| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. David Madel (Bedfordshire, South-West) : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the change in work practices introduced by Toyota and Nissan into the car industry are applied now by Vauxhall.
Mr. Cousins : Indeed. Those practices are certainly not now confined to a handful of Japanese companies. That illustrates what can be achieved across the whole spectrum
Column 550
of British industry. Those practices also illustrate how much further there is to go and how much more can be achieved in terms of increasing productivity, not simply by sacking people and reducing employment, but by changing workplace practices on the basis of teamwork and commitment, which results in success.Mr. Hendry : Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those changes were brought about as a result of this Government's policy, in the teeth of opposition from the Labour party and its union paymasters, who have backed every single Spanish practice and every outdated demarcation dispute and who have been the greatest factor in the resistance to change? One of the most important factors in these changes has been the breaking of that stranglehold upon British industry.
Mr. Cousins : It is simply fanciful for Conservative Members to give the Government the sole credit for successful inward investment. That is entirely mistaken.
Mr. McLoughlin : If that is so, can the hon. Gentleman explain why that inward investment was made in Britain?
Mr. Cousins : I played some part myself--
Mr. Jenkin : The hon. Gentleman was responsible!
Mr. Cousins : No. My part in the process enabled me to see why Nissan chose to locate its plant in the north-east of England. A variety of factors is always involved in such decisions, one of the most important of which was that Nissan and Toyota looked at parts of Britain where they knew that well-organised, highly motivated, skilled and productive workers had been made redundant in large numbers.
Mr. Mark Robinson : The hon. Gentleman is beginning to give the impression that only two companies have sought to make inward investment in Britain. The example of south Wales shows that a vast number of companies-- not just Japanese--have chosen to locate in Britain. He will recognise that Britain has been more successful than any of its European partners in attracting inward investment.
Mr. Cousins : I am in a measure of agreement with the hon. Gentleman. One of the most successful examples of inward investment in my area is Komatsu. What did it do? It took over the work force and trade unions of a tractor plant that had been closed, but, because it had the right approach to getting the best from people in the community and from the work force and because it respected the skills and experience of the work force, it was able to achieve things of which, I am afraid, British management, with their older tradition, was not capable.
Conservative Members denounce trade union practices and refer to Spanish practices, but they should recognise the role that simple bad management played in bringing down some major British industries.
Mr. Mark Robinson : The hon. Gentleman is speaking in a derogatory manner about British industry. British Steel in Llanwern, which I know extremely well, has gone through a revolution in terms of its industrial practices and that needs to be recognised. The examples of inward investors that the hon. Gentleman gave have been widely copied throughout British industry and I think that British Steel was ahead of the pack.
Column 551
Mr. Cousins : Indeed. I have already said that there are sectors of British industry, and they are among the most successful, where those practices are already in place. The chemical, pharmaceutical and aerospace industries already operated such methods.
Mr. Gary Streeter (Plymouth, Sutton) : I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being able to read John Edmonds' handwriting so well. Would those foreign companies have invested in Britain if the Conservative Government had not reformed the trade union practices of the 1970s--yes or no?
Mr. Cousins : Of course they would have come here. My only regret is that the potential that they saw in this country and in its skilled and experienced work force was put on the scrap heap in the first place. Japanese, American and European inward investors saw potential in work forces that had simply been discarded by the Government and by sections of British industry in the terrible, unnecessary storms of the early 1980s.
Mr. Jenkin rose --
Mr. Mark Robinson rose --
Mr. Cousins : I am sorry, I must press on.
My central point is that the productivity gains that have been made are a consequence of unemployment. We would have wanted those productivity gains to be achieved as the most successful sectors of British industry have achieved them--as a consequence not of unemployment but of organic growth, innovation and research and development.
