House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 Dec 1991

Column 577

Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I find it remarkable that while the motion calls perfectly reasonably for regional administrations in England and similiar measures of devolution for Wales and Scotland, it is silent about the rest of the United Kingdom. I remind the House of the perfectly correct statement made by Lord Crowther-Hunt that there would no longer be any reality to the concept of the United Kingdom if individuals in one part had significantly greater or lesser political rights than others. That is significant. The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) referred to the Government's difficulties over the Council of Europe's convention on local self- government. It is not simply that the Government are reluctant for political or ideological reasons to sign the convention. They cannot sign it. They would immediately be in breach of it because of the total absence of any form of local self-government in Northern Ireland.

In Northern Ireland we have suffered uniquely from Whitehall's desire for total political control over other local authorities. That desire has been maintained by the Northern Ireland Office regularly placing obstacles in the way of any restoration of local democracy in Northern Ireland. I have no hesitation in identifying it as the main obstacle to the restoration of democratic local administration there. It plays on our smaller size in the kingdom and consequent lack of influence and our desire not to disrupt the essential unity of the kingdom. But if that approach is followed elsewhere in the kingdom and the same attitude is applied, as the Government appear to do with regard to Scotland, the United Kingdom will be damaged.

I found particularly alarming the comments made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), who seemed to want to make a unilateral declaration of independence for the south-east of England and to tell the rest of the country to go away. He clearly said that about Scotland. That attitude will do more damage to the United Kingdom than any form of regional administration. A little-England approach will end up impoverishing us all. It is necessary for us to consider a form of regional administration which would give some realistic opportunity for control and influence to the regions, which will become essential if we are to have some form of dialogue with European entities as they develop.

2.10 pm

Dr. Ashok Kumar (Langhbaurgh) : I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Ms. Quin) for bringing this important issue to the forefront of our minds. I have been listening to the debate and find that other hon. Members have said everything that I want to say. However, I shall make a couple of points and I intend to be more constructive and rather less self-indulgent than some Conservative Members.

I shall try to be positive. Such an important issue cannot be dismissed lightly. We need to put the arguments for regionalism and for regional government in a wider context--national and international. Throughout Europe the demands for popular autonomy, regional self-determination and for a renewal of a sense of identity and self-esteem are rising daily. In many parts of eastern

Column 578

Europe that has a negative edge--indeed, some might say a barbaric edge in Yugoslavia. However, even that Balkan tragedy must be seen in its historic context.

In western Europe the same pressures are manifest, but in the main there is a more mature response. The vast majority of western European nations, the European Community partners and the European Free Trade Association countries have flourishing local and regional government structures. They know that the centre cannot and should not determine every small element of local spending and what is local need. In the one country that bucks the trend, the United Kingdom, that determination results in an undemocratic straitjacket confining local needs and local aspirations to the diktat of Marsham street and Whitehall.

Under the Government, since that miserable and bleak day in 1979 when the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) first assumed office, regional spending has been slashed. In the last years of the Callaghan Government, regional spending was in the order of £1.8 billion while today that spending, expressed in the prices of the period, has been reduced to an annual average of £242 million. Even that meagre amount has been largely taken out of the popular, public domain, with the focus of spending attention now geared towards unelected, unaccountable and undemocratic urban development corporations. The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) said that I had not mentioned Teesside development corporation--now I have. In many cases, those organisations appear to believe that a new economic dawn can be built on the backs of tin sheds in primary colours and the industrial activities of B & Q and MFI.

The patterns of inequality in our society precisely mirror the regional divides. If one lives in the north, one is likely to die younger, to enjoy- -if that is the right word--a greater incidence of disease, to have less chance of owning a car or owning one's home, less chance of a job and less chance of a well-paid and permanent job. One will lead a less satisfying and less promising life, perhaps shorter than that of a similar person who happens to live in the south-east of England.

If one lives in the north, big decisions affecting one's life and the lives of one's family--whether a new hospital is to be built or a new road constructed, or whether new investment and jobs are to be steered towards the area--will be taken by faceless civil servants from the home counties or by business men nominated by the Tory party machine.

