, often in very difficult circumstances.
Mr. Menzies Campbell : Does the Minister understand that what he has just said underlines the public's high regard for search and rescue services provided by the Royal Air Force, particularly in a constituency such as mine, where RAF Leuchars is situated? It is well known that the Government have received an offer to privatise search and rescue services. In the light of what the Minister said and the undoubted expertise of the Royal Air Force in such matters, will he undertake that that expertise and high public regard will not be lightly thrown away?
Mr. Clark : I am grateful for what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. Our commitment in air-sea rescue is to those at risk. We shall continue to meet the criteria laid down by the Department of Transport. What is the most cost-effective and efficient way of achieving those ends remains to be decided after proper examination.
Column 128
Mr. Ian Bruce : What plans does my right hon. Friend have to continue air-sea rescue from Portland in my constituency? Does he have plans to extend operations during night time as well as day time? When is it envisaged that the new Merlin helicopter will be on site in Portland?
Mr. Clark : I have nothing to add to the present state of knowledge on plans for Portland and I have no knowledge that the EH101 utility variant is to be used in the air-sea rescue role, at least in the predictable future.
Mr. Rogers : Does the Minister accept that the almost 1,000 call- outs in the past six months reinforce the need to keep open all our bases on the western coast and that the proposed closures of RAF Brawdy, or Chivenor in north Devon, will leave part of our western coast vulnerable during dangerous times, particularly if there is no 24-hour operability? Will the Minister look yet again at the proposed closures, especially RAF Brawdy? If that versatile base is closed there will be an enormous impact on the local economy, especially when combined with the closure of the Royal Navy base at Trecwn.
Mr. Clark : It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to make such comments. We are all used to the hypocrisy and double standards of the Labour party, whose representatives hang around every factory gate and base saying what terrible things will happen locally. Yet nationally, as we know, it is committed--indeed, it is under instructions from its confereence--to cut defence spending by £6 billion. There will be no announcement about the bases until the new year. I repeat the undertaking that I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) a moment ago. We shall at all times continue to meet the criteria laid down by the Department of Transport.
Trident
4. Mr. Corbyn : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the expected date of commissioning of the first Trident nuclear submarine and the expected date of completion of the programme ; and if he will make a statement.
6. Mr. John Marshall : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the progress with the Trident programme.
Mr. Alan Clark : The overall Trident programme continues to progress to time and within budget towards an in-service date of the mid-1990s. It is not our practice to make public the precise dates of submarine construction or related programmes.
Mr. Corbyn : Will the Minister confirm that the total cost of the Trident programme is likely to be over £23 billion, that it is a monstrous waste of money, that to hold nuclear weapons is immoral and that in the interests of world peace he should cancel the programme and provide useful work for the highly skilled people who have manufactured those awful weapons of mass destruction?
Mr. Clark : I am sure that it is perfectly possible for the hon. Gentleman to make a trip to Barrow-in-Furness and explain to the work force there what useful work is available for them. I welcome what he said. He articulates a view which is widely shared on the Opposition Benches, although the Labour party finds it seemly to repress it at
Column 129
present. Certainly, it does no harm to ventilate that view in this place. I always welcome hearing it when it is delivered so lucidly from the mouth of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). I would correct the hon. Gentleman on one point of fact. The cost of the system is already £1.8 billion less than the original estimate announced in the House in 1982.Mr. John Marshall : I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his commitment to the Trident programme. Does he believe that it would be safe in the hands of Members of Parliament who continually carp and criticise? Would it be safe in the hands of a party two thirds of whose members are committed to one-sided nuclear disarmament?
Mr. Clark : This question is best answered by the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, North, who courageously and clearly articulated the views of, I suspect, more than half the Members on the Opposition Benches.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : Why did the Minister's Department authorise Admiral Sir Julian Oswald to give information to the press on the specific question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), when Ministers continually refuse to answer that question in the House? Is not it reasonable that the House of Commons should be given the same information as is made available to the press in briefings? Does the Minister accept that it is entirely unsatisfactory to continue stonewalling on those questions while answering them in the press?
Mr. Clark : The boat will be launched early next year, but I must maintain the position that I and my predecessors have always maintained-- that we do not disclose any further details in the House.
Mr. Franks : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have only one policy on Trident--to build the fourth boat and complete the programme ? That is unlike the Opposition, who have at least three conflicting policies--one for the Front Bench, a second for Back-Bench CND Members and, most disgraceful of all, a third for the electorate in Barrow.
