Previous Section Home Page

Column 71

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Patnick, Irvine

Pawsey, James

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Pickles, Eric

Porter, David (Waveney)

Powell, William (Corby)

Richards, Rod

Riddick, Graham

Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm

Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Shaw, David (Dover)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Sims, Roger

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Speed, Sir Keith

Spencer, Sir Derek

Spink, Dr Robert

Sproat, Iain

Stephen, Michael

Stern, Michael

Stewart, Allan

Streeter, Gary

Sweeney, Walter

Sykes, John

Thomason, Roy

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)

Trend, Michael

Trotter, Neville

Twinn, Dr Ian

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Walden, George

Waller, Gary

Ward, John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Waterson, Nigel

Watts, John

Wells, Bowen

Wheeler, Sir John

Whittingdale, John

Widdecombe, Ann

Wilkinson, John

Willetts, David

Wood, Timothy

Yeo, Tim

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Robert G. Hughes and

Mr. Andrew Mackay.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker-- forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved :

That this House notes the Government's continuing commitment to housing policies designed to ensure that a decent home is within reach of every family, and in particular to promoting the growth of owner-occupation, widening choice for tenants, and improving value-for-money and targeting of public expenditure ; and especially welcomes the measures announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Autumn Statement which--consistently with the need to maintain tight control of public spending in the interests of the economy and the taxpayer--will contribute to stabilising the housing market, will increase the supply of social housing thereby helping homeless families, and will promote investment in renovation of run-down council estates.

Column 72

Former Yugoslavia

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse) : Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

7.11 pm

Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East) : I beg to move, That this House regrets that the response of the European Community, and notably Her Majesty's Government, since it has assumed the Presidency, to the crisis in former Yugoslavia has been too little and too late ; is appalled by the continuing slaughter in Bosnia-Herzegovina ; is deeply concerned about the impact of winter in Sarajevo and other cities, where failure to protect and stockpile food will be paid for in lives ; condemns the barbaric policy of ethnic cleansing ; considers that the first priority must be to suppress the ferocity of the fighting by taking over the air space above Bosnia- Herzegovina under UN mandate and if necessary using it to prevent the use of heavy weapons and aircraft for offensive purposes ; calls for the effective policing of the Danube to enforce sanctions ; congratulates British troops on humanitarian protection for relief convoys ; insists however that they must have full capacity for retaliation including, if necessary, air cover ; insists that Her Majesty's Government must respond much more generously to the refugee problem, both financially and in the numbers accepted ; is deeply concerned that the conflict may soon spread to Kosovo and Macedonia ; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to co-ordinate a European Community wide strategy for refugees as proposed by Germany and for further urgent and appropriate action.

I suspect that many people in Europe allowed themselves a period of self- congratulation immediately after the break-up of the Warsaw pact, when the cold war came to an end and, in particular, when European countries participated successfully in the United Nations operation in the middle east to expel Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. But the sense of complacency that these events may have created has been rudely interrupted by the break-up of Yugoslavia into its historical components, fuelled by ethnic hatred of the most virulent kind. On our television screens, atrocity piled on atrocity, inhumanity, barbarism and cruelty have been commonplace.

Which of us can be content with the response of the international community? Which of us believes that Europe has done all that it can? Does any hon. Member feel no sense of shame about our niggardly attitude to refugees?

British troops are at last arriving in Bosnia, but it is right to ask ourselves in what circumstances they do so and for what purpose.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned refugees, and I share his views on visa restrictions. Is he aware that many hon. Members--certainly myself--have been repeatedly ringing the Home Secretary's Private Office and the Under-Secretary's Private Office about the 180 refugees who are isolated and some of whose children may die? In view of the ambiguous nature of the decision about whether to allow them to enter and all the other facts, should not those 180 refugees be allowed to come here as quickly as possible for the most humanitarian reasons?

Mr. Campbell : The hon. Gentleman makes a most eloquent plea, and I shall put it in context.

Let us consider how many refugees we are being asked to take compared with the numbers that countries surrounding Yugoslavia have felt obliged to take. Is not it

Column 73

time for a generous response from the United Kingdom? I suspect that it would do us much good in the international community. It would do us much good in Europe if some of our partners felt that we were as willing to assume these burdens as they have been. I think in particular of the burden that Germany has assumed and of some of the social difficulties that have resulted. It is a moment for some warmth of spirit, but so far we have seen little evidence of it from Ministers.

Our troops have gone to keep the peace. It is a peacekeeping operation, but we must ask ourselves what peace there is to keep. The decision to send British troops was taken many weeks ago, yet some of the concerns that were expressed in early September still have not been adequately met. I assert, I believe without contradiction, that we have no right to place brave men and women in circumstances where they risk their lives without giving them the clearest possible military objectives, the equipment and numbers to meet those objectives and, if necessary, naval and air support. It is said that our troops are in Yugoslavia for a humanitarian purpose--to assist the United Nations in ensuring that aid gets through. Those are desirable motives, but they are not clear-cut military objectives.