Our chemical, pharmaceutical and aerospace industries have achieved precisely that, but one significant fact differentiates those industries from many industries that have performed less successfully. The success of those industries, especially pharmaceuticals and aerospace, rested on the basis of Government procurement. The reliability of Government procurement through the national health service and defence expenditure enabled those industrial successes to be achieved. Those industries,
pharmaceuticals and aerospace, have benefited most from direct Government intervention in the form of launch aid under the Industry Act 1975, which this Government continued. The success of the aerospace industry could not have been achieved without that. Those industries benefited because, in partnership with the education system and especially the higher education system, they were able to develop and exploit enormous quantities of graduate person power. Those industries provide a quite different model and a different set of signals for the role of Government in increasing productivity from the one in which the Government take most pride. They have grown on the basis of organic growth, of production engineering rather than financial engineering and of innovation rather than seeking to exploit asset values and asset stripping. They have grown on the basis of continually bringing new products to the market. They have operated on the basis of high levels of union organisation and of drawing the unionised work forces into the process of industrial consultation and decision making. They have achieved their productivity on the basis of teamwork rather than confrontation.
That is why those industries have succeeded. Those are the models that we should be seeking to adopt when we think about increasing productivity across the rest of our
Column 552
industrial sectors. Those models are precisely the opposite of the way in which the Government's policies and the thrust of their intentions are going at the present time.10.37 am
Mr. David Madel (Bedfordshire, South-West) : I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on his move back to industry. I am glad that he is wearing his industrial hat again. He has first-hand practical experience of a major industry.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) began by referring to the difficulties that the governing party has experienced in the past week. I take his point. We have, in a sense, been here before, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont) compared himself with Mr. Selwyn Lloyd, the other Chancellor of the Exchequer who was dismissed. I wondered, thinking about history, whether Mr. Selwyn Lamont had been replaced by Mr. Reginald Clarke and whether we shall have a rerun of 1962-63. I remember that, on becoming Chancellor, Mr. Maudling accelerated expansion and Conservative fortunes recovered. I am immensely encouraged by what my right hon. and learned Friend the new Chancellor has said about the need for faster economic growth and to preserve the welfare state--two excellent policy openings from my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, whom every Conservative Member wishes well in his new tasks and opportunities.
What the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about economic growth makes today's debate extremely relevant. I am sure that all hon. Members who speak today will underline the great importance of our manufacturing industry to the country. We must remember that we unfortunately have a smaller manufacturing base than France or Germany. We have a considerable amount of catching up to do to restore ourselves to the position of a major manufacturer in the world economy.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State rightly referred to the new mood of co-operation in industry which, to a great extent, has been brought about by the changed atmosphere in industrial relations that followed our sensible trade union reforms. In my area, we welcome the transformed atmosphere in the car industry, which is due not only to Japanese investment in the car industry--and we greatly welcome Nissan in Bedfordshire--but to Vauxhall, although it must be said that many jobs have been shed over the years as new industrial methods and a greater emphasis on plant and machinery have been introduced.
I cannot let the debate pass without saying that although the improved atmosphere in the industry as a whole and the improvement at Vauxhall motors is mightily good for Bedfordshire, Dunstable suffers the continuing tragedy of the complete loss of truck production with the demise of AWD (Bedford) and the loss of truck manufacturing at Renault. The Minister knows that Bedfordshire will continue to press his Department for all possible help so that we can restructure the manufacturing base in my part of Bedfordshire, which has played a substantial role in exports and industrial success since the war.
Mr. Dalyell : The hon. Gentleman mentioned "all possible help". I know that he will recollect that he secured an extremely pertinent Adjournment debate on exports to
Column 553
Libya from his constituency. Does he think that it is important that the Government should consider--I shall not press him for any commitment beyond that--re-examining sanctions against the valuable Libyan market? Sanctions against Libya have been extremely damaging to British industry. Does he believe that that is a matter for reconsideration?Mr. Madel : I do, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that debate and of the contributions that we both made in European Standing Committee B on that issue. He is right to draw attention to the fact that, in 1992, there was a possibility of Bedford Trucks getting a substantial order for non-military, civilian trucks for Libya. For various reasons, the order did not go through, and we still do not know the full story behind that. However, there are opportunities for exports other than non-military trucks to Libya, and I do believe that the issue should be reconsidered. Where better to re-examine it than at the Copenhagen summit later this month, where the Heads of State will consider trade as they grapple with Europe's unemployment difficulties?