Mr. Clark : That is absolutely right. I confirm what my hon. Friend says. We are interested in receiving a report of what took place when the Leader of the Oppositon went to Barrow and had a chat with the work force. He gave them several assurances, with which, apparently, they were satisfied, but the right hon. Gentleman will not give details of the assurances. That is certainly a subject on which the House would welcome further enlightenment.
Mr. Boyes : Will the Minister now acknowledge that Labour party policy is to deploy the Trident system ? When will the Government place an order for the fourth Trident boat and how much money have the Government already spent on it ? Does he realise that his policy of drip-feeding the yard with funding for the fourth boat is unnecessarily extending the lives of the Polaris boats and jeopardising the employment of thousands of workers at Barrow, simply to safeguard the seat of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) ?
Mr. Clark : I did not entirely follow the hon. Gentleman's question. In so far as I did understand it, I welcome his commitment of the Labour party to the
Column 130
Trident programme. I understood him to reproach us for being slow in commissioning the fourth vessel. If so, that is an instructive and important addition to the Labour party's nuclear policy and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reminds me, is a fourth arm in such a policy.Infantry Regiments
7. Mr. Colvin : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the difference in cost to the Ministry of Defence of one infrantry regiment with two infantry battalions and two regiments of one battalion each.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King) : The average cost of an infantry battalion is £12.5 million to £15million in the United Kingdom and £17 million in Germany, irrespective of how it is organised regimentally.
Mr. Colvin : I expected a reply somewhat like that. What my right hon. Friend said makes it clear that there will not be a great saving to the Ministry of Defence. If the amalgamation of the Royal Hampshire Regiment with the Queen's Regiment is part of the price of a reorganised and more efficient Army, the retention of the Royal Hampshires' name within the title of the new regiment must be part of the price of the amalgamation. Will he confirm that that would be possible?
Mr. King : I know that my hon. Friend will be fair and will recognise that the Queen's Regiment is an amalgamation of the Queen's Royal West Surrey Regiment, the East Surrey Regiment, the Royal Sussex Regiment, the Queen's Own Royal West Kent Regiment and the Middlesex Regiment. I remember seeing those regimental names on the cemetery wall at Kranji in Singapore a month ago. They were all fine regiments which had to suffer the disappointment of amalgamation. Now the Royal Hampshire Regiment faces the same challenge and I know that it and the Queen's Regiment will wish to approach amalgamation in the most sensible and realistic way in the interests of both regiments.
Mr. Kirkwood : Will the Secretary of State confirm that whatever savings the Ministry of Defence may make by the regimental amalgamations proposed in "Options for Change", there will be considerable on-costs to the public purse, through expenditure on unemployment and housing benefits? What are the Ministry of Defence estimates of the costs of that and what attempts are his Department making to cover some of those costs?
Mr. King : That is the most amazing question that I have heard in the House. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just announced that our plans for defence expenditure involve a cut of 6 per cent. in real terms during the next three to four years. The hon. Gentleman represents a party that has called for a 50 per cent. cut in defence expenditure in real terms by the end of the decade. What impact will that have on unemployment and housing benefits and every other consideration?
Mrs. Ann Winterton : Who bears the cost of the new uniforms in any amalgamated regiment? Is it true that the Army will contribute £10 to each uniform and that officers and others will have to pay any further costs? Secondly,
Column 131
what redundancy arrangements are being made for members of the amalgamated regiments who will not be needed for the defence of the nation?Mr. King : On the first point, the usual uniform arrangements will apply as on previous occasions. I shall look into the matter that my hon. Friend has raised, because it covers a whole range of issues--resettlements and redundancy arrangements--and we are anxious that the fairest arrangements should be made.
There was a misunderstanding in my hon. Friend's question. There will be redundancies in the Army, as in every armed force of any significance in the western world, but the Army Board intends that redundancies should be spread evenly throughout the Army and that people in the regiments facing amalgamation will not be discriminated against or at a disadvantage, compared with those whose regiments may not be so affected. I hope that that is understood, because it is a very important point.
Mr. O'Neill : Now that the Secretary of State has issued the timetable for the mergers of the regiments, can he confirm that, in the unlikely event of a Conservative victory, there is no prospect of the Scottish regiments' future being reviewed?
Mr. King : I have made it clear that the decisions have been taken. We have set out the timetable. The assessments made by the defence staff establish the right shape for our defences for the 1990s. The only real risk to regiments, as against the programme that we have set out, is a change of Government. If either of the Opposition parties was elected, many of the regiments that face amalgamation now would face certain disbandment.
