House of Commons Hansard Debates for 26 Nov 1992

Column 1087

Lancaster said about our agreement with the Treasury that all savings from market testing will be retained by the Departments concerned and will be ploughed back into the services they provide to the public?

The hon. Member for Vauxhall asked me about two points of detail, the first of them on in-house bids. We encourage in-house bids in the context of market testing but we are not insisting that they should be mandatory. That would, in effect, give a veto to the employees concerned. We cannot compel employees to put in a bid : if they do not come forward, that should not exclude market testing. Confidentiality has arisen again and again. We do not accept the Opposition's idea, which seems to be that servants of the public who work in the private sector have a lower standard of integrity than public servants who work in the public sector.

To the hon. Members for Truro and for York (Mr. Bayley), I would say that it is not good enough to complain that some targets for public services are not being met. Of course some of them are not being met. It would be deeply suspicious if all our targets were met.

I see that the hon. Member for York is in his place. He asked a series of specific questions about performance against targets under the patients charter. They were good questions and I shall come back to him later on the detailed points that he raised. Meanwhile, I remind him, and others who have made comments about targets, that targets for the public service are now being set for the first time and that the performance of those services against those targets is now being monitored for the first time. That is what is new and what is important.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth) on a graceful and witty speech and on acting during the debate as my honorary parliamentary private secretary--he will soon be a real PPS, I am sure. He brought out well the important point that the Government's programme for public service reform is welcomed by many people working in the public service who see in that programme opportunities to do better, both in terms of assuming new responsibilities and in terms of providing better-quality services. My hon. Friend was also right to stress that investment in the public service is not only a matter of investment of cash ; it is a matter of investing in new thinking, new structures and better management. I should not like to forget the point made by the hon. Member for Truro, to which I now return. He asked whether the Government were ensuring that the users of public services were being consulted about the setting of targets. The answer to his question is yes, and I invite him to look at the citizens charter White Paper, which details our plans for regular surveys of the customers of public services. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) made an eloquent speech, bringing home from personal and professional knowledge the importance of the new courts charter launched yesterday. I hope that he will maintain his close interest in the courts charter and assist us in the Office of Public Service and Science and the whole House in the work of applying that charter and

Column 1088

progressively improving its effectiveness-- because we intend that our charters should be upgraded and improved in the light of experience.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam made a valuable point about the concerns expressed, especially by the hon. Member for Hodge Hill, about jobs in the civil service. She pointed out that market testing does not necessarily entail any net loss of jobs. Jobs will stay in house if the in- house team provide the best value for money. Where contracting out offers better value for money, I give the assurance that contractors will be encouraged to take relevant staff ; otherwise, Departments--again, I give an assurance--will make every effort to redeploy staff or absorb them through natural wastage. That has happened in the vast majority of cases in the past four years, and I see no reason why it should not continue to be the pattern of market testing in future.

The hon. Member for Govan continued in the thoughtful and constructive vein of his speeches on Second Reading and in Committee--where he made an active contribution--on the Civil Service (Management Functions) Bill. He articulated his fears about the fragmentation of the civil service and the loss of what he called a holistic sense of responsibility in the new regime by the management of contracts and competitive tendering.

The Government recognise that that could be a danger, but it will happen only if the policy is pressed to exaggerated lengths, which I do not believe will happen. Our watchwords in the policy of market testing will be balance and common sense, and I have no doubt that that will be in conformity with the mood of public servants who, like the hon. Member for Govan, exhibit a sense of balance and common sense. The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), asked about the implications of the TUPE regulations for market testing. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he sought : the TUPE regulations do not conflict with the contracting out or market testing of work in the public sector.

Mr. McAllion : Will the TUPE regulations apply in every case in which a civil service job is put out to competitive tender?

Mr. Jackson : The TUPE regulations have always applied to transfers. The amendment to another Bill that the Standing Committee is examining simply makes it clear that the regulations can apply irrespective of the commercial status of the employer. That being the case, organisations tendering under the compulsory competitive tendering programme must take into account the possible effects of the regulations and directives. There is nothing new in that. I turn to the characteristically thoughtful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Central (Mr. Lord), who emphasised the importance of leadership. I agree with him. The key point which I hope he will recognise is that the changes which we are making to the structure of public services will create new opportunities for leadership in the provision of public services.

The central theme of our management changes is devolution and decentralisation of responsibility, together with a much clearer specification of the performance standards. Local leadership is responsible for the delivery of those standards. My hon. Friend will have seen that

Column 1089

leadership at work in the schools and hospitals in his constituency. The principle will be applied increasingly widely in other fields of public service.

