House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 Oct 1995

Mr. Gummer: I am aware that many hon. Members--they are not confined to the Government side of the House--will find an excuse to raise a favourite topic even in unfavourable circumstances; but, I must tell my hon. Friend that, in a small remote village with one shop, the closure of that shop would make a huge difference that would not be paralleled in the cities.

Mr. Terry Lewis (Worsley): How does the right hon. Gentleman square his new-found opposition to out-of-city shopping with the efforts that he has made to ensure that the Dumplington scheme in Greater Manchester has gone ahead?

Mr. Gummer: During my time as Secretary of State, I have sometimes felt it necessary to say that a development phase comes to an end, and that is what has happened-- [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis) may make such comments, but it is rather typical of him that he has asked a question and then does not listen to the answer.

The Dumplington scheme was decided on some time ago, the circumstances were well tested in the courts, and there was no doubt that the scheme should go ahead. I have made decisions about individual schemes throughout the country, and I have believed that some should go ahead, but many I have refused. That is what the Secretary of State for the Environment has to do to fulfil his judicial function--and the hon. Member for Worsley would do better to listen to what I am saying rather than talking to his neighbour.

Sir Kenneth Carlisle (Lincoln): I greatly welcome the main principle behind the White Paper--to keep the countryside as a living, working place. I also welcome the thrust to increase environmental diversity. In that connection, doubling the size of our woodland in 50 years is a colossal ambition, and it was a dynamic and brave statement to make. It will make a great difference to habitats, but how will my right hon. Friend achieve that ambitious target?

Mr. Gummer: We have a whole range of programmes, not least the community forest scheme, which I support.

Column 158

My hon. Friend is one of the most credible environmentalists, if not the most credible, in the House, and he will agree that we must approach the matter in many different ways.

I want to encourage farmers to do more planting, and local authorities, too, to support more planting on a wider scale. I also want to see planting in many places from which it is now excluded; that is why I hope that the green roots schemes starting in London will spread elsewhere. Over the next 50 years, we shall look to a whole range of innovative ways of doubling this nation's woodland cover--in appropriate places, not in places where it would harm wildlife.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East): What, as distinct from mineral planning guidance notes, is there in the White Paper about opencast mining? How can I be assured that the wide area of green belts in my constituency will not become black belts, with all the inconvenience that that causes to our citizens?

Mr. Gummer: I have addressed that question in four different places, the first of which was the change in the planning guidance that has made opencast mining much more difficult. Secondly, by reducing the land banks that local authorities have to hold, I have stopped the blight over large areas that would otherwise be used for the extraction of gravel.

Thirdly, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and I have announced the landfill tax, which will make it more economic to use second- hand aggregates, and will therefore reduce the demand for virgin aggregates. Fourthly, we will ensure that national recycling schemes will increase the amount and availability of second-hand material, and will thus reduce the need for extra mining. The rural White Paper builds on our present success, and we will continue what we are doing.

Sir Jim Spicer (Dorset, West): My right hon. Friend's announcement about the business rate relief will be warmly welcomed not only by sub-post offices, but by village shops. But should not the announcement go further, as such shops need support as well as advice? Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that advice will come from the Rural Development Commission and that he will encourage the RDC to give such advice?

Organisations such as VIRSA--which is based in Halstock and run by Derek Smith--have done so much to assist in the introduction of co-operatives. Will such organisations be given help to enable them to do their jobs better? Will we finally have a campaign directed at those people who live in villages to say that--despite all the support that is to be given--if they do not use their local shops, they will lose them? Are not those people the key figures in this matter?

Mr. Gummer: We hope to bring together all the people concerned with the matter, and that is one reason why I am determined that the White Paper should be read in the round. It must not become the sort of wish list that the Opposition constantly want. We are seeking to tap into the dynamism of our rural areas and use voluntary and other organisations more widely.

My hon. Friend is right to say that the phrase "use it or lose it" ought to be emblazoned upon every heart in rural areas. Too many people who live in country villages and

Column 159

drive long distances to buy all their goods then expect the local shop to be open in the middle of a snowy winter weekend to provide them with the things that they normally buy somewhere else.

Mr. Paddy Tipping (Sherwood): The White Paper contains measures to improve access to the countryside. Does the Secretary of State accept that a great deal needs to be done to change the rhetoric into reality? I have in mind the White Paper commitment to allow public access to land sold off by the Forestry Commission, the need to ensure that the countryside stewardship scheme really guarantees new public access, and a recognition in the White Paper that the commitment to have the rights of way network in good order by 2000 may not be met. May I invite the Secretary of State to walk down that path with renewed vigour and enthusiasm?