The previous, popular powers of local authorities to take such decisions, to see whether they fitted distinct local needs and to ensure that those intended to benefit from the decisions do in fact benefit, have been eroded to the point where they are invisible. The fundamental truth is that the one group of people who have no say whatsoever in those decisions are the people who most need to benefit from the decision-making process.

It is obvious that the so-called free market has done little for those who live and work in the regions. The Conservative campaign guide for 1991--the guide for the general election which the Prime Minister was too frightened to call--said that it was the Government's policy to create sustainable growth for all Britain's regions by freeing markets and stimulating enterprise.

The Minister talked about great economic success in the north-east. Let him try telling that to the people of my constituency, who are now facing Christmas on the dole

Column 579

because of the slump in orders for the retail and household goods which caused a hi-tech lighting company to close its factory at Skelton. Let him try telling it to my constituents employed in the steel industry who have seen the results of the profits crash of British Steel, job losses at Skinningrove and the shelving of a new platemill project for the Teesside works. Only two days ago 500 more redundancies were announced by British Steel, reducing the company's work force on Teesside by 20 per cent. in one year to 4,500. People see this happening against a backdrop of regional inequality. My constituents are not blind. They have families and friends living in other parts of the United Kingdom and they can see with their own eyes, even allowing for the effects of the recession, what is happening. They see the evidence of two nations, with the physical and economic effects of the creation of more than 1.3 million jobs in the south since 1979, while we must live with the despair caused by the loss of more than 100,000 jobs in the northern region alone.

Labour will reverse that catalogue of man-made disasters. We will regenerate and democratise the regions and allow the United Kingdom to be seen yet again to be swimming with the incoming tide of decentralisation, democracy and accountability which is sweeping across Europe.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East referred to development agencies. When Labour comes to power, I intend to play a strong role in setting up the new agencies, which will act as the cutting edge of the new deal that is urgently needed. I want to see my constituents, many of whom know little other than the miserable dole queues or the underfunded, underpaid, so-called training schemes which the Government were proud to announce, including the youth training scheme and employment training, benefit along with others from the surge of democracy and regeneration.

For far too long we have all--Labour and Conservative alike--talked ceaselessly about "the regional problem." Instead, we must talk urgently-- under the next Labour Government we shall certainly talk in those terms-- about the coming regional renaissance in our areas. That is why we need regional government. I urge the House to support the motion.

2.19 pm

Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes) : This has been an interesting debate and I was privileged to be able to hear a number of speeches. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Nicholson) made particularly important contributions.

I hope that the House will forgive me if I concentrate on the region known in my area as Yorkshire and Humberside, which is not accepted as a loyalty region by those who live in the area. At present, people in my area have difficulty even in identifying with the present locally based county of Humberside. The county was created in the 1974 local government reorganisation and my constituency used to fall within the county of Lindsey. There was never a Lincolnshire county council, but we had Lindsey, Kesteven and Holland county councils, all of which were accepted as ideal, decentralised local government areas dealing with strategic matters. Those counties were much missed after the reorganisation of 1974, so the last thing that we want to do is create larger

Column 580

units than the present counties. We should question the very existence of counties and ensure that we return to a much more locally based system of local government.

I could not quite understand the point raised by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien), who was contradicting the argument that he sought to make when he quoted the journal of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. He seemed to be saying that the Labour party's case for regional government was based on the fact that cities such as Leeds needed to be intertwined, through the motorway system, with the Humber ports. He made a case for regional government because of the development of the Humber ports and said that he wanted that development to be shared for the benefit of the Yorkshire region. As I said to him in an intervention, the Labour party did more to prevent the development of the Humber ports, which the hon. Gentleman was praying in aid for the Labour party's policy on regional government, than any other political party in the House. He questioned why I had promoted the development of the Humber ports. The simple reason is that I am the Member of Parliament for the constituency which contains the Immingham docks.

