| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Hayward : The hon. Gentleman was not present to hear the comments of the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe. He has not been present at any earlier point in the debate. He now complains that I should take the
Column 1260
opportunity to comment on a speech in which I have a keen interest. He has continued to talk during my comments and I do not intend to give way to him. I have made clear my view in relation to the need for legislation. On a number of occasions, in the Chamber and in Committee, I have made my position clear. If the hon. Member for Bolsover does not know now, he should read the record.The hon. Member for Bolsover should be aware that seven years ago this month, I was diagnosed as having multiple sclerosis. I am, therefore, more conscious than most hon. Members of the problems faced by disabled people. It is on the basis of that experience that I have come to the conclusion that legislation would not be appropriate at this stage. I said that earlier and I repeat it for the benefit of the hon. Member for Bolsover, who has just walked in. Legislation is not required at this stage and I believe that not only because of my own personal experience, but because of my experience as an employer. Reference has been made to the quota system and to the green card. The green card system has not worked over decades. Exemptions have been sought and employers have found ways round it, disregarded it and abused it. It was well-intentioned legislation. I now look for a change in attitude in society as a whole which should be achieved and should continue to be pressed for without legislation. In terms of the changes, for example, in relation to transport
Mr. Ashley : The hon. Gentleman does not accept the Bill. Will he at least sit down and give it a chance to go to Committee?
Mr. Hayward : The Minister's comments in relation to the willingness of hon. Members of all parties to continue to press for changes in terms of improved employment, access in transport and benefit provision show the appropriate avenue to pursue. There are substantial deficiencies and difficulties associated with the Bill. It is important that we debate these issues on the Floor of the House, but, as my right hon. Friend has said, there are difficulties associated with the timing. We should recognise the position in relation to the election. My right hon. Friend's comments are right. We can consider the position and change it in terms of process and pressure. There is no need at this stage to introduce legislation. The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe said that substantial limits and difficulties were faced in defining disability.
Mr. Wigley : Tory discrimination.
Mr. Alfred Morris : I beg to move, That the Question be now put.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : I must inform the hon. Gentleman that I cannot accept his request. Mr. Hayward.
Mr. Hayward rose --
Mr. Hayward : During my speech, I have accepted interventions, both sedentary and from hon. Members on their feet--in particular, from the right hon. Members for Wythenshawe and for Stoke-on-Trent, South and from the
Column 1261
hon. Member for Bolsover. [Hon. Members: -- "Shame ; sit down."] I have tried to make a series of comments-- [Hon. Members :-- "Sit down."] I have tried--It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned. Debate to be resumed on Friday 21 February.
Mr. Alfred Morris : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? Does it not detract from the reputation of the House, and is it not demeaning of this House, for us to be refused the opportunity even to make a decision in principle about this important matter, when all hon. Members present, but one, have made it quite clear that they are prepared to allow the Bill to proceed to Committee? Is it not utterly disgraceful?
Several Hon. Members : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Let me deal with one point at a time. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has made comments, which he is perfectly entitled to do, but he has not raised a point of order for the occupant of the Chair. It is the job of the occupant of the Chair at 2.30 pm on a Friday--and on other occasions--if the debate is still proceeding, to ask what day it is to be resumed. That is the normal procedure and it is the procedure that has been followed today.
Mr. John Browne : Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) won a place in the ballot and was privileged to have his Bill discussed in the House, does not it seem ridiculous that the Bill can be talked out and prevented from entering Committee? Surely, any such action should be taken in Committee or on Report, and the Bill should be allowed a further airing.
Mr. Campbell-Savours : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You heard the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) say in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Dr. Kumar), that he would not talk the Bill out. That was a solemn undertaking given to this House of Commons on this day. You have seen the hon. Member for Kingswood break his word, act dishonourably and destroy the Bill. Does not that require some statement from the Chair?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : I remind the House that we are following the normal procedures of the House, and that it is my duty, as the occupant of the Chair, to ensure that they are carried out.
Mr. Ashley : Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has misled the House. He said clearly that his attitude to the Bill was one of benevolent neutrality, yet the Government have organised the torpedoing of a Bill that is vital to disabled people. That is shocking and disgraceful, and the Minister should apologise to the House.