I greatly welcome my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade's sense of purpose and energy. In an article in the Financial Times on 26 April 1993, under the sub-heading "Where the main thrust of the DTI's new competitive policy will be focused " and in the section headed "Sectoral divisions", it is stated : "There will also be plenty of emphasis on so-called
benchmarking--continually comparing company and indus-try performance against best practice and recommending ways of improvement." That is welcome because it urges greater industrial co-operation, but it also underlines the DTI's philosophy that competition is not about doing down one's neighbour but is something which is thoroughly healthy for the economy and something which should constantly be fostered. I shall spend a few minutes amplifying the idea of improvement contained in the quotation.
Clearly, in any debate on manufacturing productivity, we must say something about the necessity of continuing to improve the education system which is so relevant to our manufacturing performance. I hope that the summer term will mark the end of the wretched discord between the teachers and the Government about testing. The next marker on the education scene will be the GCSE and A-level results in August. When they are published, I hope that there will be no instant comments but a careful analysis of what has happened in comparison with previous years. I hope that Sir Ron Dearing and his new committee will also examine the matter.
Parents obviously want to know whether GCSE standards are continuing to improve, but they will also want to know whether there is uniformity of marking by the various GCSE and A-level boards. They will want assurances that the testing before the GCSE is designed to improve GCSE standards. The Government should take more credit for introducing the new system of public examination, which came about after a great deal of internal debate in the Cabinet and in the then Department of Education and Science. Nothing pleases employers more than to see proof of rising standards in GCSEs. Employers and parents want to know that the tests before the GCSE exams are designed to raise standards. That is what parents will be looking for when the next education marker appears in August.
Column 554
I outline two additional points on which I should like the Government to act. I want it to be made easier for young people to do the necessary studying on their own. As they move to GCSE and A-level, more work is done by the individual with the necessary supervision from time to time. Greater use should be made of public libraries, parts of which should be set aside for young people to do the necessary study during the day. There should also be greater use of schools outside school hours so that young people can do personal study to improve their GCSE and A- level performances.We must also constantly examine the student support system and ensure that we are not doing anything to deter young people from entering higher or further education. I am especially worried about the way the discretionary grant system works. Is it as helpful as it could be to young people?
On the question of the education service at the local level, and before Sir John Banham and his team plunge into making big changes to the shire counties and district councils and suggest more unitary authorities, as I think that they might, I ask them to consider whether changing local government will improve the education service in any given area. I was delighted when the President of the Board of Trade, in his former role as Secretary of State for the Environment, said that there would be no uniform change in local government as happened in 1974. In passing, I ask Sir John Banham and his team, who are doing an important job, please to ensure that any local government changes will improve the education system as it is delivered locally.
On more general matters, it is still early days to talk about changes in the financing of roads and motorways. However, we all recognise that industry needs to improve the speed and efficiency with which it gets goods to market. That inevitably means an acceleration of infrastructure improvements. We are still at an early stage with the White Paper on possible road pricing on motorways. We should avoid a flat-rate charge. If industry is to accept the idea, it would far prefer a pay-as-you-go system on certain motorways. Obviously, that means waiting for the new technology necessary to make it practicable. If we have to wait a bit, fine. Let us ensure that the technology is British made.
Whatever happens with road pricing and whatever we do with the railways, we must always remember that the majority of goods transported around the country will continue to go on the roads. That means that we need a better infrastructure system. The way in which we price that and charge for it must be ultra-sensitive to industry's needs and to industry's costs.