Mr. Mans : When my right hon. Friend considers how different regiments have merged, will he take into account, rather than discourage, the concept of the big regiment and ensure that in future the Army is organised in big regiments?
Mr. King : As my hon. Friend knows, that was considered carefully by the Army when it looked into the best way to approach the reorganisation. I cannot go further. Obviously, the Army has recognised the role of the big regiment, but the role of other regiments with a particularly strong and well-established tradition was recognised and the Army Board also took account of those sensitivities.
Arms Trade
8. Mr. Flynn : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new initiatives he has to further policies of achieving transparency in the world arms trade.
Mr. Alan Clark : Following the initiative of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the first committee of the United Nations General Assembly has adopted a resolution recommending to the assembly the establishment of a universal and non-discriminatory register of arms transfers.
Mr. Flynn : Is the Minister alarmed by the news that appeared in the New York Times last Friday of the help that China has given to Algeria and North Korea in the advanced development of their nuclear weapons and by the fact that a new arms race for conventional and nuclear weapons is roaring ahead at an unprecedented rate?
Column 132
Would not the best way to advance transparency in world arms sales and achieve a United Nations register be for Britain now to declare that we shall have transparency and a register of Britain's arms sales?Mr. Clark : I make allowances for the fact that the hon. Gentleman clearly prepared his supplementary before the news was announced. It might have been slightly more gracious of him to pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in getting this universal and non- discriminatory register of arms transfers recom-mended to the Assembly. I pay tribute to the work of the United Kingdom delegation. One of my officials chairs the experts committee that laid the groundwork for this achievement. On reflection, the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is far better for all nuclear powers and principal arms manufacturers to move forward together, rather than for any one to break ranks and anticipate matters. I entirely agree that China's transfer of technology to other aspirant nuclear powers is deplorable. We must all do our best to make the non-proliferation treaty work effectively and, if necessary, give it more teeth.
Mr. Batiste : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that our friends and allies round the world who may be faced with potentially aggressive neighbours are entitled to look to us for support in arms sales, for example, of the Challenger tank which is made in Leeds, and that nothing proposed on restricting arms sales generally in the interests of world peace will prevent us from supporting our allies in circumstances where that is necessary?
Mr. Clark : Yes, of course. It is a cardinal principle of free determination that independent states have the right to determine their spending priorities. Unilateral action by the United Kingdom to stop defence sales would not stop the arms trade or bring about peace and security.
Departmental Properties
9. Mr. Ashton : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many houses currently owned by his Department and defence establishments are standing empty.
Mr. Archie Hamilton : As at 30 September 1991, the latest date for which figures are available, 9,966 Ministry of Defence owned houses and flats were vacant of which 9,834 were service married quarters. Many of those properties were either undergoing or awaiting major maintenance work or modernisation, some were already allotted to service families who were due to move in shortly and others were being considered for disposal. In addition, some 1,700 dwellings were in the process of being sold.
Mr. Ashton : In view of that enormous number of empty dwellings, will the Minister give an assurance that none of the 1,600 wives--and their children--whose husbands have left them will be evicted? What will happen when another 40,000 military personnel are made redundant as a result of the White Paper proposals? Will there be any evictions? Will the Minister assure the House that empty houses will be handed over to local councils or housing associations for rent either to redundant service men or to others? Will he assure the House that the empty properties will not be sold off and service personnel and their families turned onto the street?
Column 133
Mr. Hamilton : We attempt to treat the wives and ex-wives of service men living illegally in some of our properties as sympathetically as we can and that is why the 1,600 to whom the hon. Gentleman referred live in service accommodation.The figure of 40,000 redundancies is not right. For the Army we are talking about in excess of 10,000 redundancies and much of the other reductions will occur through natural wastage. A housing task force has been set up under my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces and he is considering how we can use the existing housing stock to alleviate problems. In particular, he will consider the problems faced by those who come back from Germany who may be made redundant and ensure that they have somewhere to live while they are looking for a job. We are addressing that issue now. However, the number of vacant dwellings will probably increase while the running down of the Army continues.
Dame Janet Fookes : What consideration is my hon. Friend giving to the scheme put forward by the services charity, SSAFA--the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association--to deal with redundant housing stock?
Mr. Hamilton : The SSAFA is in close touch with the Department at all times and we listen to what it has to say about problems associated with housing and everything else. We are listening hard to its recommendations and we take seriously the points that it makes to us.
Mr. O'Neill : We welcome the working party that has been established to deal with the housing issue. However, does the Minister recognise that there is an increasing problem of homelessness and squatting among ex- service personnel? Since the MOD housing stock is being sold off and other houses are being renovated and improved slowly, does the hon. Gentleman accept that the situation will not get better in the foreseeable future unless far greater urgency is given to the problem of properly housing and properly treating our service personnel and those whom we consider are no longer needed in our forces?
