| Previous Section | Home Page |
NEW MEMBER
The following Member made the Affirmation required by law : Mrs. Diana Maddock, for Christchurch.
BILL PRESENTED
Human Rights (No. 3)
Mr. Graham Allen presented a Bill to provide protection to individuals and in the courts of the United Kingdom for the rights and freedoms specified in the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ; to entrench those rights and freedoms ; to establish a Human Rights Commission ; to make further provision with regard to the protection of civil, political, economic and social rights ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 October, and to be printed. [Bill 251.]
STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Madam Speaker : With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
Interests in Shares
That the draft Disclosure of Interests in Shares (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
Value Added Tax
That the Value Added Tax (Payments on Account) Order (S.I., 1993, No. 2001) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Patnick.]
Question agreed to .
SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 97(1) (Matter relating exclusively to Scotland).
Child Care
That the Matter of Childcare in Scotland, being a matter relating exclusively to Scotland, be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for its consideration.-- [Mr. Patnick.]
Question agreed to.
Column 159
Pardon for Soldiers of the Great War
4.12 pm
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to pardon soldiers convicted of, and executed during the Great War of 1914 to 1918 for, the offences of cowardice, desertion, sleeping at post, throwing away arms and striking a superior officer ; and for connected purposes. The Bill would facilitate the granting of pardons to 307 soldiers of the British Empire forces who fought in the great war of 1914-18 but were executed by firing squad, having been found guilty of charges that ranged from cowardice to desertion, sleeping at post, throwing away arms and hitting a superior officer.
Many of those soldiers were young men--teenagers. They were drawn from every corner of the United Kingdom. Many were not conscripts but volunteers, and some spent not months but years in the trenches enduring constant shellfire, sniping and lack of food and sleep in the constant wet and cold. It is hardly surprising that, in many cases, their spirit broke.
All 307 soldiers were, in my submission, denied the operation of rules of natural justice. They were not given the opportunity to prepare a defence ; in many cases there was no advocacy whatever, and when there was it was not conducted by a legally qualified person. Above all, none of the soldiers was given the opportunity to appeal against the sentence of death : invariably, they were given only 12 to 24 hours' notice before that sentence was carried out. That shows that those men have endured grave injustice, and it is time that the record was put straight.
We now know from the documents that have become available, following the crazy 75-year public records rule, that many of those men were sick, traumatised and suffering from shell shock. For that reason, the House should begin to put the record straight to ensure that the men are held in high national esteem.
I am motivated to bring this Bill before the House because many dependants of those men seek redress, and because there are still among us a few thousand veterans of the great war, in the evening of their lives, to which nothing would give greater satisfaction or contentment than knowing--albeit late in the day--that their comrades in arms were finally exonerated. I was pleased to see the support in the press of my noble Friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, a veteran of Passchendaele, who endorses my view.
It has been suggested that I am seeking to rewrite history--I reject that. I am seeking to ensure that history is written with clarity and precision and that those things that are uncomfortable to the establishment are brought into the open.
In a few weeks' time, Her Majesty the Queen, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition will be at the cenotaph, and other right hon. and hon. Members will rightly be at their local war memorials. We attend such memorials not to remember veterans of the Crimean war, the Napoleonic wars or the Cromwellian wars, but to remember soldiers of the great war because they are of our time.
All of us have had grandfathers, fathers and uncles who were in the great war. We have all seen, spoken, touched and loved them. That is something which cannot be ignored. They are not merely history. It is long overdue
Column 160
that a remedy was sought to heal the reputations of those men that were broken during the sham trials in the great war.My Bill provides two options : either to grant a blanket pardon for all 307 soldiers, which I and Lord Houghton favour, or, if that is not appropriate, that the Secretary of State be able to refer each case to a panel of High Court judges to test whether or not there has been injustice and whether or not there should be a pardon. I cannot see what can be wrong with that, other than that some people might not like the truth coming out.