Mr. Wigley : Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was quite clear--unless there was a conspiracy by the Conservative Whips-- that only one hon. Member sought to delay the passage of the Bill, and that hon. Gentleman said he did not want to talk the Bill out. In those circumstances, did you not have discretion to put the
Column 1262
Question? If you did not, and if those on the Government Front Bench knew that, is not it patently clear that, throughout the morning, there has been organised filibustering to enable the Bill to be talked out and the Conservative party to go into the election as the party which wants to perpetuate discrimination against disabled people? The people of these islands understand that.Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I remind the House that we cannot continue the debate now. However, I will take points of order so long as they are genuine points of order.
Mr. Arbuthnot : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Some quite unjustified slurs have been made about my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward). My hon. Friend said that he intended not to talk the Bill out, but to make his points. He was prevented from doing that by constant barracking and interruptions from Opposition Members. The longest speech in the debate was made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). His speech was longer than that of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People. It was also longer than the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) when he moved his Medicinal Products : Prescription by Nurses etc. Bill. Any suggestion that the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill has been talked out by Conservative Members is political posturing and nonsense.
Mr. Skinner : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that the Opposition spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) spoke for a couple of minutes. The Minister spoke for about 25 minutes. Other Opposition Members spoke for only a minute or so to allow the Bill to make progress. The Liberal Democrat representative stood up, supported the Bill, and sat down. It should have crossed your mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the request for a closure was made, that you knew that the view of the House in general was that the Bill should be given its Second Reading. It is clear that Tory Members have talked the Bill out. It has been said over the years that the Tory party is the party of organised hypocrisy and it has proved that again today by attacking disabled people around Britain. However, the electorate will have the final say.
Mr. Bill Walker : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How can Conservative Members be protected from such unwarranted charges? I promised people in wheelchairs that I would speak in the debate today and that I would support the Bill. I did just that and I find it offensive when people who did not attend the debate make such charges.
Mr. McMaster : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shortened my speech although I had much to say. I cut my speech to a minute or less to ensure the swift passage of the Bill. In the earlier debate on the Medicinal Products : Prescription by Nurses etc. Bill I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Arbuthnot) and asked whether he would be brief so that we could reach the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill and I received that assurance. What has happened is a disgrace to the House and to the 6.5 million disabled people, their
Column 1263
carers and families. I can tell everyone who participated in that disgraceful behaviour that I would rather live with a disability than with their consciences.Dr. Kumar : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Hayward) said that he would not talk the Bill out. It has been said that some Opposition Members were not present for the whole debate. I have sat through the whole debate. I listened to the hon. Member for Kingswood and I sacrificed my speech so that the Bill could make progress. No one can deny that I sat through the whole debate. I am shocked. Six and half million people have watched the conduct of this Tory Government. The Government's days are numbered.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you consult the Procedure Committee because I and, I am sure, other hon. Members came to the House especially to vote for the Bill which I believe should go into Committee? There should be a 10 -minute limit on speeches in private Member's time.
Mr. Dave Nellist (Coventry, South-East) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that you have been placed in an invidious position this afternoon. It is not just the past two hours which have been a problem. The fact is that the previous debate was timetabled by Tory Whips to finish precisely at 12.35 pm, leaving you with only one hour and 55 minutes for the next debate. Would you do what I have just done and look at the list of speakers for the two debates? You will find that in the first debate of four hours, there were 14 speakers. In the second debate on disabled people's civil rights, in one hour and 55 minutes there were 12 speakers. Surely, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the traditions of debate mean that you have to decide whether to accept a closure motion if there has been sufficient debate. Traditionally, that has been a minimum of two hours. However, the second debate had almost the same number of speakers as the first debate. You would be well within your rights in the Chair to reconsider your decision, and, on the basis of the second debate having had an adequate number of speakers on both sides, now to accept the motion put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and, on behalf of my constituents and 6 million disabled people at least allow this worthy Bill to be considered in Committee.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : I have allowed a good run on points of order because I realise that there are strong feelings on this matter on both sides of the House. However, I can only repeat that it is the job of the Chair to carry out the Standing Orders and the procedures of the House as they are at present. That has been done. If hon. Members feel that the procedure should be changed, of course they are perfectly free to put their points to the Select Committee on Procedure, which would be prepared to consider them.