Mr. Hamilton : We are well aware of this problem and the last thing we want is ex-service men having to live in temporary accommodation. For that reason, we are making the best use of married quarters to ensure that people are not forced into such temporary accommodation.
Sir Giles Shaw : Does my hon. Friend accept that the problem raised by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) is probably the most crucial element in the redundancy programme to which my hon. Friend has referred? The priority given to resettlement through access to housing will probably be the greatest determinant of the fairness of Government policy on redundancy.
Mr. Hamilton : Yes, indeed, I accept what my hon. Friend says. There is a difficult Catch-22 situation because people cannot get a job until they have housing and they cannot get a mortgage until they have a job. Therefore, it is important that we solve the problem of where redundant people live so that they are able to get jobs, raise a
Column 134
mortgage and buy their own homes. At that stage they will no longer need the married quarters that we make available to them.Low Flying
11. Mr. Beith : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received from farmers about compensation for the effects of low flying on livestock.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle) : The Ministry of Defence continues to receivrepresentations from farmers about compensation for the effects of low flying on livestock. No more representations have been made recently than is usual.
Mr. Beith : Is the Minister aware that there is a feeling among farmers that the Ministry is being less helpful than it used to be in dealing with compensation claims arising from low flying by jets or helicopters? Does he recognise, for example, that insisting on veterinary reports may cause problems in that the examinations may cause distress to animals as well as additional cost to the farmer, who may not be compensated?
Mr. Carlisle : We try to be as helpful as possible, and I am aware of the case of Mr. Johnson in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. We require some evidence of loss, either from a vet or an accountant, and as soon as we receive the reports we look at them speedily and with sympathy. Indeed, we always try to give the benefit of the doubt, and the hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that in the last three years we have received 577 claims and have settled 372 of them.
Gulf War
13. Mr. Tim Smith : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost to the United Kingdom of the Gulf war ; how much has been recovered from allied nations ; and what will be final net cost to the taxpayer.
Mr. Archie Hamilton : The additional defence costs of the Gulf conflict, to be spread over several years, are currently estimated to be about £2.5 billion. The bulk of the costs are offset by cash contributions from other Governments, totalling some £2 billion.
Mr. Smith : Is it not clear from that information that not only was the Gulf war a great success in military terms, but that the financial outcome was also most satisfactory from the point of view of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Hamilton : Yes, and I suspect that it has been an almost unique experience in that so much of the cost has been provided by other Governments. We are grateful to all Governments who came forward with cash for the war.
Mr. Harry Ewing : Apart from the fact that we made a profit from the Gulf war, may I ask the Minister to say what else was achieved by it, with Saddam Hussein still in power and carrying out his evil acts and with the dictatorship still in power in Kuwait? Why were our young men sent to their deaths in such a meaningless cause?
Mr. Hamilton : I find that, from start to finish, a most incredible contribution. I thought that I had made it clear that we did not make a profit on the war. It cost £2.5
Column 135
billion and we got back £2 billion, which means that it cost us £500 million, which does not look to me like a profit. The hon. Gentleman will remember--indeed, his party purported to support the action of the coalition forces--that the objective was to liberate Kuwait. That is precisely what we did.Mr. Conway : Does the Minister accept that, from the point of view of cost effectiveness, the members of the Territorial Army and the reserve forces who served in the Gulf war were remarkably cost effective? Does he agree that that bodes well for the TA review now under way in ensuring that the TA continues to give value for money and is geographically well balanced?
Mr. Hamilton : Yes. Clearly, in the current review of the Territorial Army, we are paying great attention to the need to continue to have a good geographical spread across the country. We pay tribute to the cost effectiveness of the Territorials.
Dr. Reid : If, as the Minister says, we recouped so much money on the Gulf war, may I ask him to explain why the Ministry of Defence is being so mean and tight-fisted towards some of those who were prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice during that war ? Is the Minister aware, for example, of the considerable number of Territorial Army members who served in the Gulf, including over 20 from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), who have been refused their bounty because they did not serve their annual camp--precisely because they were in the Gulf for over 51 days ? That is a scandalous way to treat people who risked their lives and came under repeated Scud attacks for the sake of their country. Will he order an immediate review of those cases with a view to ensuring that nobody is penalised financially purely because of the bravery that they showed and the sacrifice that they were prepared to make for their country ?
| Next Section
| Home Page |