The measure is universally popular. My postbag and those of many hon. Members show overwhelming public support for it. I shall go further : the difference between now and 18 months ago, when the pardons campaign began, is that, we now know that, in a sense, the soldiers have already been pardoned by the highest court in the land--British public opinion. My Bill would facilitate an official way in which the nation could collectively say sorry.
My Bill could be a matter of national pride for our generation and this House of Commons. We could draw a line under the unhappy events of the first world war, do all we can to repair the damage done to the reputation of those men, to heal the wounds of the families and to allow the veterans of the great war who are still alive to go to sleep tonight content in the knowledge that their comrades are now deemed to be brave soldiers.
I ask nothing more than for the opportunity for these cases to be tested by the normal criteria that operate in the land. Have the rules of natural justice been applied ? Were those men sick and traumatised, as I believe they were ? My Bill would facilitate a test by which their cases would be put before High Court judges. The documents are now available and they speak for themselves. The demand for this remedy is like a cry from the grave. It is time that the House of Commons took hold of the matter, put aside the objections of the establishment and said that those soldiers of the great war who were executed are deemed worthy to be among those we will remember on Remembrance Sunday.
4.19 pm
Mr. Roger Evans (Monmouth) rose--[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must be heard.
Mr. Evans : The speech of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was plausible and emotional, but fundamentally misconceived and wrong in principle. History is littered with injustice, and it is entirely inappropriate at this stage in the century to examine what happened between 1914 and 1918. If ever there was an argument against open government and in favour of keeping the files closed for ever longer, it could be made now. What are we hoping to achieve by the measure?
If the scheme of the hon. Member for Thurrock is designed to give a blanket pardon, it cannot be right, as a matter of principle. It will be not an examination of the historical record, but a mere expression of opinion, without any reference to the particulars of the cases. It would be a case of wasting time with a sort of war crimes tribunal in reverse at the end of the century. That would be a monstrous procedure and wholly wrong. The matters are for historians, not the House now.
Column 161
To seek to lay blame by using the word "establishment", as the hon. Member for Thurrock did, was an extremely unfortunate way of attacking the British state. The fact remains that we are the beneficiaries of the sacrifices made by our grandparents' generation, and it would be wholly wrong to continue with the scheme.Madam Speaker : The Question is, That the hon. Gentleman do have leave to bring in the Bill. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) must call "No."
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will recall that on previous occasions it has always been argued that, when an hon. Member speaks against a 10-minute Bill, his or her vote should always follow his or her voice. Is the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) going to put up Tellers? Has he been asked?
Madam Speaker : The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) is not obliged to put up tellers. I think that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did not hear me tell the hon. Member for Monmouth, who opposed the Bill, that his voice recording "No" must follow his speech. The hon. Gentleman gave the word "No", which is sufficient under our procedures. Even if he wishes to oppose the Bill, he does not have to put up tellers.
Question agreed to, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business).
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. John Hume, Mr. Ken Maginnis, Rev. Ian Paisley, Mr. Allan Rogers, Mr. Alex Salmond, Sir David Steel, Mr. Dafydd Wigley and Mr. Paul Flynn.
Pardon for Soldiers of the Great War
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay accordingly presented a Bill to pardon soldiers convicted of, and executed during the Great War of 1914 to 1919 for, the offences of cowardice, desertion, sleeping at post, throwing away arms and striking a superior officer ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 November, and to be printed. [Bill 252.]
Column 162
Orders of the Day
Statement on the Defence Estimates
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [18 October] :
That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1993 contained in Cm. 2270-- [Mr. Rifkind.]
Which amendment was : to leave out from House' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof :
believes that the Government's plans, set out in the Statement on the Defence Estimates, CM 2270, do not effectively address the long term security needs of the United Kingdom ; congratulates local authorities, trade unions and progressive defence companies for their work on defence diversification ; calls for the immediate establishment of a Defence Diversification Agency ; welcomes President Clinton's decision to continue the moratorium on nuclear testing ; calls for the early signature of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty after 1995 ; and demands that the United Kingdom fully participates in moves to enhance international peace and security, in particular by strengthening the United Nations.'.-- [Dr. David Clark.]