The hon. Gentleman and several other Opposition Members also spoke about 1992, the need for Britain to be at the heart of Europe and for regional industry to have access to wider markets. Had we not expanded the Humber ports by means of private legislation between 1987 and 1990, industries, especially in the north of England, would have been denied the opportunity of transacting through a port with the most modern facilities in the world, and investment would have gone to Rotterdam or elsewhere in Europe instead of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman contradicted his and the Labour party's policies by praying in aid the Association of British Chambers of Commerce document in support of regional government and suggesting how important it was for the Humber ports to be linked to wider opportunities for trade in Yorkshire and Humberside, yet that development came about only through the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends on a free vote in the House over a period of two or three years.

May I return to the main theme that guides debates on regional government in Humberside. Humberside is loathed and detested. The sooner the county of Humberside goes, the better. Fortunately, the local government boundary commission, which was charged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) two and a half years ago to countenance the prospect of getting rid of that county, has made various decisions and its report is now on the table. I hope that it will be on the top of the agenda of the new local government commission and, when the statutory provisions are enacted, I hope that the commission will be guided by the boundary commission's report. I hope it will be possible for that report to be considered at an early stage.

There is no doubt that the last thing the people of Humberside want is to traipse all the way over to a regional centre. It is bad enough when I have to discuss the funding of my local health service with the Yorkshire regional health authority in January and have to traipse from Cleethorpes to Harrogate, which is miles away. We want more power to be devolved downwards in all aspects of central Government and local government. We want the district health authorities to have more power so that they may consider the hospital trusts, and leave out

Column 581

the regional health authorities. The Department of Trade and Industry uses an inappropriate regional map of Yorkshire and Humberside. If I have to go to office meetings in Leeds, it means I have to travel miles from the far extremities of my constituency. It is miles from Cleethorpes to Harrogate, which makes it difficult when considering any regional organisation.

The system of the old counties of England was the best one and constituted an ideal way of retaining local loyalties. I believe that the local government commission and the structural reform that the Government are bringing forward in this Session of Parliament will ensure the best reform of local government.

2.27 pm

Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West) : I have examined the Labour party's plans for regional government and endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) that the old system of local government--on whichever structure it was based constitutes the right way to deal with future regional organisation, pressure for development and the interests of the local people. The Labour party's series of proposals does not focus on the differences between local and regional government there is total confusion on which roles will be played by each. First, it is suggested that the regional assembly and its functions will be financed centrally by a block vote of the House and, eventually, by a proportion of local government rates. Unfortunately, the general public will consider that to be another burden heaped on their local tax bill by the Labour party which views people as money milch-cows for Labour local government, free from central controls.

The simple relationships that will exist between central, regional and local government are not covered under the proposals. The Labour party's answer seems to be to create a series of quangos that, in a loose way, will relate to the regional assembly. The only result will be a massive increase in expenditure for the regional assemblies in England, whereby large numbers of elected representatives will be paid salaries and will no doubt require staff, offices and the whole panoply of mini-Westminsters in eight centres up and down the country.

The strength of the Conservative policy has been to devolve power downwards, often to the smallest units--as with schools. We want to give parents choice in schools and give local authorities greater control. The way forward lies in single-tier local authorities representing the interests of the regions. The Labour party's proposals completely ignore that.

I am also worried about the cost of the proposals, which have all the hallmarks of ideas that have been cobbled together. The Labour party addresses issues in Scotland and Wales by stating that it realises that it must give those countries devolution, and so must justify that in the rest of Britain. It is a hash and a mess. It will not do and I urge the House to reject Labour's proposals.

2.29 pm

Ms. Quin : I have very little time in which to sum up. The debate has been interesting and worth while and I thank hon. Members who have taken part for raising so many different aspects of the issue of regional government.

Column 582

Almost all my hon. Friends and some Conservative Members spoke about the European dimension and how important it would be for the future of our regions. When the Government agree at Maastricht to the setting up of a regional advisory body, I urge them to make sure that English regions are represented on it, and that the English regions represented on that body also--

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

ACCESS (FORMER MEMBERS AND UNITED KINGDOM MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT)

Resolved,

That this House approves the Resolution of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) relating to access to the House by former honourable and Right honourable Members of the House and by United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament, as set out in the Minutes of Proceedings of the Committee of Tuesday 16th July 1991 (HC 209-iv).-- [Mr. David Davis.]