Mr. Gummer: I want the 120,000 miles of footpaths to be open properly and conveniently for the public, and I would like to see more access in some areas. I would certainly like to see the introduction of many of the things to which the hon. Gentleman referred--if not all of them --but I want that to be done in a way that will enhance opportunities for walkers while being balanced with other countryside matters.

I am not a believer in the right to roam, because I think that it gives rights without obligations. It gives walkers the right to roam in other areas, including wild conservation areas which must be protected to allow the next generation of birds and butterflies to be produced. We must keep a balance, but I agree that access is a most important aspect.

Mr. Mark Wolfson (Sevenoaks): I welcome the White Paper as a whole, but I wish particularly to emphasise my welcome to its emphasis on affordable housing. That is very important in areas such as mine, where we support a green belt which needs some exceptions. When my right hon. Friend is developing his policy in that area, will he pay attention to a matter of particular concern to me? The effect of pushing rents up to a market level has been that many people living in some form of public housing are on benefit of one kind or another. That is not very healthy from the point of view of families, and I would be interested in my right hon. Friend's views.

Mr. Gummer: Obviously, we must reach a balance. If rents are at a particular level, we can bring more money into the provision of supported housing. My hon. Friend is probably right to say that rents are at an appropriate level, and I have made some announcements in the past about the terms in which we will look at rents in the future. I do not think that my hon. Friend's opinions and mine will be very far apart when we get to that point.

Mr. Peter Ainsworth (Surrey, East): I am sure that my right hon. Friend will understand that, although there are important social and human considerations to be borne in mind, from a landscape point of view it is pretty immaterial whether or not a house in the countryside is affordable. While I welcome the White Paper and look forward to reading it, can my right hon. Friend tell the House what it does further to protect the green belt, and particularly sites of special scientific interest?

Mr. Gummer: I have made it clear that I intend to continue the tough policy on the green belt, which I increased in toughness in my announcement on the green

Column 160

belt. I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend's view. One of the reasons why I intend to treat village housing differently from other housing is that, very often, it needs to be rather more expensive in its building in order to fit in with the character of the village. We do not want the same house type built in one village in the south of England as is built in a northern village or an eastern village. There is a great deal of difference. For example, the desire to build social housing as infilling in Suffolk villages when those villages never were infilled--they always had little gaps--is a sad result of the fact that many planners are urban people who come in from outside. I hope that we will be able to meet my hon. Friend's worries.

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): I welcome the broad thrust of my right hon. Friend's statement, in particular that aspect of it which enables local authorities to retain 90 per cent. of the receipts from the sale of county farms. Can he tell me who is to decide whether the measures are likely to improve the quality of life in rural areas? Will that be something for the county council, the district council or his Department? When will the scheme come into effect? Can the money be spent only on local government schemes, or may it also be spent in partnership with private landowners?

Mr. Gummer: I am going out to consultation with all those bodies. It would be wrong of me to make decisions in advance. There is a well understood consultation procedure. I hope to see all the spending of the money done in partnerships. It is only through partnership that we get the best value for money.

Mr. Michael Lord (Suffolk, Central): May I welcome the White Paper, and urge my right hon. Friend to look carefully at the proposals for tree planting? He and I know how much Suffolk will benefit from a few more trees. Will he examine carefully not just how many trees are planted but how many survive and thrive? Unless we make sure that enough money is spent, and care is taken to look after the trees, we will not have the numbers we want. Each year we lose them, we have to start all over again.

Mr. Gummer: That is a fitting question for the president of the Arboricultural Association. I thank my hon. Friend for it. He is right to say that, in Suffolk, where we have adjoining constituencies, we have seen far too much planting of trees which have not survived, particularly in heavy droughts such as the one we have just had. I agree that we must make sure that we get value for the planting, as well as the best value for the money.

Mr. Charles Hendry (High Peak): I welcome my right hon. Friend's recognition that agriculture is at the core of rural life, especially in areas such as the High Peak, in spite of adverse farming conditions. I also welcome his rejection of the right to roam proposed by the Labour party, which would be devastating to many farming interests in my constituency and many others.

May I urge him to co-operate with our right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture in keeping the hill livestock compensatory allowances, which target grants so effectively into rural communities, while vigorously opposing a minimum wage, which would devastate farms and many other small rural industries?

Mr. Gummer: The right to roam is a matter of concern not only to farmers. Those who are concerned with the

Column 161

conservation of wildlife and want to look after landscapes of various kinds understand that, if the right to roam becomes the right to trample, which it is almost automatically, it damages the countryside. We need to balance the interests of the walker against other interests, in order that we can have a proper countryside. As for the minimum wage, no part of the economy will be more damaged by it than the rural economy. It shows that the Labour party thinks that the only people who work in the countryside are farm workers. Many other people work in the countryside, and a minimum wage would destroy their opportunity to have a job at all. The Labour party is destructive of countryside employment.