[Relevant documents : The Ninth Report from the Defence Committee on the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1993, HC 869 of Session 1992-93 ; Eighth Report from the Defence Committee on Royal Navy : Commitments and Resources, HC 637.]
Madam Speaker : I should inform the House that I have had to impose a limit of 10 minutes on the length of speeches between the hours of 7 and 9 pm. Those speaking outside those hours should use voluntary restraint, so that I can call as many Members as possible.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On today's Order Paper you will see the substantial amendment, supported by 17 hon. Members, which was tabled to give the House an opportunity to decide in a vote what many people in this country would like to hear discussed : whether this country should possess nuclear weapons and cut its arms expenditure. I appeal to you to allow the amendment to be put to a vote at 10 pm.
Madam Speaker : The hon. Gentleman raised the matter with me yesterday. I have looked carefully at the amendment standing in his name, but I cannot allow it to be put to the vote. However, it can--and I am sure that it will--be referred to during today's debate. 4.24 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley) : Yesterday's debate focused on the broader defence issues raised in "Defending Our Future". Today, I should like to respond to a few more of the points from last night's debate and also take the opportunity to make some important announcements.
But first the White Paper. I am pleased to say that "Defending Our Future" has had a positive reception in the House and the press. We have placed our cards on the table and we have a winning hand. "Defending Our Future"presents critics of Government defence policy with our case for the defence. Those who argue for increases in force levels across the board-- because, they claim, we cannot meet our commitments--are given evidence that we can. "Defending Our Future" demonstrates the principle of multiple earmarking,
Column 163
whereby individual force elements are attributed to two or three tasks that are unlikely to require simultaneous fulfilment. I should stress that multiple earmarking is nothing new. It is the only rational way to devise a force structure and has always been practised by both ourselves and our NATO allies.We have been able to demonstrate that we have a sustainable set of commitments with an effective force structure to meet them. Naturally, we must keep them under review to ensure that they do not grow beyond our ability to fulfil them and to ensure that our force structures and capabilities are adjusted as necessary. That includes ensuring that the high quality of manpower, equipment and support is maintained.
There is still more. We have often been asked to state explicitly the kinds of conflicts in which we anticipate possible British involvement. We illustrate that in table 1 of the White Paper. I accept that that does not amount to a definitive list of scenarios, but it would be neither politically nor militarily sensible to stand here and give a list of countries that we might have to fight. When it comes down to it, there are no easy alternatives to the defence policy that we are pursuing. Indeed, I must say that I have yet to hear a genuine alternative--even during yesterday's debate--properly argued and taking into account all the aspects of British security requirements and international interests. I believe that "Defending Our Future" makes that clear. It again underlines the fact that we have a sound defence policy, a sustainable range of commitments and the effective and flexible force structures that we need to meet them.
As an excellent example of that flexibility, I am pleased to tell the House that I have today agreed the deployment of HMS Active to Haiti to help our allies in the enforcement of United Nations sanctions against Haiti. HMS Active is currently serving in the Caribbean as the West Indies guardship and is able to divert to Haitian waters without affecting her other commitments. That clearly demonstrates the ability of the armed forces to deploy at short notice to conduct operations and enforce the will of the international community. HMS Active will be working in close co-operation with the United States navy and others enforcing the sanctions.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday touched on the changing face of the world and the situation within Russia, particularly its historic transition down the democratic path. He mentioned also the initiatives that we have in hand to continue the improvement in defence relations with central and eastern European countries and to draw them closer to the west. As an illustration of the change in the security environment, I was pleased last week to pay an official visit to Hungary for discussions with my counterparts in the Hungarian Ministry of Defence and meet Mr. Jeszenszky, its Foreign Minister.
