| Home Page |
Column 1
THEPARLIAMENT ARY DEBA TES
OFFICIAL REPORT
IN THE THIRD SESSION OF THE FIFTY FIRST PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
[WHICH OPENED 27 APRIL 1992]
FORTY FOURTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF
HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II
SIXTH SERIESVOLUME 261 TWELFTH VOLUME OF SESSION 1994 95
Column 1
House of CommonsTuesday 6 June 1995
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[ Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]
Oral Answers to Questions
DEFENCE
Bosnia
1. Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on British forces' deployments in Bosnia. [25091]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The reinforcement of the British contingent in Bosnia is continuing with the deployment of some 1,000 additional personnel, including two artillery batteries and an armoured engineer squadron. In addition, we have offered 24 Airmobile Brigade to the United Nations as part of the rapid reaction force.
Mr. Arnold: As the force leaves for Bosnia it takes with it from the House not only our concern but our pride in its professionalism. Does not its dispatch speak louder than words in sending the message that the United Nations will not give way to blackmail? And is not it significant that yet again Britain is giving the lead?
Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is entitled to make those remarks. The Bosnian Serb leadership would do well to reflect on the fact that the taking of hostages has not only
Column 2
resulted in international contempt but has had the direct consequence of the dispatch of what in due course will be two additional brigades to protect the United Nations force. That justifies my hon. Friend's comments.Mr. Skinner: Why does not the Secretary of State have the guts to admit that sending that force is all about ensuring that it brings back the thousands of other troops who are already there? The tactic is withdrawal. The Government want to sound macho, but the truth is that they will pull the soldiers out.
Mr. Rifkind: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. It is our belief--and, I think, a view shared on both sides of the House--that the United Nations force continues to do important and valuable work in Bosnia. It is highly desirable that it should continue that, and the purpose of sending the additional forces is to provide those troops with the protection necessary to achieve that objective.
Sir Peter Fry: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that sending even more forces will not necessarily improve the situation or the protection of our troops already in Bosnia, unless we alter the rules of engagement? Does he know whether the United Nations will change the instructions that it gives to the forces in Bosnia under its control, so that our troops can more effectively defend themselves against actions such as those that the Serbs have taken in recent weeks?
Mr. Rifkind: For obvious operational reasons it has never been our practice to comment on the detail of the rules of engagement. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that of course we are determined to ensure that our forces have available to them whatever will be required to maximise their protection. If ever that were believed to require a change in the rules of engagement we would not hesitate to agree to one on that basis.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: In view of the difficulties experienced in the past with the dual key, especially in connection with NATO air strikes, may I ask the Secretary of State about the command and control of the additional
Column 3
forces to be sent? Whose authority does General Rupert Smith have if he wishes to deploy the additional forces, and according to what criteria will he do so? In particular, whose authority would he require if he wished to raise the siege of Sarajevo?Mr. Rifkind: The additional forces being sent to Bosnia, both British forces and those from other countries, will come under the authority of the United Nations and therefore under both General Smith and General Janvier, as the two UN force commanders in the field. The use of those forces is a matter for the discretion of the UN commanders, but it must be consistent with the terms of the mandate laid down by the Security Council.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there will be widespread support for his robust statements this afternoon, especially in answer to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? What is the latest position regarding the hostages, and has Mr. Karadzic been told that we remain absolutely resolute in our demand that they be released?
Mr. Rifkind: The House will be aware that a significant number of hostages were released a couple of days ago. Strong indications have emerged this morning that there may be a further release of hostages during the afternoon, but we must wait and see. The United Kingdom Government will not relax their pressure by one iota until every single UN hostage has been released safe and in good health.
Dr. David Clark: The whole House was relieved to hear that some hostages had been released, and we are hopeful that we will get some good news later today. We share the Government's view, and we will not satisfied until every single hostage has been released without any conditions whatsoever. While I am not asking the Secretary of State for precise details, will he explain his strategic view to ensure that British troops are not put in a position in the future in which they can be taken hostage?