We must stay in the world league of manufacturing. We must be right at the top for the sake of employment, for the sake of prosperity and for the sake of social stability. That means that we must have a policy that produces a high level of investment which will provide more plant and machinery. That means taking risks and being patient for the results to show when there has been investment in plant and machinery. That means a sea change in the banking system's attitude to risk-taking in manufacturing industry.
One way in which industry--big, medium and small--can be helped, especially in the regions, is by more non-executive directors on boards of companies coming from the banking system. They would then understand on a day-to-day basis, as a result of their board duties, what company going and for profits to come on stream.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : The hon. Gentleman said that it was necessary for us to catch up in terms of investment compared with France and Germany. He is now saying that we need to have more investment in capital equipment in manufacturing industry. Is he aware that, according to the latest statistics from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, we have only half the private capital sector levels of Germany and only three quarters those of France? It is no good. If we are to increase productivity and employment--I think that the hon. Gentleman sees this argument--we need greater investment in industry.
Mr. Madel : Yes, I agree ; we need greater investment and I am developing that point. To achieve that, one must have a closer relationship between the banking system and the manufacturing system. I made the point about getting more people from banks on the boards of companies so that they would understand what a slow process achieving the results of investment can be.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) may make this next point if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is a need for a big commitment to research and development. I welcomed the White Paper on science and technology which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced recently. One point in his statement to the House especially caught my attention. He said that he had decided to establish a new council for science and technology, which he would chair on behalf of the Prime Minister, to provide the Government with
"independent expert advice at the highest level on research spending priorities."--[ Official Report, 26 May 1993 ; Vol. 225, c. 924.]
That is a welcome underlining of the Government's role in research spending priorities. I am sure that we shall all draw attention in the debate not only to the Government's role in research, but to the Government's role, as has been mentioned, as a purchaser of manufactured goods and to what the Government can do to help manufacturing industry by buying British and thinking in the long term.
There is also an obvious need for a patient and firm commitment to innovation. That is partly what the Government do in terms of research. However, we must also recognise that to stay in the world league, companies will have to come together to initiate joint research funding. That must not be looked at with suspicion or be seen as leading to a monopoly. Joint funding is happening and must be further encouraged to ensure that Britain remains a major manufacturer.
We need not only investment in plant and machinery, and innovation. There is also a need constantly to improve our training system. We need to keep abreast of new skills. We need to recognise that top-class training is required, and that will be expensive. People need to have more clearly explained to them the role of the training and enterprise councils at local level.
Mr. Streeter : Does my hon. Friend agree that the local training and enterprise councils are a great success story, especially in Devon and Cornwall? The TECs have made
Column 556
dramatic inroads into training delivery. That is one of the many Conservative policies that are successes. It has set us up very nicely for the future.Mr. Madel : I agree. My hon. Friend has referred to what has been done in his area, which is very welcome. The same point applies to Bedfordshire. We have a good training and enterprise council. However, both parts of the title need to be emphasised--the training and the enterprise. If we do not have the enterprise and if we do not get the jobs, we shall not be able to cure the unemployment problem. We must manufacture our way out of the dreadful hole to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred recently. I greatly welcome the positive role that the Department of Trade and Industry is now playing and the fact that the philosophy of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is not for clumsy intervention in industry, but for Government support for industry, especially in innovation, in research and in training.
I want this Conservative Government to rediscover their historical role of achieving prosperity with a purpose. The purpose of prosperity is to ensure that we have real equality of opportunity. The British people want politics and policies that are decent, sensible and competent. I am certain that the Government will achieve all three aims.
10.56 am
Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting) : It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. As other hon. Members have said, it is a very important debate. We know that our country prospers by our ability to produce and sell goods in the markets of the world. We once did. However, no matter what gloss the Minister has attempted to put on the debate, the position today cannot give us much pride or much hope for the future.