Many of the speakers in this interesting and worthwhile debate about the public service have focused on the citizens charter. That is right and proper, because the citizens charter is the part of the Government's public service reform agenda which is most visible to our constituents. I stress the connection between the citizens charter and our public service reform agenda.

Too many people, especially in the London media, have not yet understood that the citizens charter is not simply a set of pious aspirations. The charter is integrally bound up with the far-reaching changes that we are making in the machinery of government. The essence of the changes lies in the combination of decentralisation and responsibility for service delivery with the specification of performance targets and the embodiment of those targets in contracts which are increasingly open to competition. That will provide a powerful mechanism for systematically drafting standards of quality and performance in the public sector.

Let me simply say that this is the agenda for the 1990s. Although we are grateful for signs of support from the Opposition for the agenda, I am nevertheless happy that this debate has confirmed that the agenda continues to be dominated by the Conservative party.

Mr. Tim Boswell (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury) : I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Column 1090

UN Peacekeeping Operations

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

9.59 pm

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend (Bexleyhealth) : I am delighted to have this opportunity to draw to the attention of the House, as I last did in an Adjournment debate in March 1989 and 10 years before that, the expansion and success of the United Nations peacekeeping operations. I also want to mention some of the current problems and put forward ideas on future developments.

I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who has recently taken over responsibility for this area of policy. This short decade will given him the opportunity to tell the House his personal thinking on this topic and the official views of the Foreign Office. His speech will be listened to and read in Hansard tomorrow with great care. The award of the Nobel peace prize in 1988 to United Nations peacekeeping forces highlighted the renewed interest in that form of intervention and its part in the peaceful settlement of disputes. It highlighted the ending of the vastly disagreeable, dangerous and wasteful cold war. It gave a new emphasis to the work of the United Nations and its charter.

Russia now supports the United Nations in the peacekeeping aspect of its international responsibilities. There have been many--clearly far too many- -new demands on United Nations peacekeeping. Commitments have grown far faster than resources. Let me define my terms. I see peacekeeping as the use of aninternational--

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

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

Mr. Townsend : I see peacekeeping as the use of an international force by invitation to reduce violence. I am not discussing the use of military force to liberate a country such as Kuwait, impose order or suppress an opponent. I shall not refer this evening to the protection of the Kurds in Iraq or the need for better protection of the marsh Arabs in southern Iraq. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister will be interested to know that I hope to have a chance to refer to the marsh Arabs tomorrow morning.

As a former regular soldier, I believe that peacekeeping has become an essential part in the 1990s of the work done by the United Nations for international harmony and, above all, security. Obviously, peacekeeping must always be properly and carefully considered and then authorised by the Security Council in New York.

I am acutely aware of some obvious problems today, but surely there is one area of United Nations activity in which we can build on progress already made. It would be a dereliction of duty not to try to do so. I am describing an invention of the United Nations which is still evolving in a variety of forms to match a range of problems. It may take the form of patrolling buffer zones between two armed opponents or checking troop levels or even making sure that elections are not disrupted by violence. Nothing quite like that role existed for the old League of Nations. It is not even mapped out in the charter.

Column 1091

For several decades, at least one United Nations force has been on duty at any given time in some corner of the globe. Many thousands of soldiers have given their lives while attempting to keep the peace. Substantially more than 100,000 soldiers from one third of the world's armies have worn the pale blue beret or helmet. Japanese soldiers have just joined the ranks of the United Nations. United States forces watched over the two truces of 1948 between Israel and its Arab neighbours. In 1949 they watched over the ceasefire in Kashmir and showed the world that a relatively small number of military observers could help to maintain a ceasefire. In 1956, after the Suez fiasco, they supervised the withdrawal of Israeli, British and French forces. In 1960, events in the Congo tied up 20,000 United Nations soldiers for four years.

I suggest that UN peacekeeping has been shown by experience since 1948 to be more effective than unilateral, bilateral or multilateral intervention from outside the control of the United Nations. The ill-fated multinational force in the Lebanon, in which the United Kingdom took part under American control, helps to make my point. I turn to Britain's sterling contribution to United Nations peacekeeping. I only wish that it were better known. One purpose of this debate is to give it some publicity. British soldiers have proved themselves particularly good at peacekeeping. They know how to be firm but fair. Years of using minimum force in aid of a civil power in Borneo, Aden, Belize and Zimbabwe have given them an enviable record, which few other countries can match.