TRAVEL BY MEMBERS TO EUROPEAN COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS Resolved,

That, in the opinion of this House, provision should be made as from 1st January 1992 for reimbursing Members in respect of the cost of travelling on parliamentary duties between the United Kingdom and any European Community institution in Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg and any additional expenses necessarily incurred in such travelling, subject to the limit that the amount payable to a Member in any year, beginning with 1st April, shall not exceed the aggregate of--

(a) the cost of a return Business Class airfare for the journey on the assumption that the journey begins and ends at a London airport and that the destination is Brussels, Luxembourg or Strasbourg ; and (b) twice the corresponding Civil Service Class A standard subsistence rate for the time being in operation.-- [Mr. David Davis.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at the sitting on Wednesday 11th December, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) and Standing Order No. 15 (Prayers against statutory instruments, &c (negative procedure)), Mr. Speaker shall

(1) not more than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Newton and Mr. Neil Kinnock relating to Social Security, Pensions and Terms and Conditions of Employment put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Newton ; and (

(2) put the Question or Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister relating to Fisheries not more than three hours after their commencement ; and the above proceedings may continue after the expiry of the time for opposed business.-- [Mr. David Davis.]

EUROPEAN STANDING COMMITTEES

Ordered,

That the unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 20th November, relating to the fisheries guide and other prices, shall not stand referred to European Standing Committee A.-- [Mr. David Davis.]

Column 583

Fusilier Lee Thompson

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

2.30 pm

Mr. John Hughes (Coventry, North-East) : Just over nine months ago on 26 February, nine young soldiers of3 battalion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers were killed in action in southern Iraq just 48 hours before the ceasefire. One of those killed was 19-year-old Lee Thompson, one of my constituents. Eleven other service men were injured in the incident. What makes the tragic slaughter of those young men different is that they were killed, or rather murdered, by so-called friendly fire.

I fully support the views of Lee Thompson's parents. This incident was a monumental military disaster. As the circumstances in which it happened have not yet been fully clarified, there can be no confidence that the lessons have been learnt or that the deaths were not in vain. The people who killed those men have not been brought to book ; they are still in the American air force and they could therefore do the same again. In the circumstances, the Government have behaved in a deplorably cavalier and grossly insensitive way towards the families of the men who were killed. Events show that the Secretary of State is prepared to take the glory for victory, but not prepared to dirty his hands when others pay the price for his decisions and, in this case, for the gung-ho actions of his allies. The incident occurred when C company of the Fusiliers was in southern Iraq. Some 37 Warrior and supporting vehicles were reorganising in the area after a sand storm. According to the official report, at 1500 hours local time, visibility was clear and skies were good. Suddenly, two Warrior armoured vehicles were destroyed. Soldiers on the ground assumed that their vehicles had hit mines, but they had actually been hit by Maverick missiles from two American A10 tankbusters. The A10s had previously been deployed by headquarters 1st British Armoured Division to attack the Iraqi positions some 20 kms--between 10 and 15 miles--east of C company. They were under the immediate control of the British assistant divisional air liaison officer.

The air controller insists that he gave the pilots the grid references of the intended Iraqi positions. The American pilots insist that they did not receive them, and they certainly did not acknowledge them. Instead, they relied on the parting words of an American pilot who gave them a physical description of the terrain in which the Iraqi targets were situated. They tried to find those targets, but instead found what they identified as a column of 50 Iraqi T54/55 tanks.

It is claimed that the lead aircraft made two passes at 15,000 ft and 8,000 ft to check the target. Although the pilots used high-powered binoculars, they failed to identify any friendly orange fluorescent markers, and the two aircraft each fired a missile from 9,000 ft.