Mr. Richard Spring (Bury St. Edmunds): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. Does he share my view that the sustainability and viability of our rural communities and villages depend on a good democratic mix? Does he agree that county councils should be encouraged to provide affordable transportation for young rural people in pursuit of their education?

Mr. Gummer: I certainly recognise the curious system of priorities that led Suffolk county council to spend £2 million on new road signs and cut off the opportunity of 16-year-olds and others to go by bus to higher education institutions. But then, a county council run by the Liberal and Labour parties is likely to do that. I think that it is wrong.

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras): Will the Secretary of State come back to the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) at the beginning? Will he now come clean, and admit that many of the problems faced by rural communities, which the White Paper attempts to address, are the direct result of the deregulation policies pursued by the Government over the past 16 years?

Those include the deregulation of buses, which has deprived thousands of local communities of their only form of public transport; the promotion of out-of-town shopping centres at the expense of village shops; the promotion of opencast mining; policies that have dried up the supply of affordable homes for rent and closed village schools and small local hospitals; and a record on crime in which villages, which in the past scarcely encountered theft, drugs or violence, have been left living in fear.

On top of that, the common agricultural policy, which leads to high food prices and harms the environment, costs every family in Britain £20 a week. Unless the White Paper puts all those matters right, it is a waste of paper.

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman is not a credible defender of the countryside. In many senses, that was the

Column 162

worst contribution that he has made on this subject for a very long time. He does not understand that, all over the country, Labour councils are closing village schools without so much as a discussion with parents. He does not understand that, in many areas, deregulation has increased the number of buses available. As for crime, he does not understand that the Labour party is soft on criminals. It has not supported a single improvement in the fight against crime which we have brought before the House. The hon. Gentleman has never made a speech asking for tougher sentences or more policemen supporting rural areas. Indeed, he has never made a speech about rural areas, so far as I understand.

Mr. Dobson: That is rubbish.

Mr. Gummer: I said, "so far as I understand", and if I did not understand the hon. Gentleman's speech, it is because he uses words with a curious turn. His usual concern for rural areas is a photo opportunity rather than real concern.

NEW MEMBER

The following Member made the affirmation required by law : Chris Davies Esq., for Littleborough and Saddleworth.

Home Secretary (Prison Service)

4.34 pm

Mrs. Ann Taylor (Dewsbury): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The House will wish to have notice at the earliest possible opportunity that, in view of recent developments and of the Prime Minister's failure to answer questions today, the Opposition have decided to change the subject for the half-day Opposition debate on Thursday this week, and that we will now initiate a debate on the responsibilities of the Home Secretary for the prison service.

Madam Speaker: That will be in order.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

Hill Livestock

That the Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 1481) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Wells.] Question agreed to.

Column 163

Elimination of Poverty

4.34 pm

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require local authorities to monitor the condition of their population; to require central government to publish information on the poverty of the people; to exempt pensioner households from standing charges; to extend pensioners' concessionary fare schemes; to make provision for the calculation of old age pensions by reference to average earnings; to equalise retirement ages at 60; to make provision for the calculation of social security benefits by reference to average earnings; and for connected purposes.

This is the 12th occasion on which I have sought leave to introduce such a measure, to recognise the problems that many poor people face and the poverty in which many pensioners are forced to live. A media silence has been cast over the poverty that exists throughout Britain and over the campaigning work done by many pensioners' organisations to expose the disgracefully low state old age pension and demand fairer treatment. This summer, the Pensioners' Parliament was held in Blackpool, amidst a virtual media blackout of its work, despite its decisions and widespread support for its call for the state pension to be at least one third of average earnings and uprated annually in line with average earnings.

I will cover some of the points in the Bill in a moment, but the House ought to be aware that the most telling statistic about Britain--one of the richest countries in the world--over the past decade has been that it has had the largest growth in the disparity between rich and poor, and that that is getting worse. People did not always sleep on the streets in this country; they did not always beg. Young people did not always have to sleep in barns and disused garages. We did not always have the sight of people being discharged from mental institutions to beg and roam without any visible means of support. It is a crying shame that such poverty exists in our society. My Bill seeks to draw attention to those problems and proposes some measures to alleviate it.

First, we must establish a national poverty line, which the Government have signally failed to do. The Bill requires the Government to publish information on poverty every year and set a benchmark figure for poverty. Every time such a figure is produced, the Government say that it does not tally with their figures. They have to be brought to account.