Mr. Campbell-Savours rose--
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland) rose--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. We must make progress.
Column 1264
Private Members' Bills
SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Second Reading what day? No day named.
SEA FISHERIES (WILDLIFE CONSERVATION) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Second Reading deferred till Friday 7 February.
PROTECTION OF PENSION FUNDS AND INVESTMENTS BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Not moved.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (AMENDMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Not moved.
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SUPPLY OF MEDICAL EQUIPMENT) BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Second Reading what day?
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) : With the permission of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 7 February.
CORPORATE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION BILL Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Second Reading what day?
Mr. Mullin : With the permission of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 7 February.
EDUCATION (SCHOOL PREMISES) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Second Reading what day?
Mr. John Bowis (Battersea) : With the permission of the hon. Member in charge of the Bill, Friday 7 February.
Column 1265
ARMED FORCES (LIABILITY FOR INJURY) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
LICENSING (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
Read the Third time, and passed.
TOURISM (OVERSEAS PROMOTION) (WALES) BILL
Not amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.
Read the Third time, and passed.
SOCIAL SECURITY (MORTGAGE INTEREST PAYMENTS) BILL Motion made,
That, in respect of the Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.-- [Mr. David Davis.] Hon. Members : Object.
SOCIAL SECURITY (MORTGAGE INTEREST PAYMENTS) BILL Motion made,
That, if the Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, further proceedings on the Bill shall stand postponed and that as soon as any proceedings on any Resolution come to by the House on Social Security (Mortgage Interest Payments) Bill [Money] have been concluded, this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill.-- [Mr. David Davis.]
Hon. Members : Object.
Column 1266
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 4th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), Mr. Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Heseltine relating to Local Government Finance not later than Ten o'clock ; and those Questions may be decided after the expiry of the time for opposed business.-- [Mr. David Davis.]
Hon. Members : Object.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 4th February, the Motions in the name of Mr. Francis Maude relating to Supplementary Estimates 1991-92 and Estimates 1992-93 (Vote on Account) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half -past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon, whichever is the later, at which time Mr. Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of them.-- [Mr. David Davis.]
Hon. Members : Object.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 5th February, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business), the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Hunt relating to Local Government Finance (Wales) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or the end of a period of one and a half hours after the first of them has been entered upon, whichever is the later, at which time Mr. Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of them ; and those Questions may be decided after the expiry of the time for opposed business.-- [Mr. David Davis.]
Hon. Members : Object.
Column 1267
MOD Personnel (Injury Compensation)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. David Davis.]
2.43 pm
Mr. John Browne (Winchester) : May I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for selecting this debate?
Ours is a warrior nation and, because of that, the men and women of our armed forces hold a very special place in our hearts--at least in times of war. Sadly, however, in times of peace we are sometimes apt, as in Kipling's famous poem, "Tommy", to take them for granted. Because we truly are a warrior nation, right hon. and hon. Members--probably all of us-- yearly on the vigil of Remembrance Sunday, echo those time-honoured words, "We will remember them." It is true that we will remember them. But what about those who are not killed--at least not quite? I refer to those who suffer horrific wounds, but who are saved from death by the miracle of modern science, good luck and their own outstanding mental fortitude. Many of them live on, but they are severely disabled. Do we truly remember them? I think that the honest answer is yes officially, but do we remember them well enough? I believe that we do not.
Regardless of political party, the people of our country feel that the Government should take more, much more, care of injured service personnel. In relation to the armed forces the Government should, above all, be seen as the very model of a good employer. I believe that the armed services are good employers. The Royal Navy, since the time of Nelson, has been ahead of most navies in the world, if not all. The same applies to the Army since the time of Wellington. However, when an injured service man falls into political hands, I do not believe that we look so good. Too often, there are long and undue delays in receiving compensation and a woeful lack of information is given to the injured and their families. There is an apparent unwillingness to honour moral and financial obligations. On 8 December 1986, the Secretary of State for Defence said : "members of the Armed Forces, by their very nature of their profession, undertake tasks which ordinary members of the public do not."--[ Official Report , 8 December 1986 ; Vol. 107, c. 85.]