There has been much debate about the precise terms of the rules of engagement. I would not ask the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to be express about the terms of the rules of engagement--those who know about these matters know that it is by no means sensible to narrate in detail the terms of engagement--but I must ask him to confirm that the rules of engagement, as framed, conform to the nature of the military task that we are asking our troops to undertake.

It is one thing to issue rules of engagement based on self-defence and on negotiating a right of passage for convoys, but it is a quite different thing when, as happened at the weekend, United Kingdom forces are considered for the escort of refugees. Under what rules of engagement would our troops have conducted that exercise? If refugees in the charge of United Kingdom troops were fired upon, it seems self-evident that the troops would have returned fire. Would that be consistent with the rules of engagement under which they would have had to operate if the task of escorting refugees had been assigned to them?

We have sent to Bosnia Senator tanks and Warrior infantry fighting vehicles, but why did it take so long for those vehicles to get there? Why are men and vehicles having to familiarise themselves in winter conditions? How much easier it would have been if troops and their equipment had been deployed earlier.

You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will have heard colourful stories in the aftermath of the Gulf war about the performance of some British Army vehicles and how some of them were kept going only by cannibalising others in Europe to the extent that, as has been said, perhaps somewhat flippantly, there were hardly half a dozen decent tanks left in Europe. We must have guarantees about the availability of spare parts and the nature of the maintenance of vehicles, on which the lives of our troops depend.

I must ask the Minister--and I do so with some reticence because these are issues that people are reluctant to discuss openly and in public--what assessment has been made about the possibility of casualties? Will all medical evacuations be effected using Sea King helicopters, which

Column 74

have now been deployed offshore? If that is the case, what assessment has been made of the capability of that aircraft to fly in all circumstances in the Yugoslavian winter?

There are more fundamental questions. On what basis was the number of 1,800 arrived at? What assessment of the task was made in advance of a decision about those numbers? Is it true, as some with confidence have asserted, that the size of the force that the United Kingdom should deploy was determined before the nature of the task had been properly defined? What prompted the increase from 1,800 to the present figure of 2,400? Will the Minister tell the House whether there are any plans to send more troops?

If I recall correctly, the Secretary of State for Defence said to the Defence Select Committee that the initial deployment was for six months and that there might be a further six months of deployment, but that thereafter the matter would have to be reconsidered. If that is the case, are there any plans to send more troops?

What contingency plans are being discussed if, for example, as is not beyond the bounds of possibility, the United Nations were to take the view that the mass evacuation of refugees was necessary? Would the British troops, sent for humanitarian purposes to safeguard the passage of convoys, be turned to other tasks such as guarding airfields or similar tasks? If that is contemplated, are we satisfied that the equipment with which they have been provided is adequate for that purpose?

When Vitez was chosen, it was some way back from the fighting. Now it is right in the middle of the fighting. What consequences will that have for the nature of the operations that British troops are able to carry out? In recent weeks, Canadian, French and Spanish troops have been prevented by irregulars from reaching the areas assigned to them by the United Nations so that deployment, according to United Nations resolution 776, has not yet been achieved. In the context of the weekend, we must ask how far our troops are empowered to go. I put the matter in a way that is not unnecessarily fanciful. If a drunken militia man with a Kalashnikov stands in the way of a convoy threatening to fire on those who are guarding it, can he stop it, or are our troops empowered to take such steps as they believe necessary to secure the safe passage of that convoy? I ask that question for the following reason.

With the onset of winter, when the lives of many people will be at stake, there is bound to be far greater pressure to get access with food and supplies to those who are in need. Let us remember that it was only when winter came to the people of northern Iraq that public opinion and international opinion were prompted to take the necessary steps. If people are dying in the snow in Bosnia, there may be pressure on us here. That will be nothing compared with the pressure on our troops who will feel compelled to take the steps necessary to ensure that food and supplies get to those who need them most. In the winter conditions, access to our troops will be more difficult. What steps will be taken to ensure logistical supplies to our troops? Someone who claims some expertise in the matter put it to me the other day that, in the winter in Yugoslavia, British troops might find themselves concentrating almost exclusively on achieving sufficient logistical support to maintain themselves, never mind distributing food and supplies to those who required them.

Column 75

Let us consider the question of command and control. There are reports that there is some friction between the senior United Kingdom commander and General Morillon. It was always going to be a delicate relationship for reasons that those who understand the politics of NATO will clearly appreciate. Are we satisfied that that relationship is now on a proper military footing? The Minister has an obligation to confirm to the House that the Government are satisfied at the highest level that the command and control arrangements are properly drawn up for the most effective use of our troops and for the best protection that is available to them.