The American pilots reported their action to the air controller, who realised that the US pilots had hit a British position and called in reconnaissance aircraft. Unlike the American pilots of the A10s, the reconnaissance crew identified the type of vehicles from 14,000 ft and saw their fluorescent markings at 6,000 ft. Astonishingly, the board of inquiry failed to establish whether the A10 pilots should have been able to see the identifying marks from their operating height of above 6,000 ft. That inquiry proved to

Column 584

be a charade, and its report a whitewash. Its anodyne conclusion was that while it was clear that the American A10s delivered the missiles, it could not be established precisely why they attacked the wrong target. The board recommended the clearest standard operating procedures and sophisticated identification systems to prevent such tragedies in future. More specifically, it recommended that concise grid instructions be given to and acknowledged by pilots. Nearly a year after the tragedy, all too many questions remain unanswered. I trust that the Minister will answer them today, or will have them published in the official record. I vow not to drop this case until satisfactory answers are forthcoming. As to the board of inquiry, do the Government accept its report and the specific recommendations that I quoted? Have the Government established a research programme to investigate improved identification systems? If so, how much money has been allocated to that project?

Why did the American pilots rely on the parting words of the pilot of another plane? Why did the pilots either not receive or not acknowledge the air controller's co-ordinates according to the procedures laid down? Is there any truth in the report in The Independent on 23 November that either the controller did not use, or the American pilots did not know, the secret code word that was supposed to be employed when verifying messages so as to prevent the Iraqis from transmitting false data? Is the apparent failure to use that code word a clue to the chain of events leading to the deaths of nine young soldiers? Has the Minister thoroughly investigated those points?

What kind of binoculars did the American pilots use, and how long have they been in service? Did the Minister read in the 23 November article in The Independent evidence from British troops on the ground that the American aircraft were not at 9,000 ft but as low as 150 ft above the ground? Fusilier Howard Finnan is quoted as saying that several of his fellow soldiers saw the American aircraft approach at a very low level. Fusilier Lee Thompson's mother contacted me this morning to express her great concern at the fact that Fusilier Finnan has been reprimanded for passing that information to the media. Is the Minister interested in the truth? Surely the Minister and the Government are determined to get to the truth, and should encourage Fusilier Finnan to provide

information--especially as his observations were substantiated by the expert testimony of aircraft specialists in the same report in The Independent .

If the A10s had previously attacked an Iraqi vehicle from 1,000 ft, less than one mile away, they would have found it difficult to climb to the much higher altitude from which it is said that the attack on the British vehicles was made. What is the truth of those claims? Does the Minister deny them? Does he still stick to what is rapidly being seen as a fictional account of this incident?

Fifthly, were the British vehicles equipped with black boxes emitting signals recognisable to friendly aircraft? If not, why not? When I asked the Prime Minister that question he used the security angle as an excuse to dodge it. The Minister no longer has any refuge in that excuse. Sixthly, how is it credible that the pilots did not see the orange identification marks, from whatever height they were at? Seventhly, were either of the pilots given a drug test after their mission? Eighthly, have the two American pilots been disciplined?

Column 585

I give notice to the Minister that a refusal to answer on security grounds will be unacceptable to the parents and myself, especially since the Gulf war is over. This House has a legitimate interest--indeed a duty--to get to the bottom of this incident, not only for the sake of the grieving families but so that such incidents are never repeated, or at the very least, so that the most strenuous efforts are made to minimise that possibility. If Governments are to learn from this incident, the truth of the matter must be acknowledged.

Contrary to what reports would lead us to believe, the truth is that allied aircraft were in full control of the skies in the combat area and were at little risk from enemy fire--the opposite of what the report of the Army board of inquiry tries to convey. In those circumstances, pilots were not required to make split-second decisions--they had ample time to check with the air controller for co-ordinates of their targets. The American A10 pilots had ample time to identify enemy positions and vehicles precisely. More importantly, they had ample time to identify and locate allied positions and allied vehicles. That should have been the disciplined scenario. However, on 26 February 1991 two irresponsible and gun-happy pilots were on the loose, ignoring all the rules and roaming the skies in the vicinity of C company. They were intent on a kill to notch up when they returned to base. Nine men paid the ultimate price for that act, one which the Government are still trying to cover up. The Minister must explain or seek explanations for discrepancies in the reports of what happened on that day in February. The most important discrepancy concerns the reason why the pilots destroyed only two of what they saw as the enemy target. If, as the pilots claim, they attacked a column of 50 Iraqi tanks, should they not have continued to attack and destroy as many as possible? Is it not somewhat illogical, in military terms, that they fired only two missiles and then reported to the air controller?