Mr. Rifkind: We indicated in an announcement a week or so ago that we believed that there was a powerful case for a concentration of the UN presence in Bosnia. That is particularly important with regard to the exposed position of UN military observers, and it also has implications for the difficult task faced by those soldiers--not British--who are involved in the weapons control centres. It is also relevant to the future of the enclaves and to the possibility of supplying the UN forces in the enclaves with the fuel and food which are crucial to their continuing presence and their ability to carry out the role for which they were sent.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that the robust stand made by the Government and by the Prime Minister on Bosnia deserves the admiration and support of the whole country? Is he aware that they are certainly enjoying that support in my constituency in Lincolnshire? Will he again state unequivocally that, whatever happens in this or any other context, the Government will never give in to threats or blackmail?
Mr. Rifkind: The public expect, and are entitled to expect, that no British Government would respond to a hostage situation by making concessions to those responsible for the taking of hostages. We have shown in the past that that is a fundamental British view which remains in the present circumstances.
Column 4
Local Authority Discussions
3. Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with local authorities in the last year about changes to the size of the defence industry. [25094]
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Roger Freeman): We seek to involve local authorities in early notification of any change to defence requirements for land and buildings and seek their help in finding alternative use when no longer required.
Mr. Miller: Does the Minister agree that local authorities are the key to planning economic activities at some disused military bases? Will he address his mind to the possibility of linking local authorities with plans to utilise currently vacant Ministry of Defence houses and other accommodation to help provide that accommodation for communal civic use? Do not some of the examples from the United States provide models for the MOD to follow?
Mr. Freeman: I am not sure about the experiences in the United States, which have been mixed. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Ministry of Defence should seek to co-operate with local authorities, trade unions and other Government Departments through the regional offices to make sure that there is prompt action to find alternative uses for land and buildings which are no longer needed. We need to reduce the stock of empty married quarters, and we will work with local authorities to achieve that.
Mr. Hicks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is eager anticipation within the Plymouth travel-to-work area that an early decision will be made about the release of land currently occupied by the Royal Naval college at Manadon, and that the beneficiary will be the University of Plymouth?
Mr. Freeman: I cannot confirm who the beneficiary will be, but I agree with my hon. Friend that further or higher education use for the site would make a great deal of sense and would be welcomed in Plymouth.
Procurement Fraud
4. Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's estimate of the amount of procurement fraud committed against his Department in the last five years; and what steps he has taken to limit this. [25095]
Mr. Freeman: In the last five years identified procurement fraud was approximately £1.8 million, most of which relates to the Foxley case. The recent report by the National Audit Office recorded that my Department had made good progress in its efforts to reduce the risk of fraud in defence procurement by measures such as more and better training of staff.
Mr. McAvoy: Bearing in mind the concerns expressed by the National Audit Office, can the Minister confirm that all the corrupt funds in the Gordon Foxley case have been identified? Despite his assurances about the response of the Department, is he entirely sure that the MOD is assiduously learning the lessons of the Gordon Foxley case to prevent a repeat of the financial waste, the damage to employment and the long-term damage to Britain's defence industry which have been the results of that case?
Mr. Freeman: I cannot assure the hon. Gentleman that we have traced all the funds, partly because of the nature
Column 5
of banking laws and regulations in Switzerland. Our present estimate is £1.5 million but the sums may be much more--possibly as much as twice that amount. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman precise figures, as it is far too early.On the lessons learnt, the Department is continually improving its methods of training staff. Although £1.8 million is a significant sum over five years, it is a small fraction of the £40 billion which the Department would have spent on procurement in the past five years. Compared with industrial and commercial companies in the private sector, the Defence Ministry's record is good. It must continue to improve, but we have set in train steps to improve the quality of the training of staff to identify fraud.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it sticks in the gullet of most taxpayers that, having short-changed us as an employee, Mr. Gordon Foxley then proceeded to get £160,000 in legal aid? Is not something wrong somewhere?
Mr. Freeman: That is not a matter for me, but the sentiments of many in the House would probably be the same as those of my hon. Friend.
Dr. David Clark: How does the Minister justify rewarding companies that have perpetrated fraud? How does he justify awarding the M107 shell contract to Simmel, a company that was involved in the Foxley-Taylor fraud scandal and which is co-owned with Borletti, which was a major player in that fraud? Does the Minister understand the anger among British workers who have lost their jobs because foreign firms have fraudulently bribed MOD officials and, as a result, are now out of work while those same companies are being given contracts?
Mr. Freeman: The Ministry of Defence and the Procurement Executive in particular are extremely annoyed at the actions of the three European companies and we have taken action against them: first, to recover the moneys paid in bribes; and, secondly, to suspend procurement decisions with those three companies for a time. But because the management involved in the Foxley case has now left the companies, it is not in the interests of the taxpayer to ban dealings with those companies for ever.