The debate shows how areas of our country differ. The Minister paints a glowing picture of life in the United Kingdom. I am prepared to admit that that may be true of industry in some areas. However, that is not true of London. We were once, not so long ago, one of the main industrial areas. There was a great deal of industry throughout London which produced goods that sold in the markets of the world. That industry offered a range of jobs to the people of London, and many of those jobs were extremely well paid. But where is the growth industry now in London and in much of the south?
The Minister should be aware that we in London now have some of the highest unemployment in the United Kingdom. We have young people who have never worked in their lives. We have men and women who are out of work for the first time in their lives and who do not know whether they will ever work again. We have people in their 50s who, sadly, are convinced that they will never work again. That is the picture in London. There are few work opportunities and there is little industrial activity.
We have heard in recent months--I suppose that we shall continue to hear this for some time to come--about the growth of the green shoots. I only wish that they were growing, and I am sure that that is the feeling of many hon. Members. Until those so-called green shoots start to grow and prosper, our problems will continue--sadly, for a very long time to come. Let me quote a comment made in March by Lord Prior, a former Secretary of State for Employment, who is now chairman of GEC :
Column 557
"It will require substantial effort over the next 20 years to get our manufacturing base back to the levels we want to see." It would be hard to imagine a stronger criticism and indictment of the Government by a former Conservative Secretary of State. Let us look at the figures. The Minister referred to the last Labour Government. Let us go back to the start of the present Government's period in office. In 1979--It being Eleven o'clock, Madam Speaker-- interrupted the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 11 (Friday sittings).
Column 558
Bosnia
11 am
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) (by private notice) : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the situation relating to British troops of the United Nations in the Travnik area.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley) : A series of incidents involving a convoy of trucks carrying humanitarian aid occurred yesterday and today near Novi Travnik. This was not an official United Nations convoy and had been organised by the local authorities of the town of Tuzla, whose population is predominantly Muslim ; it was carrying supplies from the Dalmatian coast to Tuzla.
Yesterday afternoon, the convoy, which was not escorted, came into conflict with troops of the HVO--the Bosnian Croation army--4 km south of Novi Travnik. It seems clear that there were several Muslim casualties and it is believed that some Muslim drivers were taken away and shot.
Yesterday afternoon, units of the first battalion Prince of Wales Own Regiment--1 PWO--were ordered by UNPROFOR headquarters in Bosnia- Herzegovina to go to the scene to give protection to the convoy and to stabilise the situation. They were authorised to use force if necessary. They were subsequently tasked with escorting the convoy to Tuzla and the trucks were then designated a United Nations protected convoy.
At about 8 am local time today, three HVO soldiers engaged 1 PWO's Warrior vehicles with fire. 1 PWO, while protecting the convoy, first fired warning shots ; but when the HVO firing continued, a further burst was fired from a Warrior. Two HVO soldiers were hit and a third fled the scene. There were no British casualties. I cannot confirm media reports that the HVO soldiers were killed, although that may well be true. I understand that the convoy subsequently moved forward in the direction of Tuzla via Vitez.
The incident graphically illustrates the hazards of delivering aid to those caught up in the conflict in Bosnia and the vital humanitarian role played by British troops and others in UNPROFOR. From the information available to me, I am satisfied that British troops acted promptly and efficiently and fully in accordance with operational rules and procedures.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Madam Speaker : Before we proceed, let me draw hon. Members' attention to the fact that the question deals specifically with British troops of the United Nations in the Travnik area. It goes no wider than that. It is a narrow question, and I hope that hon. Members will restrict their remarks accordingly.
Mr. Dalyell : As a national service man--tank crew with the Scots Dragoon Guards--40 years ago, I feel deeply for service men in danger. British and United Nations troops in the Travnik area are in one hell of a position.