Mr. Terry Satchell, the father of one of those killed, commented on the report of the Army inquiry in terms that I fully endorse. He said :

"The pilots--the American pilots, that is--had enough stuff under their wings to wipe out half the British army. The fact that they just fired a couple of missiles shows that they recognised their mistake--a mistake they could have avoided in the first place." He went on to say :

"The inquiry is basically an appeasement for the Americans" and he called for an independent inquiry.

Another relative, Mrs. Ann Leech, was quoted in The Daily Telegraph in July, after the release of the Army's report, as saying :

"You cannot tell me that an American pilot cannot tell 37 marked British troop carriers. If he--the pilot--thought that they were Iraqi, why stop at bombing just two?"

What does the Minister say to Mr. Satchell and Mrs. Leech and the other parents?

There seems, however, to be a conflict of evidence between the board's report and the letter from the American Assistant Secretary of Defence, Carl W. Ford, to the British ambassador in America. In that letter of 4 November 1991 Mr. Ford states that after the attack the American pilots departed and passed a report to the air controller. He makes it appear to be a routine reflex action, yet if there were perceived to be 50 Iraqi tanks, why did the

Column 586

A10s take out only two of them? If it was due to being short of weaponry, why did they not request support? Why let the sitting duck that they had shot up get away? If they were confident of their targets, they would surely have continued to attack the so-called Iraqi column of tanks. That would have been the action of a competent pilot. Can the Minister explain the discrepancy?

Is not the truth of the matter that the young men paid the ultimate price for a war which encouraged the indiscriminate and widespread blasting of Iraqi forces, which in turn encouraged a gung-ho attack-first-ask-questions -afterwards attitude in which aircraft took part in a high-tech turkey shoot?

The article in The Independent of the conversation of Lieutenant Colonel Hayes and his co-pilot is an example of a pilot's undisciplined approach to the serious business of war. With the knowledge of a huge discrepancy of 56 between pilot's and co-pilot's co-ordinate readings, missiles were fired killing American soldiers. It is true to say that a blase attitude prevailed during combat, in the aftermath and at the highest level, judging from the insulting behaviour of the British and American Governments since the tragedy in February.

The parents of Lee Thompson said in their letter to the American president :

"We know accidents happen in wartime, but with all the high-tech equipment you proudly brag about, why is it left to an incompetent pilot to use it?"

The parents do not want to know the name of the pilot who gunned their son down, but they want an acknowledgment of their suffering. They have not had that from the American Government. President Bush has not deigned to send them a personal letter of condolence nor, shamefully, have they had similar acknowledgment from the British Government.

The incident occurred on 26 February. The war ended on 28 February. I am astounded that a formal board of inquiry was not convened until 15 May. Surely the Minister will agree that leaving such investigations so long merely ensures that the trail becomes decidedly cold, that clues to the behaviour of those involved are erased, and that memories become fogged. His inaction begs the question : why were investigations not begun much earlier? In answer, I contend that the Government delayed their statement on the inquiry into this serious incident until 24 July to prevent its being discussed in the House before the summer recess. For political convenience, they deliberately tried to draw the sting from this awkward incident so as to avoid embarrassment and having some of the false glory of the Gulf war being taken from them. That is an entirely cynical and unworthy strategy and it shows a blatant disregard for young soldiers' families.