Ex-service Women
5. Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many ex- service women are affected by the recent industrial tribunal decision on voluntary redundancy. [25096]
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): In all, 54 women who were made redundant under the third tranche of the Army redundancy scheme received special capital payments which were lower than those of their male counterparts.
Ms Eagle: I thank the Minister for that answer. I was pleased to see, in recent answers to parliamentary questions tabled by me, the Ministry's commitment to equal opportunities. Will the Minister explain why his Department seems to be so terrible at carrying them out? Why must we see the Ministry being dragged before the courts time and again over the dismissal of women who
Column 6
have become pregnant, for example, and in cases such as this? When will the Ministry undertake a proper review and ensure that discrimination against women is wiped out from its administration so that we can be proud of an equal opportunities policy rather than regard it as just a sop?Mr. Soames: As usual from the Opposition, the hon. Lady presents a travesty of the position in the armed forces, which is a shining example of equal opportunity. There is not a branch of the services in which women do not undertake the most significant, responsible and valuable role. Where discrimination exists, it will be dealt with. In this case, we believed that what we were doing was fair and not discriminatory. The court has ruled against us and we are moving to put the matter right. But the picture portrayed by the hon. Lady is a travesty which will cause great offence to all those women who serve so honourably and well, and with such distinction, in our armed forces.
Mr. Wilkinson: Although I congratulate my hon. Friend on ensuring that women have full opportunity for fruitful careers in the armed forces, has not subordination of British law to European by Her Majesty's Government's application to the armed forces of the European Union equal opportunities directive cost the British taxpayer £50 million in compensation for ex-service women, who have been dismissed on the ground of pregnancy? Will he ensure that that precedent is not followed in the case of homosexuals in the armed forces?
Mr. Soames: For a start, I do not intend to follow my hon. Friend's prejudices. Plainly, we are a proper equal opportunities employer--not in the politically correct sense--because we value the services that those people have to offer in the same way as we value all the members of the armed forces. We will respect, continue to respect and always have respected the judgments of the laws of the land.
Mr. Martlew: Perhaps the Minister can help me about discrimination against women in the armed forces. Will he examine the policy that dictates that women serving overseas are always posted back to the United Kingdom on their return to service from maternity leave? Often that policy has the effect of splitting the family, because the husband is normally on an overseas posting. The Minister professes to be in favour of equal opportunities, so when will he stop presiding over policies that blatantly disregard and discriminate against women?
Mr. Soames: Sometimes the hon. Gentleman has a confusion about priorities in defence. He should understand that the services take their responsibility extremely seriously. If there is a problem, I shall have it investigated, but let us not try to pretend that the hon. Gentleman raises such cases for any other reason than to curry favour. It is absolutely idiotic stuff. To try to portray the services as not being in favour of equal opportunities across the board is fatuous nonsense.
Mr. Robathan: Further to the question from the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), does my hon. Friend agree that the people of this country demand that the
Column 7
armed forces are capable of defending the country and that they are not interested in all the politically correct claptrap we hear from the Opposition?Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend, who has considerable and high quality experience as a soldier, speaks the truth and all those sensible ordinary people in the country know it to be the truth. They value our armed services for what they are--not as a political puppet, as the Labour party tries to use them.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Although I understand that an equal opportunities programme operates within the armed services, does the Minister accept that some form of discrimination exists when soldiers of the Royal Irish Regiment are involuntarily discharged? Some of them should be discharged because they are suffering from medical conditions. The failure to do that means that the future livelihoods of those soldiers are being endangered because they have no medical discharge from the Army.
Mr. Soames: I do not know the details of the case that the hon. Gentleman makes, but if he cares to let me have the details, I shall have them investigated at once.
Defence Costs Study
6. Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the efficiency gains arising from the defence costs study process in his Department. [25097]
Mr. Rifkind: The defence costs study was a great success. We now estimate that the measures arising from or related to the DCS will result in annual savings in excess of £1 billion by the end of the decade.
Mr. Milburn: How can the Minister claim success in reducing inefficiency when his Department continues to waste public money hand over fist; for example, £2 billion overspent on the Eurofighter project; £800 million overspent on the Trident works programme and £7 billion wasted in total in the past two years? Is it not a national scandal that financial incompetence and mismanagement continue to be the order of the day in his Department when defence jobs and defence budgets are being cut?