What are the guidelines for their self-defence? What happens if the warlords in the Travnik area try to seek revenge? It seems to me that we are talking about a hiding to nothing. What warnings were given to the Croats? The Minister said that drivers were taken away and shot. Could he expand on the circumstances in which those
Column 559
drivers were taken away? Are the rules of engagement the standard United Nations rules, and what precisely is the position as regards authorisation to fire or to return fire?In relation to United Nations resolution No. 770, which includes the words "and others", may I ask about the position of non-United Nations convoys in the Travnik area? In particular, was there a request for the Muslim convoy to be escorted? What is the status of such requests and what is the mechanism by which they are made? In the event of revenge for what has happened in the Travnik area, are we to augment forces? Will there be an escalation or withdrawal? That is a very worrying question, which has become acute this morning. Do we change the rules of engagement? What are the contingency plans for withdrawal or evacuation not only of United Nations military personnel but of aid personnel in the Travnik area? What is the position of the sappers who were supposedly held at gunpoint by Muslim forces? Were they deprived of their equipment? Did they try to return fire, and were they advised to try to return fire?
What is the position of the RFA Argus and the artillery pieces that were available for British and United Nations troops to defend themselves? Are jets from Britain being deployed in readiness to defend safe areas and British forces in the Travnik area? Finally, may I say that those who sit on green Benches had better be very cautious about making decisions that commit troops in a civil war?
Mr. Hanley : The hon. Gentleman has gone slightly wider than his original question, but I shall try to accommodate him as best I can. The incidents that I described happened in the area to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and he is right that this was an unofficial humanitarian convoy. The convoy had asked for assistance, but UNPROFOR had decided that the situation in the area was dangerous and therefore did not give it permission to travel or to have assistance. It came under attack last night ; the situation was reassessed and 1 PWO was sent to help it.
Our troops were acting on the orders of the United Nations command in Bosnia-Herzegovina and within the spirit of the mandate to provide protective support for humanitarian convoys. The soldiers came under fire, and, in such circumstances, they have a right to act in self-defence. That is exactly what they were doing. They were within their mandate throughout.
The United Nations command in Bosnia of course regards the incident as a serious one, but does not believe that it presages a general decline in the situation throughout Bosnia or in the British area of responsibility. Because we believe that there are serious issues to be addressed and a need to ensure that our troops are fully protected whatever the circumstances, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State yesterday announced that further troops were to be put in readiness lest they be needed. We are studying the incident, but I cannot give any further details.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the drivers of the vehicles who were taken away and shot. We have information that that could have happened last night. They would have been Muslim drivers of the convoy--taken by the HVO and killed. It is a disgraceful incident
Column 560
and fully justifies the deployment of our troops. We must remember that there is no escalation at all in the role of those troops. They are there to support humanitarian aid. Right hon. and hon. Members alike fully understand the risks that are involved, but the general mood, both in the House and in the country, is that we are very proud indeed of our troops and of the way in which they are carrying out their humanitarian task. Of course we do not wish them to be put any more severely at risk than the situation dictates.Mr. David Howell (Guildford) : May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on assuming his heavy new responsibilities which I know he will discharge excellently?
Given the obvious fact that in the Travnik area relief work is becoming ever more dangerous--as it is elsewhere in Bosnia--as we see the carve-up of the state of Bosnia reflected in the violence around Travnik and in ever more blood-soaked violence, given the increasing difficulties for our own heroic troops and given United Nations resolution 836 passed on 4 June, which greatly extends the mandate for self-defence and retaliation for UN troops in Bosnia and in the Travnik area, will my hon. Friend assure the House very strongly indeed that he is keeping an hour-by-hour and day-by- day eye on the position of our troops in this area and in Bosnia generally and that he is monitoring them all the time to ensure that they are not left in an impossible position or in one where the conditions have changed but their equipment has not necessarily changed so that they are placed in great difficulties?
Mr. Hanley : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his opening comments. I assure him and the House that we are dealing with this matter at the Ministry of Defence and at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office is on the Front Bench beside me today.