Peacekeeping is superb training for our defence forces, giving them a rare opportunity for overseas service outside Germany, which has real value for the young non-commissioned officer and the newly joined soldier who seeks a bit of excitement.

Recently, British signallers served with the United Nations force in Namibia. They performed with every satisfaction and, I have no doubt, reaped enormous benefits from their time with the other troops in the United Nations transitional assistance group, UNTAG, in a fascinating part of southern Africa. It was no surprise to me that Britain was subsequently asked to send a training team to Namibia, which leaves in April next year, its work being completed. I am not convinced that the study of UN-style peacekeeping receives sufficient attention in the British Army. I am advised by those in a position to know that training in peacekeeping of officers and units could be further improved. They know a lot--they do not know all there is to know. The Nordic countries are perhaps better than us at co-ordinating the training of staff and technical officers for duties within United Nations peacekeeping forces.

The Minister will know that British soldiers will be asked to do far more work for the United Nations and they must be 100 per cent. trained for it. May I please be told in a letter how much time a British officer gives in cadet and staff colleges in 1992 to the study of United Nations peacekeeeping?

A few years ago I spent a fascinating morning with 40 Royal Marine Commando, who were on duty with the United Nations along the so-called green line in Nicosia and had reached a rare peak of proficiency. I should like

Column 1092

to ask the Minister about the United Kingdom contribution to the United Nations force in Cyprus. We play the main role within that force, which has been in Cyprus since the ethnic fighting in 1964, and we administer it from our sovereign bases--a major undertaking. The United Kingdom force is to be reduced by 100, from a total of 755, as part of a general reduction in troop levels. Of the other three contributors, Denmark plans to withdraw its entire 341 strong contingent ; Austria is to reduce its commitment from 410 to about 300 ; and Canada will reduce its 575 troops to 510. We are told that those countries feel that their contributions could be better deployed elsewhere ; and of course there will be financial considerations. Incidentally, it is wrong that the burden is borne by the Foreign Office and not by the Ministry of Defence.

The latest effort to solve the Cyprus problem has failed and our decision has been ill-received in Cyprus. What talks took place with President Vassiliou--a wonderful Commonwealth leader--before our announcement? Turkey has an occupying force of more than 20,000 in the north and the Greek Cypriots believe that a thinning out of United Nations forces will put the south at a disadvantage. It would also suggest a lack of interest in Cyprus. As a guarantor power, Britain has a special and unique responsibility for that beautiful but tragic European island.

I move on to Cambodia, where I am proud of our experienced military observers with the United Nations transitional authority in Cambodia, UNTAC. However, the news from that unfortunate country is very disturbing and the United Nations peace force may collapse, endangering United Nations troops taking part in that large and expensive operation. There have been all too many ceasefire violations. Violence and intimidation are widespread and the elections are in jeopardy. I hear that the dreaded Khmer Rouge is increasing the area it controls. The House will want to hear the latest news on the situation from my right hon. and learned Friend. Hon. Members will wish me to raise the question of our involvement in the former Yugoslavia, where there are well-armed warlords, thugs and bandits as well as the established military forces. While I fully supported the dispatch of medical personnel, engineers and signallers to the UN forces before the House rose for the summer recess, I have grave reservations about the dispatch of the Cheshire Regiment, a fine, down-to-earth and highly professional unit with an outstanding commanding officer. They have been placed in a difficult and vulnerable position. The carrying of humanitarian aid is normally left to United Nations agencies and civilian transport. I wish the battalion well and know that it will perform well, but I hope that it will be withdrawn before too long. The Government know as well as I do how easy it is to commit troops and how difficult it is subsequently to withdraw them.

We are grappling with centuries-old feuds in difficult, heavily wooded and mountainous country. There is a strict limit on how much can be achieved and how much Britain should get involved. In that respect, Turkey and eight Balkan countries have urged the development of UN forces in Kosovo. Where do the Government stand on that request?

I must refer to the UN forces in Lebanon. Few people appreciate that Britain administers that force, too, from our sovereign base in Cyprus. Since it was established in

Column 1093

1978, the force has suffered 200 fatalities. Its mandate must be strengthened. Israel is responsible for the South Lebanese army, which regularly fires on UNIFIL soldiers. I deplore what has been happening in southern Lebanon. Israel should withdraw forthwith, as required by UN resolution 425, and UNIFIL must be allowed to deploy to the international border.

The time is ripe to look anew at the money and machinery for, and conduct of, UN peacekeeping operations. At a time when the UN has acquired a wider and generally more accepted role, it is essential that some changes are made. At present, there is a crisis over funding. Britain has a superb record of paying the UN the full amount on time. The United States has a disgraceful record and owes $202 million to the separate and vital peacekeeping account. It plans to pay that over a five-year period, but the money and example are needed now.