As a member of the North Atlantic Co-operation Council, Hungary is a country of strategic importance to the future development of Europe. It is in the vanguard of the process of reform and restructuring taking place throughout central and eastern Europe and has set a fine example for others to follow. Hungary has made great strides in breaking down the barriers of the cold war and in developing public and parliamentary consensus in the role
Column 164
of the armed forces in a pluralistic society. I am pleased to say that Her Majesty's Government have been able to contribute to the process of democratisation and civilianisation and I hope that we are now looking to deepen our contacts and the programme of co -operation, not only with Hungary but with other north Atlantic co- operation partners. It is in their interests and ours.On leaving Hungary, my impression was of a country totally committed to the development of armed forces founded on the rule of law and trained and equipped to co-operate effectively in the future with the international community on the difficult challenge that we face in security and defence. I think that that will enhance the security and stability of Europe. It is also clear that Hungary holds our forces in high regard.
In yesterday's debate, the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) referred to the test and evaluation ranges in his constituency. As part of our continuing rationalisation of support areas, we are reviewing all test and evaluation ranges. However, I stress that no decisions have been taken and they will be taken only after full consultation with trade unions and other interested parties. We are conscious of the importance of those establishments to their local economies. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement visited Benbecula and St. Kilda and saw that at first hand.
The hon. Member for Western Isles takes a close interest in the safety of the Scottish fishing fleet, as do a number of hon. Members. "Defending our Future" rightly includes a substantial section on the subject of fishing vessel safety. The House will recall the tragic incident in November 1990 in which a Clyde-based trawler, the Antares, was sunk with the loss of her crew after a submarine became entangled in her nets. I know from my discussions with hon. Members how much concern that unfortunate accident engendered in fishing communities around the country and, in particular, on the Clyde. I place considerable importance on ensuring that everything possible is done to prevent a recurrence.
Some have suggested that the answer is to ban dived submarine operations in inshore water, but that is not an option. If our submarines cannot train in shallow waters, they will not be able to perform their operational role safely or effectively.
The Royal Navy has found ways of cutting the number of dived operations in waters used by fishing vessels. Where possible, training and exercises in areas such as the Clyde are carried out at weekends when fishing does not take place and transits are now routinely conducted on the surface.
When there is a requirement for dived operations in fishing grounds, submarines now follow revised operational procedures designed to ensure that the risk to the safety of fishing vessels is kept to an absolute minimum. Those revised procedures have been worked out in close consultation with representatives of the fishing industry and I am grateful to them for the constructive approach that they have adopted in their discussions with the Navy.
I am delighted to tell the House that we have now formalised those revised procedures in a code of practice. That has been published today in order to make clear to a wider audience the rules that the Royal Navy now follows. I have arranged for a copy of that document to be placed in the Library of the House.
Column 165
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : The code of practice will be welcomed by all those living along the lower Clyde. Will the Minister assure me that all foreign submarines will come under Royal Navy control here and that that stipulation will apply to American submarines ? What consultations have taken place with the United States navy, especially in the light of the recent incident in the Minch involving an American submarine ?
Mr. Hanley : I am well aware of the hon. Gentleman's keen interest in matters involving the safety of the fishing fleet and I am grateful for the consultations that I had with him and some of his colleagues earlier. I can give him the assurance that, if any foreign submarines of any nation wish to sail in United Kingdom waters, they will abide by the code of conduct, to which most of them already adhere. That has been agreed with other nations and I am pleased to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.
Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute) : I congratulate the Minister on the publication of the code of conduct, which, as he said, is the result of long discussions following the tragedy involving a vessel from my constituency. I am particularly pleased that the hon. Gentleman managed to reach an agreement with the Department of Transport that the subfacts should still be broadcast by the coastguards. That will be welcome to fishermen.
Can the Minister give me an assurance that any amendments or changes to the code of practice and the subfacts broadcast will always be discussed with the fishing industry before any such changes take place?