We are concentrating on the matter with every passing minute. Of course, information is difficult to come by immediately and that is why I did not comment earlier on the media reports. However, I can assure my right hon. Friend that we are monitoring the situation very closely, not only because of our duty to deliver humanitarian aid, but, as I said before, to ensure that our own troops are not placed at undue risk when delivering that aid.
My right hon. Friend mentioned Security Council resolution 836, which was passed on 4 June. He is right to say that that resolution gives us a greater right to react if our troops come under fire or if we need to withdraw our troops. However, that is a contingency plan and it has not been acted upon. The troops are now at a higher level of readiness and a squadron of Jaguar fighters has been allocated to NATO to await UN requests. Therefore, I believe that we are making a very sensible, very cautious, but very principled response to the humanitarian needs.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil) : I also welcome the Minister to his new post and thank him for his statement.
Is it not the case that the situation is now fast descending into one of the utmost gravity? As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said earlier, we now face a position, which many of us have predicted for some time, which is simply beyond control. We may have to consider not just what more we can do, but the reality of the need to withdraw--
Column 561
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : The right hon. Gentleman wanted them to go in before. He has come full circle.
Mr. Ashdown : Well, exactly so, and this has happened because we did not get a grip on this early enough.
I notice that the Minister did not comment on the very disturbing incident that took place in relation to the disarming and humiliation of British soldiers on the road from Travnik to Kiseljak. It is very easy to exercise outrage from the safety of 1,000 miles away. The fact is that those soldiers must have been placed in a very difficult position. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure the House that neither they nor their commanders will be blamed for the incident.
This was a humiliation waiting to happen. Our failure to provide a clear aim, as Manfred Woerner said, and to provide clear rules of engagement and a clear political aim has meant that UN troops--and British troops, among the finest in the theatre--have increasingly been treated with contempt by the Bosnian forces on both sides. I hope that the Minister will realise that our soldiers on the ground, through humiliation or worse, will very soon have to pay a much more dangerous price because of the failure of will, politics, clarity and action on the part of this Government and others.
Mr. Skinner : I have never heard such a two-faced statement in my life. The right hon. Gentleman wanted more troops before. Now he wants them out.
Mr. Hanley : I am grateful for the welcome of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). However, I am somewhat puzzled by the stance that he is showing this morning. He was in the vanguard of those who wanted us to send more troops into the area. We answered the need in yesterday's statement in ensuring that troops were ready to go in, largely to protect our own troops carrying out their humanitarian responsibilities. It seems that the right hon. Gentleman has changed his mind because of yesterday's incident, which he called a humiliation.
It seems that the right hon. Gentleman, I am sure for the very best of motives, wants us to put in more troops, but as soon as they face any difficulty, they are to be withdrawn. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned yesterday's incident at Kiseljak. That was a totally unrelated incident in which two Spartan vehicles were stopped by Muslims at a roadblock near Kiseljak and were coerced at gunpoint into leaving their vehicles. They were then robbed of their weapons, ammunition and other equipment. They were released unharmed. That was not a case of their rules of engagement being inadequate. They had to judge whether they should open fire and whether, if they had opened fire, they would have put the lives of their colleagues at greater risk. In very difficult circumstances, they decided to take what I regard as sensible actions. They are alive and their vehicles have been recovered. However, as I have stressed, that shows the difficulty of the situation in which our troops, in supporting the humanitarian aim, are bound to come under fire. They are bound to face difficulties of that sort.
Either we support the humanitarian aid and resolve with our troops and support them properly and have reserves on hand to protect them if necessary, or we get out. From what the right hon. Member for Yeovil said, I am not sure whether he wants us to withdraw now because he believes that we cannot continue. I wonder whether he
Column 562
would like to say whether he believes that the situation is now perhaps so bad that we should withdraw the troops and tell us what the consequences would then be. How then would humanitarian aid get through? The right hon. Gentleman should think again about what he has said.
| Next Section
| Home Page |