Does the Minister support the call for the reactivation of the military staff committee with a wider membership and better terms of reference? Why should countries such as Canada, Nepal and Fiji, which can boast considerable peacekeeping experience, be excluded in the 1990s? Does he consider that the standard operating procedures for United Nations forces are adequate and, if not, how can they be improved?

I would like to see the assembling of a cadre of international experts to facilitate the dispatch of United Nations forces. It would include specialists in logistics, communications and training. They should be given a proper database which would cover who could be called on and how much notice would be required. In recent years, the construction of the United Nations force has frequently looked clumsy and amateurish.

It is important also that United Nations peacekeepers have access to the latest appropriate technology. That includes satellite communications and navigational aids, night surveillance equipment, including infra-red aids and listening devices such as our troops employ at night in Northern Ireland. To illustrate my point, electronic devices could help to reduce the possibility of surprise attack across the border and help to reduce tensions in the area. Could consideration also be given to that cadre at the United Nations having a highly-trained and mobile disaster relief element? That could assist particularly in poorer and less developed countries after earthquakes, cyclones or major chemical or nuclear leaks. I hope that I have said enough to activate the Government. Britain could and should use its privileged position as a permanent member of the Security Council to strengthen the world body's peacekeeping role. Unless we are careful, demand for United Nations peacekeeping will far exceed the United Nations' military and financial resources.

Experience suggests that a comparatively small United Nations force can reduce tension and limit aggression, thus giving diplomats a chance to reach a peaceful settlement of an international dispute. United Nations peacekeeping has proved itself. It is good news and practical. It is no woolly, over-idealistic pipedream. The blue helmets have been a success in many difficult and complex situations. It would be splendid to see this country mark out the way forward at the United Nations.

Column 1094

10.15 pm

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hogg) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (MrTownsend) on selecting this subject for the Adjournment debate. It is an important issue which he has raised in the past and it is right that the House should focus on peacekeeping by the United Nations. I accept my hon. Friend's definition of the term "peacekeeping" and I think that I can respond within the definition to many of the questions that he has posed.

One has only to look at the newspapers to see evidence of the increasingly important role being played by the United Nations in conflicts the world over. In Croatia, Bosnia, Cambodia, Angola, Mozambique and Somalia, United Nations personnel are engaged in trying to solve a range of different problems. Those are only the operations receiving current attention in the newspapers. There are many more : Cyprus, central America and the middle east, all of which contribute to the resolution of local conflicts.

There has been a dramatic expansion in United Nations peacekeeping in recent years, in terms of both numbers of operations and numbers of troops on the ground. Since 1988, 13 new peacekeeping operations have been established--the same number as in the whole period between 1948 and 1987. At the beginning of 1992, the number of United Nations civil and military personnel deployed on peacekeeping operations was about 11,500. Today, the figure is some 51,000, and rising. Not only has the number of operations increased ; so, too has the complexity of those operations. The United Nations transitional authority in Cambodia, the United Nation's biggest and most ambitious operation to date, is effectively administering the country in the run-up to the elections, in addition to its talks of repatriating refugees, training in mine clearance, holding human rights education campaigns and registering voters--to name but a few of UNTAC's responsibilities.

The United Kingdom's involvement in UN peacekeeping operations has also increased substantially in recent years. With the recent deployment in Bosnia, there will be more than 3,000 British troops on the ground under UN command, making us the third largest troop contributor after France and Canada. We have also seconded experienced military staff to the field operations division in the UN to help to improve the logistics back-up for UN forces on the ground.

My hon. Friend rightly said that the United Kingdom forces bring great skills to bear, and there are further skills that they can learn. He was correct to identify the Nordic countries as a source of those further skills. We are looking to the Nordic countries for the possibility of further training. My hon. Friend is entirely right when he says that service with peacekeeping forces will become an ever-increasing part of the military career of the average British soldier.

My hon. Friend referred specifically to Bosnia. You, Madam Speaker, and other hon. Members will have watched with considerable pride and concern the deployment of British troops in Bosnia, particularly those from the Cheshire Regiment. They are clearly doing an extremely important job in circumstances that are difficult and that are sure to become more difficult as the winter closes in.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces covered our involvement in Bosnia in detail

Column 1095

in last week's debate, so I shall not go into too much detail now. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath raised the issue of the length of deployment, which is 12 months. We shall review the possibility of a further extension of that deployment towards the end of the 12 months. At the end of that period, we must determine whether it would be right further to extend the time that British troops spend in Bosnia.