I turn to the question of air power. When the Secretary of State for Defence appeared before the Defence Select Committee, he was reticent when the point was put to him. I ask the Minister a direct question : if the United Kingdom commander on the ground needs air power to protect the lives of those under his command, will he have it? Have the arrangements been made? I do not ask the Minister to tell us from where or in what form--that information would necessarily require to be kept restricted. However, the House and the troops are entitled to know whether and in what circumstances they will have available to them the resources of the Alliance to protect them. I put the matter bluntly once more : if the commander on the ground needs to call down air strikes to protect United Kingdom troops, will he be able to do so? It is a straightforward question which deserves a straightforward answer.

In the context of air power, we know that the Serbs have used military aircraft. The United Nations has responded to that by declaring an air exclusion zone, but, contrary to the air exclusion zone we have established over southern Iraq, we have not yet willed the means to enforce such an exclusion zone in Yugoslavia. What use is an air exclusion zone unless it is enforceable? Will the Government today pledge themselves to ensure that the proper means of enforcing that relevant United Nations resolution will now be obtained?

It is uncharacteristic for such an operation to be carried on without a substantial contribution from the United States. Perhaps the fact that the United States has been locked in a seemingly interminable presidential election has had some influence on the nature and degree of its commitment. It is well known that the intelligence-gathering capability of the United States is second to none. I ask the Minister a direct question : can he tell the House whether, as a contribution to the United Kingdom's efforts in Yugoslavia, the United Kingdom is able to call on the

intelligence-gathering efforts of the United States?

I am aware that I have concentrated on what some might think to be domestic military considerations. I hope that I may be excused. I do not lose sight of the scale of the problem, nor does the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, who estimates that 400,000 people could perish in Bosnia this winter. I want the United Kingdom troops to help to prevent that, but I want them to have every possible assistance as they try to do so.

As we say on every such occasion in the House, we know that we have professional, versatile and committed forces. We owe them a duty not to expose them to unnecessary risk. My questions this evening go right to the heart of the role and of the effectiveness of United

Column 76

Kingdom forces in Bosnia. The more effective they can be, the more likely it is that the people of that troubled country will have a chance of survival.

7.28 pm

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton) : I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof :

"congratulates the European Community and notably Her Majesty's Government in its capacity as Presidency on its unremitting work for a solution of the crisis in the former Yugoslavia ; is appalled by the continuing slaughter in Bosnia-Herzegovina ; is deeply concerned about the impact of winter in Sarajevo and other cities and the need to ensure the safe passage of relief supplies to them ; expresses its warm support for the work of British troops in providing protective support for relief convoys and is reassured to know that they will have the full right to self-defence ; condemns the barbarous policy of ethnic cleansing ; calls for the effective policing of the Danube to enforce sanctions ; welcomes Her Majesty's Government's response to the refugee problem ; is deeply concerned that the conflict may spread to Kosovo and Macedonia ; and makes clear its strong support for the work of the international conference on the former Yugoslavia under the leadership of Lord Owen and Mr. Cyrus Vance."

The House will recall the Adjournment debate on 25 September when my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence set out the Government's response to the troubles that continue to beset the former Yugoslavia, as part of a wider effort by the international community. Attention was focused especially on developments in Bosnia where the conflict has been extremely bloody and seemingly intractable.

We can all agree that the overarching need is for a negotiated, political solution to the conflict. We cannot impose peace on Bosnia militarily--nor should we try ; there is no military solution to the problem. The House is well aware of the continuing work of the international conference on the former Yugoslavia in Geneva, which is continuing to draw together the efforts of the European Community and the United Nations in close liaison, building on and following up the achievements of the London conference and bringing together the key leaders on whom all hopes of a settlement depend. Under its co-chairmen, Cyrus Vance and Lord Owen, the conference is pursuing a comprehensive programme of work aimed at helping the parties make progress towards a solution. That work must be made to succeed. Without a solution which the parties arrive at of their own free will, there will be no end to the tragedy that is Yugoslavia and no peace for the people of Bosnia.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : Before the Minister develops his speech, will he answer the question reflected in the exchange between my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) about the position of the 183 people, predominantly women and children, who have applied for visas to visit the United Kingdom? Have those applications been granted or refused, or has no decision yet been taken?

Mr. Hamilton : No decision has been taken on that. The hon. Gentleman will have to await further announcements from my right hon. Friends on that matter. However, it is worth making the point that, since the conflict began in Yugoslavia, more than 40,000 Yugoslav nationals have arrived in this country already.

Column 77

Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil) : I want to comment on this point because a bus from just outside my constituency has been turned back. I remind the Minister that, as the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) have said, these people are predominantly women and children. One child has a tumour which needs almost immediate surgery to save its life. Those people have been sitting on buses in miserable, cold conditions. I believe that the Home Office has been considering the matter since Friday. For goodness sake, surely it is time that a decision was taken. If the Home Office cannot take a decision tonight, when on earth will it take one?

Next Section

  Home Page