The actions of Ministers and the Prime Minister, who ultimately is in charge of any war, are the true acknowledgment of the value that they place on the lives of young soldiers. The families of these young men whose lives were carelessly tossed away have been grievously insulted by the callous, heartless and insensitive way in which they have been dealt with by Ministers. Since this grave matter was reported to the House, Ministers have refused to meet and discuss the problem with a delegation of Members of Parliament whose constituents were killed. Further, the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have failed to reply to my letters. They did not check inaccurate and insensitive letters that were sent on their behalf to grieving relatives. Their shocking insensitivity is

Column 587

shown by the fact that they allowed illegible rubbish, in the guise of an American report of the incident, to be sent to the relatives of the young men. I contend that for reasons known only to them the Government have deliberately colluded with their American counterparts to cover up military negligence of the gravest magnitude.

The Ministry delivered the report of the inquiry with a letter to the relatives on 23 July. The Minister disdained to sign it personally, leaving that to his private secretary. To rub salt into the wound, the Ministry could not even get the date of the young men's deaths correct. The letter said that they died months earlier than was the case. A later apology from the private secretary was sent, but by that time the damage had been done.

When Parliament returns after the Christmas break, a year of wasted time will have elapsed since the Gulf war and the deaths of those young soldiers. It is imperative that this should be the first matter to be dealt with by the House in 1992. I am sure that the Queen's Speech will refer to the tragedy, but to many people those young men will be just a fleeting memory of the war which television brought nightly into our living rooms.

Christmas will be a trying period for the mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and friends of the soldiers who died in the Gulf war. Their loss will be felt even more acutely during the festivities which will reawaken the anguish of those who have become reconciled and adjusted to the loss of a son or a husband killed by enemy action. For other mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and friends, the grief which consumes them unabated has been compounded by the gross insensitivity of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), who on 21 January 1991 said that his overriding aim was to provide the most helpful support on a long-term basis for any people who were wounded in the war and for the families of those who were killed. He went on to say how happy he was to announce that fact.

Subsequent events have shown that that was meaningless rhetoric as the Minister did not uphold his promises. He has not even bothered to meet the families of those who were killed in the friendly fire accident. Does he not realise the offence that that, and his refusal even to sign the letter to the families, have caused? The Government must be severely reprimanded for that, but it is not enough. Governments come and go and it will not be long before the present Government are replaced. Regrettably, however, young soldiers like Lee Thompson are regularly sent into action. We must uncover the full circumstances of his death, but all that we have had so far is a culpable cover-up.

Without a full inquiry, we cannot fully understand and put into operation the necessary reforms of procedure and research into and improvements of equipment. That is why the Minister and the Government must answer all my questions. The Minister should also agree that the matter be referred to the Select Committee on Defence so that the Select Committee can institute a full, thorough and open inquiry with the right to call witnesses. That is why the Government should also support the efforts of the human rights lawyer Geoffrey Robertson QC to discover the truth. Will the Minister allow the Robertson inquiry to cross-examine Government witnesses? If not, what has he to hide? How would the right hon. Member for Bridgwater and his wife feel and act if they were told that their son had been killed in similar circumstances?

Column 588

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman during his Adjournment debate, but I remind him that it is customary to allow the Minister a reasonable time to reply, and there is now very little time left.

Mr. Hughes : Would not their first response be to ask where, when and why, and would they not feel an overwhelming need to know why their son's life had been so senselessly sacrificed? Someone who holds the position of Minister should be fully aware that in the reconciliation of grief the need to know is absolutely paramount. He should also be aware that the relatives of the young men killed cannot come to terms with the ultimate finality of the loss without full knowledge of the circumstances of the tragedy. The absence of such certainty and plain, unvarnished truth, and the Government's insensitivity and lack of support, only prolong the heartache and grief. Wilfully to collude with a cover-up and to withhold information from my constituents Mr. and Mrs. Thompson constitutes an act of mental cruelty.

I shall heed your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and conclude shortly. I expect the Government and the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, out of common decency and human compassion, to respond speedily and honestly, fully and frankly to the need for the truth. I have two important messages. The first is to the Prime Minister, who has produced a proliferation of charters of rights : may we have a charter of rights for service men and their families? The second is to the Secretary of State for Defence : he should reveal the truth or do the honourable thing and resign.