As my hon. Friend well knows, the purpose of the troops is humanitarian. Their purpose is, essentially, to convey humanitarian supplies, and also, in appropriate circumstances, to escort refugees. Their purpose is not to fight their way through but to proceed by negotiation, although they have the ability to defend themselves and those for whom they have responsibility. They have already opened fire for that purpose.

My hon. Friend spoke of Kosovo and asked whether we would accede to the Turkish suggestion that there should be a United Nations peacekeeping force in Kosovo. It is important to remember that Kosovo is part of Serbia--a sovereign state. That fact distinguishes it from other parts of former Yugoslavia. At present, a team of observers from the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe is in Kosovo. The observers' principal purpose is to diffuse tension. I see considerable advantages in the presence of a United Nations team of observers in Kosovo, as they could reinforce the efforts of the CSCE team. However, that would need the consent of the Government of Serbia because Kosovo is part of Serbia. I do not think that, at least for the foreseeable future, we shall see a peacekeeping force of the sort that I think that my hon. Friend envisages, in Kosovo. I make a distinction between a peacekeeping force and a team of observers.

The involvement in Bosnia demonstrates clearly the complex situation faced by United Nations forces on the ground--the appalling combination of ethnic conflict, territorial disputes and humanitarian tragedy is, unfortunately, becoming more and more commonplace, and does not make it an easy environment for United Nations troops. The increase in the range and complexity of peacekeeping operations is putting enormous pressure on the Secretary-General and his staff. It was the recognition of this new environment that lay behind my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's proposal at the Security Council last January, endorsed by colleagues, for a report on ways in which the United Nations could reinforce its capacity for preventive diplomacy, peacekeeping and peacemaking. The Secretary- General's report in response to this proposal was published in July. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September, the Community believes that the report contains a very important collection of proposals. Among these proposals are a number of new areas for United Nations activity, some of which are already resulting in concrete activity.

A good example is co-operation with regional organisations, and a good example of that is the way in

Column 1096

which the United Nations and the European Community came together in the London conference to address the tragedy of what was Yugoslavia.

Another example also to be identified within what was Yugoslavia is preventive diplomacy. A current proposal to consider a pre-emptive United Nations presence in Macedonia is a good illustration of that. My hon. Friend did not particularly mention Macedonia, but I think that he too would welcome the possibility of a United Nations team of observers in Macedonia to assist in the defusing of tension. Against the background of these positive proposals, a dialogue is going on between the United Nations secretariat and member states on the sort of forces that they might be prepared to make available to the United Nations for peacekeeping operations. The dialogue also addresses the kind of specific questions that my hon. Friend posed--for example, the question of the military committee. I believe that it would be premature for me, or indeed any other Minister, and probably for any Minister of any participating country, to reach any conclusive views at this stage.

My hon. Friend posed the question of the peacekeeping force in Cyprus and he is right in saying that this is another area where United Kingdom troops are playing a key role. There are about 800--he said 750, my brief says 800 ; there is not much between us--United Kingdom troops on the ground. The security position in Cyprus is now a great deal more stable than at any time since 1974 and it is the subject, of course, of continuing political dialogue under United Nations auspices. I very much hope that an agreement on a lasting settlement can be reached.

I certainly accept that the force has played a vital role in maintaining a climate in which it is possible for a settlement to be negotiated, but I think that the size and format of the force that is required to stabilise the situation have changed over time and I believe that it is possible to reduce the force present to enable contributing countries to contribute more troops to other parts of the world where the position is more acute.

I say specifically to my hon. Friend that I do not believe that the thinning out of the United Nations force in Cyprus reduces the security that is acquired by its presence. I do not believe that it is the numbers of the United Nations force in Cyprus that give stabilising security ; I believe that it is the fact of its presence. Therefore, although I listened very carefully to what my hon. Friend said about the consequences of thinning out, so long as there is a substantial presence of United Nations forces in Cyprus, the strategic objective is attained.

A range of other questions will have to be addressed over a period. My hon. Friend, I know, has won the ballot for 4 December and I am to have the pleasure of responding to his debate then. I fancy that he and I will be pursuing this debate for some time to come, including tomorrow morning, Madam Speaker, because my hon. Friend hopes to catch your eye or the eye of one of your deputies in the course of tomorrow's debate. I look forward, therefore, to pursuing this discussion with my hon. Friend tomorrow and on 4 December. That being so, I think that I have said enough tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

Written Answers Section

Home Page