I believe that that is a correct and telling statement which should be writ large on the walls of the offices of my right hon. Friends the Minister of State for the Armed Forces and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
On 8 December 1986, the Secretary of State went on to invite the repeal of section 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947. His lead was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), who introduced the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987. It was an excellent Bill and I supported it. It allowed armed services personnel, for the first time, to be able to sue the Crown for negligence. However, with the passage of time, certain glaring loopholes have appeared in the Act. I mean no criticism, because the loopholes were not foreseen at the time. The Act was well intentioned and the loopholes have since appeared.
First, the Ministry of Defence was allowed to withhold documents on the ground of secrecy. I believe that that privilege has been abused on a number of occasions. Secondly, it abolished the flexibility previously given to the Secretary of State to make ex-gratia payments. I believe
Column 1268
that that flexibility is a vital element of the humane treatment of those injured personnel of the armed forces, especially as, rightly, the Act could not be used retrospectively. I also believe that the Act has left the onus of proof to fall always on the injured service person. That is a heavy onus which could be lifted in some obvious severe cases. If one imagines having both legs blown off and one's body lacerated and, in order to obtain full compensation, being forced to take on the might of the Ministry of Defence in a law suit it soon becomes obvious that such loopholes should be plugged. In Committee, the then Under -Secretary, for whom I have the highest personal respect, set out the three Government principles for settling cases. He stated that the Government wished to settle out of court in the interests of the plaintiff. He continued :"we are not seeking to set up legal barriers by employing a raft of lawyers to deter genuine plaintiffs we shall proceed diligently and quickly to reach settlements. We shall not seek to protract cases."--[ Official Report, Standing Committee C, 18 March 1987 ; c. 22.] He also mentioned the most interesting fact that the civil service estimate of the financial cost of the Act was £13 million a year after 10 years. It is now five years since the Act came into force and the total cost of claims is only £1 million a year. Yet the still deformed bodies of some of our injured service men are living examples of the injustice of under- compensation. The figures speak for themselves and confirm that there is under-compensation. I come to the case of the three injured Grenadiers, Lance-Corporal John Ray and Guardsmen Adrian Hicks and Shaun Povey of the Grenadier Guards. I do so not to rehash the case--because I believe that there has been a just settlement--but because it is so well-known. Sadly, however, in its settlement, it is still a rare exception. It is also illustrative of the problems.
In the summer of 1989, those three Grenadiers were ordered to prepare a trench on the Batus firing range in Canada. While digging, one of them struck a buried unexploded anti-tank shell fired some years before but then concealed in the ground. The shell exploded, blowing both legs off each of the three Grenadiers. The explosion injured their bodies so badly that despite prompt and efficient casualty evacuation action, it took the best of medical science about two years to nurse them back to sufficient health even to be invalided out of the armed forces.
A board of inquiry was convened. While it concluded that none of the Grenadiers was to blame, it was not even required to investigate either why the blind shell was in an area used for trench digging or whether all safety precautions and briefings had been carried out effectively. Despite that, the House was assured, incredibly, that no blame was attributable. Perhaps that was legal advice, and I do not blame the Minister personally. That is illustrative of the problems that such injured people face--the need to get the facts through and have them heard openly, rather than everything happening behind closed doors.
About 18 months later, when the first Grenadier, Adrian Hicks, was invalided from the Army, the Government appeared to dig in their heels at the very thought of paying compensation, or at any rate compensation anything near the levels paid in civilian life. When Hicks was discharged on 30 December 1990, he was not paid anything other than his unemployment and sickness benefit from the DSS until 15 May 1991, and then
Column 1269
only after a ballyhoo had been created by that fine gentleman who fights many such cases, Colonel Terence Otway.Here were three men cut down in the prime of their youth by devastating injuries. They were mentally drained after a two-year ordeal in hospital and of course extremely depressed, at their immobility. They had no personal real wealth. Yet the mighty Ministry of Defence challenged those mutilated men to prove negligence. Worse still, the same Ministry withheld the full findings of the board of inquiry, even though those findings were vital to the proving of their case. It provided only an abridged version which left out the crucial and damning details.
Where was the spirit of the Government assurances that had been given to the Standing Committee on 18 March 1987? It was ignored and the Government fought those injured men to the very last trench. Fortunately, those Grenadiers were lucky. They were members of a strong and family-like regiment which not only gave them invalid motor cars but provided funds for their lawyers. As hon. Members are aware, pressure was brought in the House, by the media, and in the end the Prime Minister intervened and a just settlement was achieved.