2.55 pm

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton) : I am grateful to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) for bringing this case to the attention of the House. However, I am sad that I do not have rather longer to answer the long list of queries that he raised with me.

I wish, first, to extend my sincere condolences to Mr. and Mrs. Thompson and the families of the other soldiers killed in the incident, and indeed to the families of all the other British personnel who lost their lives in the Gulf. All of those deaths are tragic, but the fact that Lee Thompson and eight of his colleagues were killed by allies is, I know, particularly keenly felt. Early in his remarks the hon. Gentleman said that those men had been "murdered". I hope that he will withdraw that mark, because murder is an intentional killing. There is no question of those men being intentionally killed ; it was a tragic accident. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that to use the word "murder" is wrong in this case.

On 24 July, in response to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim), I gave a comprehensive account of the findings of the board of inquiry. I should just like to recount briefly the circumstances of the incident.

The tragedy occurred at the height of the land offensive to liberate Kuwait, on the afternoon of 26 February. Having successfully fought their way through a number of enemy positions in southern Iraq, the 3 battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers--RRF--was reorganising before continuing the push towards Kuwait. Although the

Column 589

battalion itself was not actually fighting the enemy at the time, the battle was still very much engaged, and the Iraqis remained a threat to British forces.

The 1st British Armoured Division was being supported by United States Air Force aircraft. Earlier in the day, the division's headquarters had tasked two successive flights to attack Iraqi armour. Subsequently, a further flight of two United States Air Force A10s reported for tasking to the British assistant divisional air liaison officer. In my subsequent remarks I shall refer to him as "DALO". His intention was that the aircraft should attack the same target as the two previous flights, in a location over 20 km to the east of 3 RRF's position at 15.00 hours.

The A10 pilots identified what they thought was the target area from a physical description given to them by a departing United States Air Force F16 of the previous flight, and shortly afterwards saw what they thought was a column of Iraqi tanks and support vehicles heading north. The pilots had been briefed that there were no friendly forces within 10 km of their target, and those vehicles were closer than that to the point they had identified as their target. Having made two observation passes and seen no friendly markings, both of the A10s then fired one infra-red Maverick missile, each destroying one of the vehicles. The aircraft then left the area, having reported the engagement to the assistant DALO.

As the pilots' report of the convoy of vehicles differed so dramatically from earlier descriptions of the target, the assistant DALO asked for confirmation of the location. When given the grid reference, he immediately realised that this was not the intended target area ; and that it corresponded with the location of 3 RRF. He then called

Column 590

up a reconnaissance flight over the area, which identified the vehicles as Warriors and observed that they were carrying fluorescent air recognition panels.

Shortly after the incident, a military investigation began. This investigation gathered much information, but it became clear that in order to establish exactly what had happened, a formal board of inquiry would be needed to consider this information and to gather any further evidence necessary. This board of inquiry was convened on 15 May. The House will recall that during last week's debate on Marine Simeon Ferrante, I outlined the status and purpose of boards of inquiry. Given that in the case of the Warrior/A10 incident, too, my Department has been criticised for excessive secrecy in refusing to release a full copy of the board of inquiry report, it might be helpful if I covered the ground once again.

Although this was a joint-service board of inquiry, it was convened by Air Chief Marshal Sir Patrick Hine, and was conducted according to Royal Air Force procedures. The RAF derives its authority for holding boards of inquiry from the Air Force Act 1955, statutory rules made thereunder and Queen's regulations for the RAF. Generally, the primary purpose of boards of inquiry is to investigate and report on the facts of the matter referred to them by the convening authority and to make recommendations aimed at preventing a recurrence of an accident.

It is of overriding importance, particularly in the case of injury or death, to establish the facts as quickly as possible. It is essential, therefore, that witnesses appearing before boards of inquiry should give their evidence in a full and frank manner. The motion having been made after half-past Two o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker-- adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Three o'clock.

Next Section

Home Page