Mr. Hanley : I pay tribute to the hon. Lady,e safety of men at sea about which we care. I can assure the hon. Lady that the code of practice is intended to be a dynamic document, to which we hope to add in the light of experience. Close consultation between the Royal Navy and the fishing industry will continue.
In taking such measures we have broken new ground and other nations may be able to benefit from our experience. Therefore, we intend to bring the code to the attention of the International Maritime Organisation. Time forbids me from going into any more detail about the code, but, as I have said, it will be published and it is available to hon. Members from today.
Subfacts will continue under the current arrangements for the time being. We intend to extend the subfacts scheme to the Minch and other areas off the west coast of Scotland. Later this year we will also be introducing a subfacts scheme in the Plymouth exercise areas, which have not hitherto been covered, using a British Telecom system. There are ongoing discussions with the Department of Transport, the coastguard and the fishermen's representatives on how best subfacts information should be broadcast in the future.
Mr. Nick Ainger (Pembroke) : I have just seen the annex to the code of practice. I am surprised that none of the Welsh coastal areas or St. George's channel are covered by it, because both Welsh and Irish Republic fishing vessels have come into contact with submarines in those areas. Why are not the Welsh coastal areas and St. George's channel included?
Column 166
Mr. Hanley : The hon. Gentleman has seen the map on the back of the document which shows the areas covered by this code of practice and by the subfacts system. Those are areas where we have seen a proven need for the system, but we are always ready to consider an extension to it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give me chapter and verse about the incidents to which he refers.
I know that a number of hon. Members take a keen interest in the Merchant Navy. As demonstrated during the Gulf crisis and more recently in the deployment of forces to the former Yugoslavia, merchant shipping continues to play an important role in military operations.
In July 1992 my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement announced the conclusion of a review by Government Departments of the defence requirement for merchant ships in times of crisis. This established that there were still sufficient vessels on the British registers for defence purposes. It did, however, identify the need for further study into the availability of British seafarers to man those vessels.
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby) : This morning the Select Committee on Employment has been investigating the employment consequences of the decline of the merchant fleet. Whatever my hon. Friend may be about to say, there is very little optimism among the merchant shipping contingents--the unions, the Chamber of Shipping or anybody who has submitted evidence to the inquiry--that the merchant fleet will be able to sustain operations in support of the Royal Navy in the future.
Mr. Hanley : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The further work that the Ministry of Defence agreed to carry out, together with the Department of Transport, took into account the figures provided by the Chamber of Shipping from its latest fleet and manpower inquiry of federated vessels and a survey conducted by the Department of Transport of the number of British seamen employed in the non-federated sector.
From all the evidence it is clear that there would be no difficulty in manning strategic chartered or requisitioned ships with British crews if that were necessary. Some 12,000 British officers and 14,500 British ratings are employed in the British shipping industry on federated and non- federated ships. The Select Committee will know that from the evidence given to it. That is hugely in excess of the numbers that we would require, even on the most cautious assumptions.
That takes no account of the Merchant Navy Reserve, which itself would be able to provide a substantial part of our manning requirement in an emergency. Of course, where we would be operating in conjunction with NATO or other allies there is no reason why friendly tonnage and crews should not be considered for logistic movements, as we have done in the past.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) expressed his regret and sadness that the Royal Naval Reserve unit HMS Wildfire is to close. I share those sentiments--as I do about a number of other RNR units which will also be closing--but it is simply not in the interests of the nation or the reserves for the roles and structures to be frozen in the shape required by the cold war. I note, however, that my hon. Friend recognises that
Column 167
the links between the Army and the Medway towns will be strengthened, with Royal Engineer training being largely concentrated in Chatham, at Brompton barracks.Mr. Spencer Batiste (Elmet) : Many of us were prepared to support "Defending Our Future" on the basis that the match which it made between commitments and resources and the procurement programme that was financed under it would be implemented. We are now concerned that important features of that programme might be under threat. For example, I am worried about the future of our tank forces and the procurement programme for them, and many colleagues on the Conservative Benches are worried about other elements of the programme, which we believe to be integral to the White Paper. What comfort can my hon. Friend offer us? When will he be able to make announcements about the procurement programmes, which are long overdue?