Those Grenadiers were lucky, but a parliamentary answer given in another place on 14 October 1991, showed that many others had not been so lucky. Indeed, on that date there were still unsettled over 1,000 claims, 56 of them stretching back to 1987, five years previously.
I appreciate that there can be legitimate causes for delay. For example, there is need to prove negligence and there must be time for gravely injured men or women to have their physical conditions stabilised so that an assessment can be made of the degree of disability. But why are there so many, and such long, delays? Let us not overlook the trauma and anguish that is caused by such delay. To help alleviate the situation and reduce the delays, I introduced the Armed Forces (Liability for Injury) Bill, which would have reversed the onus of proof for negligence for compensation for armed service personnel who received severe injuries in the course of their duties
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it is not in order on the Adjournment to discuss legislation. I am sure that he can use his ingenuity to make his points without referring to legislation.
Mr. Browne : I respect that remark, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Minister knows the contents and purposes of the Bill. All I ask is, why does his Ministry continue to try to kill the Bill? Only five minutes ago, an effort was made to stop its progress through the House. It is iniquitous that this sort of Bill is not at least allowed to reach its Committee stage. Why is it not allowed a passage? Why is not the Ministry of Defence pushing the Bill forward to ensure fair treatment for the injured?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman. He may refer to changes that he would like to see. So long as he avoids referring to a Bill he will remain in order.
Column 1270
Mr. Browne : Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I respect your ruling on that.
I turn now to the provision of information by the Ministry of Defence. The first example is the case of the injured Grenadiers. Why was it not possible to produce the full board of inquiry report into an accident in Canada several years previously? The reason was because the report was restricted. Who made it restricted? The major in charge of the board of inquiry. It is easy for any Minister or senior officer to have that restricted qualification lifted. Why was it not lifted? Why was only a precis given to the guardsmen and their solicitors when the full inquiry showed--I have seen it illicitly--a story with interesting information that would have been important to them in proving their case, but was not given in the precis? The second case relates to Mark Booth, a parachutist in the Fifth Airborne division. He was gravely injured in a mysterious convoy accident. There have been endless delays and the Ministry has provided the minimum of information. Why? How can it be seen as a good employer? I simply do not understand.
Then we have the case of Conrad Cole, Richard Gillespie and Lee Thompson of the Royal Fusiliers and others who were injured in friendly fire accidents in the Gulf. I fully understand that there are problems finding out exactly what happened. Other nations may be involved, there may be diplomatic problems and so on. But why do we refuse to give information and cause anguish and trauma to the injured men and their parents? Surely some of that information could be given up front rather than always having to be fought for, creating such a bad impression.
I have tabled many questions, particularly on the Grenadier case. Some answers came back. I do not know whether they can be called answers-- perhaps I should say, replies. They were not only unhelpful, but almost downright rude. I asked for a list of the claims outstanding under the 1987 Act showing the names, the disability claimed and the date of accident. I did not think that that could be too hard for the Ministry. The answer was :
"No. To do so would be a breach of medical confidentiality."--[ Official Report, 21 January 1992 ; Vol. 202, c. 190. ]
Could the Ministry not ask the men concerned whether they minded their names being put on such a list? I doctored the question and tabled a further request, this time just for the names and date of accident. I was told :
"To list the information requested would breach confidentiality and be in contravention of the Data Protection Act."--[ Official Report, 27 January 1992 ; Vol. 202, c. 453. ]
If that is true, the Data Protection Act 1988 needs amending urgently.
Other questions relate to the board of inquiry report. I asked whether in convening the board of inquiry report into the Grenadiers at Batus range any requirement was made for it to investigate why the blind round remained in an area used for digging outside the impact area of the live firing ranges. The answer was :
"The convening order directed the board of inquiry to consider all the circumstances that contributed to the accident.--[ Official Report, 25 June 1991 ; Vol. 193, c. 465 .]
I have seen that board and my view is that it was not asked and certainly did not make any real investigation into why that round was there in the first place. That was bad.
In the interests of time, I shall skip other examples. Why is the Minister of Defence so intent on secrecy in this area? I do not blame my right hon. Friend personally for
| Next Section
| Home Page |