Mr. Rifkind: If the Labour party wants to conduct a campaign on the basis of waste in the Ministry of Defence, it really should do its homework a little better than it has.
In the recent document published by the hon. Gentleman's friends, they claimed as a supreme example of Ministry of Defence waste the fact that the costs of the Challenger tank programme had increased by £920 million. They appeared to be unaware that the £920 million was the cost of the extra 259 Challenger 2 tanks that we announced some months ago, which were warmly welcomed by the Army.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the savings that have been achieved are substantial, and that any large organisation--which is what the Ministry of Defence is--can always make savings and improve efficiency? However, would it be right to say that much of the saving has been achieved because of the reductions, and that if we are considering, as we may well in future, enlarging, for example, the
Column 8
volunteer reserves and the cadet force, it may be wise not to reduce their structures and command situations until the decisions on expansion, if any, are taken?Mr. Rifkind: We have borne those considerations very much in mind in the decisions that we have announced with regard to the Territorial Army, the other reserve forces and the cadet forces, which are being maintained at their present levels. I can also tell my hon. Friend that what was unique about the "Front Line First" study was that we excluded, from the beginning of that consideration, any proposals the effect of which might be to reduce the operational effectiveness of our armed forces.
Devonport Dockyard
7. Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the terms and conditions of the employees of Devonport dockyard will remain the same after the privatisation of Her Majesty's royal dockyards. [25100]
Mr. Freeman: That is a matter for Devonport Royal Dockyard plc, its employees and their representatives.
Mr. Jamieson: Does the Minister recall his Department's repeated assurances to the employees of Devonport dockyard, in answers to Members of Parliament and in a written answer to me on 23 May 1995, that terms and conditions would not be changed without the prior consent of the work force? Does he not understand the anxiety and sense of betrayal of the work force--people who have served the country loyally and long--now that they have heard that, contrary to the documents of the invitation for tender, the terms and conditions can now be changed?
Will the Minister give the House and the workers of the dockyards a categorical guarantee that their rights to pensions and redundancy payments will be guaranteed after privatisation?
Mr. Freeman: The position on accrued benefits, either for redundancy payments or pensions, is of course safeguarded. Future accruals of such rights for future service are a matter for proper negotiation between the employer and the trustees, for example, of the pension scheme, and the employees and their representatives as far as the redundancy scheme is concerned. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously interested in preserving the interests of those who work at Plymouth, Devonport, he should be distancing himself from the 58 Labour Members who want to scrap Trident.
Mr. Fatchett: Is not the fate of Devonport and Rosyth typical of the Government's privatisation programme--millions of pounds wasted on consultants' fees in preparing for privatisation, job insecurity for those working in the dockyards who have served the country well for so long and now doubts about the defence capability of the Government's proposals?
Is it not time to admit that Minister's policy on that aspect, as in so many other respects, is a total shambles? Would it not make sense to withdraw from that privatisation? It is not wanted, it is not necessary and it will damage the country.
Mr. Freeman: The Government side of the House proceeds on a principle very different from that on which the hon. Gentleman proceeds; the defence industry is there
Column 9
to provide the right equipment and the right service for the armed forces of the country, not to provide employment, either in Devonport or in Rosyth.The best way forward for the dockyards, in the Government's judgment, is in the private sector, because that way they will provide the most efficient service and the best chance of attracting further work.
Pacific (China)
8. Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of Chinese military ambitions in the Pacific region; and if he will make a statement. [25101]
Mr. Rifkind: China has long-standing territorial claims in the Asia Pacific region and significant military forces, which are being modernised. We hope that all territorial disputes in the region can be settled amicably, and without resort to force.
Mr. MacShane: Is the Secretary of State aware that China is rearming itself at a speed not witnessed since the German and Italian rearmaments of the 1930s? Is he further aware that, in the past two or three weeks, China has tested nuclear weapons in defiance of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and tested intercontinental ballistic missiles which can be launched from lorries? Is he further aware that the Chinese navy is transforming itself from a coastal defence fleet into a blue water fleet and is actually involved in military engagements, many hundreds of miles from the China coast? That action has been taken by a non-democratic, totalitarian power which is seriously destabilising Asia. What are Britain's short, medium and long-term policies with regard to that new threat to the world?
Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if, in the time available, I am unable to give a comprehensive answer to what is a very reasonable question. He is certainly correct to emphasise that China is expanding its military potential very substantially. We have noted particularly the testing of the intercontinental ballistic missile which we understand could have a range in excess of 6,500 km and thus would be able to target western Europe in due course. The matter clearly justifies serious attention in the months ahead.
Housing Stock
9. Mr. Patchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in the last six months in respect of his Department's empty housing stock. [25102]
Mr. Soames: My Department has received numerous representations from hon. Members and from other interested parties about empty housing.
Mr. Patchett: Does the Minister agree that it is simply outrageous that so many houses should remain vacant while so many people are homeless? Why cannot the Government get their act together and provide proper housing for our armed forces and use any excess housing for the homeless of this country?
Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman makes the perfectly fair point that we have too many empty married quarters.
Column 10
We have currently more than 13,000 vacant married quarters, of which about 4,000 are being sold or leased and approximately 9,000 are service stock.However, the House should remember that service housing stock must meet the special and unique needs of the armed forces, and that the lowest practical level of vacant properties will always be greater than that of local authorities or housing associations. That said, we acknowledge that we need to do better, and we will do better.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend is currently considering a major disposal of 240 married quarters at the former flying school at RAF Rissington situated at the top of the Cotswolds which will have a major impact on my constituency. Will my hon. Friend please take full account of the views of local people, and particularly the views of the Cotswold district council and not merely sell the site to the highest bidder?
Mr. Soames: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the very forceful presentation of his case. If he will be good enough to get in touch with me and let me know what the views of the Cotswold district council are, I shall be happy to examine them.
Service Personnel
10. Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel are stationed in (a) Wales, (b) Scotland and (c) England. [25103]
Mr. Soames: The latest available figures for United Kingdom Regular forces show just over 4,800 service personnel stationed in Wales, some 18,400 in Scotland and 156,500 in England.
Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister agree that Wales is very hard done by in the deployment of defence resources? When examining the future configuration of defence forces in the United Kingdom, will the Minister move out of the Napoleonic age and bring about a fairer adjustment of resources and ensure, in particular, that Wales does not suffer any more from this Government's depredation of our defence forces?
Mr. Soames: That is a typically optimistic Welsh view. It is important that we deploy our forces in such a way as to meet our requirements in the most operationally effective manner. The Welsh have very proud traditions and links with our armed forces, for example, through the Royal Welch Fusiliers, the Royal Regiment of Wales, the Welsh Guards and the Queen's Dragoon Guards. Three ships are affiliated with Welsh towns and major defence industries and airforce bases are located in Wales. Wales is not badly done by. However, I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. Of course, we are always mindful of helping where we can and we always have regard to operational requirements and the effectiveness of what we do.
Mr. Devlin: Is it true, as I have been told by the defence trade unions, that the Trident refit programme contract has not been let to Devonport because of technical difficulties, and that therefore the contract may yet go to Rosyth? If that is so, will my hon. Friend reconsider the future of the Navy base at Eaglescliffe in my constituency?
Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend has always been
Column 11
extremely skilful in linking Eaglescliffe to Wales, as he has today. No decisions have yet been taken; I understand that they will be shortly.Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: On the matter of RAF Valley, the Minister was good enough to see a deputation from my constituency on 23 May. Is he aware that today we met the Secretary of State for Wales, who made clear his support for our bid to ensure the maximum number of local job opportunities under the market testing exercise currently taking place at the camp? Does the Minister accept that we have an extremely strong case to maximise those job opportunities and that the Ministry should be flexible about the introduction of the scheme?
Mr. Soames: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing such a formidable delegation to see me. We listened carefully to what was said and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales was fully aware of that conversation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have extended the consultation period, at his request and that of the Welsh Office, to examine carefully the points that he raised. I give him a public assurance that all the assurances he sought and all the points he made will be carefully considered as we reach a conclusion on an extremely important matter.
European Policy
11. Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement as to the progress that has been made on a common European security and defence policy. [25104]
Mr. Rifkind: The United Kingdom has sent to its allies our proposals for improving western European defence co-operation within the NATO framework.
Mr. Cunningham: Does the Secretary of State agree with the Labour party that British troops involved in military operations overseas should be answerable to the British Government and to Parliament? Does he further agree with the Labour party that we should not opt for a European army?
| Next Section
| Home Page |