Mr. Hanley : The House has heard what my hon. Friend said and Government spokesmen have heard what he has said. The issues are complex. It is a sensitive time for decisions about finance. The time for decisions will arrive, but I am grateful for his comments.
Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : Does the Minister accept that there are many Conservative Members for whom a further cut of £1 billion would not be acceptable?
Mr. Hanley : I can confirm that there are Conservative Members for whom a cut of £1 billion would not be acceptable. [Interruption.] I do not intend to identify individual Members or individual Benches. Let me mention our internal initiatives to increase efficiency and obtain the best value for money from the taxpayer, to which several hon. Members referred during last night's debate. I can today confirm additional proposals aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of the support area and ensuring that the size of the support organisation is appropriate to the size of the front line.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hanley : Would my hon. Friend allow me to make some progress? We have no intention of bolstering the size of the support area at the expense of the front line. We are determined to make all necessary efficiency savings that are commensurate with operational requirements and effectiveness.
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : I wish to make a somewhat oblique argument on the subject of cost-effectiveness. There is no more cost- effective force in the country than the reservists. Although we all appreciate the enhanced role that some of those have been given, it would be a great pity if, in parallel to that, their numbers were to be reduced. I know that the document says that a reduction is not necessary, but a reduction in that cost-effective force--which occupies our young people so effectively in their spare time--would be regrettable and I hope that it will not be contemplated.
Mr. Hanley : The hon. Lady is taking advantage of the consultation period to state her views about the structure of
Column 168
the reserves. The reserves play a valuable part, not only in the history and tradition, but in the present formation of the armed forces. They are very valuable, but we must assess, in the light of changing circumstances, the proper military role for our reserves and then we must assess the numbers that are necessary to meet that commitment. That is part of the debate that is going on.Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough) : I shall refer to one aspect of the support service--the Army Records Office in my constituency, which, sadly, has had to be closed so that all the offices can be relocated in Glasgow. Can my hon. Friend confirm that those who are to be made redundant in South Wigston in my constituency will receive the best possible redundancy package, outplacing, counselling and so forth, so that those who have worked so hard for the Ministry of Defence will be properly compensated when the time comes for them to give up service with the military forces?
Mr. Hanley : I can give the assurance that my hon. Friend requires. I will return to the subject of the Army personnel centre later if I am given the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Keith Mans (Wyre) : Does my hon. Friend agree that the efficiency savings that the Ministry of Defence has made during the past few years have been within a very small percentage of the targets that it set itself and much better than those achieved by virtually any other Department of state? Does he agree that if other Departments of State had done what the Ministry of Defence has done, we would not have quite such a large public sector borrowing requirement?
Mr. Hanley : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute to the Ministry of Defence, which is wholly justified, but no single Government Department could not do more, could not do better and could not continue that process. We must always root out inefficiency, especially in the armed forces. The vital aim of our armed forces is not to provide a job protection scheme for the support services, but to ensure that we have an efficient and effective sharp end. We must have effective armed forces and for that we must not waste a penny that should be spent on making sure that our people are better trained and equipped.
Several hon. Members rose --
Mr. Hanley : I have not made as much progress as I would like. I shall give way later.
The House will recall that, on 25 May this year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) announced a proposal to discontinue in-service first degree engineer officer education for naval officers at the royal naval engineering college at Manadon in Plymouth in preference to a pre-entry engineering degree sponsorship scheme based in the civilian university sector. That proposal stems from a reduction, from about 90 to only 60 students per annum, in the Navy's requirement for engineer officers entering service. About 30 of those already are, and will continue to be, recruited from private sector universities, but that reduction in numbers clearly affects the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of maintaining an expensive "university" facility.
I received many powerful representations about our proposals, in particular from my hon. Friends the Members
| Next Section
| Home Page |