The most recent figures for the poverty line were provided by the Social Security Select Committee in January 1993. It reported that, between 1979 and 1989, the number of people at or below benefit level rose from 7.7 million to 11.4 million. Lone parents, the unemployed and pensioners are among the poorest people in the country. Between 1979 and 1993, the number of individuals in households with incomes of less than half the average went up from 5 million to 14.1 million. That figure included 4 million children. In other words, 4 million children are being brought up in households in a desperate state of poverty. It is small wonder that there is a high level of under-achievement in school, and that so many other social problems are associated with it.

The figures for income change between 1979 and 1989 show that someone who, in 1979, was earning £321 per week was earning £520 per week by 1993; someone

Column 164

earning £171 per week was earning £236. However, some of the poorest people in our society, who in 1979 were on £75 per week, were getting £62 by 1993. In other words, while the income for the richest has gone up by nearly two thirds, the income for the poorest has gone down by 17 per cent. That is a disgrace and a scandal. Those issues must be addressed.

If hon. Members care to read the reports of their local health and medical officers, they will find that, among the poorest people, life expectancy is lowest, the incidence of cancer highest and infant mortality highest. All the indices that led the great social reformers of the 19th century to introduce social reforms demonstrate yet again that the greatest enemy of good health is poverty. Other statistics are, in many ways, more frightening. The suicide rate, for example, among young men aged 15 to 24 has increased by 75 per cent. The increase in the number of pensioners living in poverty who do not have access to an occupational scheme, a private scheme or any other scheme is increasing rapidly.

The Government like to claim that pensioners' incomes have gone up by 34 per cent. since 1979. That is not what people tell me on the streets and in the clubs of my constituency. That is not what one finds at any pensioners' meeting anywhere in the country. One finds the opposite to be the case. There is degrading poverty, especially among older women pensioners. There is the degradation of pensioners queuing up for stale bread outside supermarkets at 5 o'clock on a Saturday afternoon, because that is the only way in which they can make ends meet.

The Bill is intended to address some of those problems. It is not possible to describe it all in 10 minutes. I make the point, however, about the huge increase in tax allowances for the richest in our society. If those tax allowances had been evenly distributed rather than handed to the richest, they would have made the poorest household at least £4 a week better off in real terms.

The Bill would require local authorities and health authorities to publish statistics every year on the poverty of the population whom they represent and especially on the services and provisions made available for the elderly within their communities. The Bill would also make the Government publish every year their statistics on the causes of and elimination of poverty within our society.

Many of us are fed up with the consensus that the welfare state is no longer affordable--that the state pension is too high and no longer sustainable, and that we therefore have to go down the road of the private, portable pension scheme. Most people are worse off and more insecure, and they live more precarious lives than was the case 15 years ago. The Bill would address some of those points.

Included in the Bill is a provision exempting pensioner households from standing charges as a way in which to increase the money available to them. In view of the profitability of the gas, electricity and telephone companies, such things are easily affordable. Likewise, all the travel schemes that were brought in by progressive Labour authorities in the 1970s and 1980s are under threat through the privatisation of our transport system. There is a need for a universal, nationwide scheme.

Above all, we must look at the way in which social security entitlements are calculated. In 1980, Geoffrey Howe, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, claimed that

Column 165

his greatest achievement was to break the link between pensions and earnings and to substitute the retail prices index. He has cost every pensioner more than £20 a week by that single decision. The pension is falling from 24 per cent. of average earnings to a mere 10 per cent. of average earnings. On top of that, there is the insult of saying to women in work that they must work until the age of 65 to qualify for a state pension. We should be reducing the age at which people have the right to retire to 60 for both women and men. This issue will dominate this country for a long time to come. If the policy of continuing to cut the welfare state and to encourage people to take out private health, medical and pension insurance continues, there will be disasters and crises in future. We must change the terms of the debate.

A civilised, decent society would not allow people to sleep on the streets. It would house everybody, and would not allow its senior citizens to live in the abject poverty and misery in which they have to live at present. The Bill would at least guarantee that their increases would be in line with earnings, and there would be a national focus on the problems of poverty for all our people. Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Mr. Alan Simpson, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Harry Cohen, Mr. Llew Smith, Mr. David Winnick, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Ms Jean Corston, Mr. Bill Michie and Mr. Tony Banks.

Elimination of Poverty

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn accordingly presented a Bill to require local authorities to monitor the condition of their population; to require central government to publish information on the poverty of the people; to exempt pensioner households from standing charges; to extend pensioners' concessionary fare schemes; to make provision for the calculation of old age pensions by reference to average earnings; to equalise retirement ages at 60; to make provision for the calculation of social security benefits by reference to average earnings; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 20 October, and to be printed. [Bill 169.]

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) read out the title of his Bill, the Elimination of Poverty Bill, he caused great amusement on the part of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. Would it be in order for the hon. Gentleman to explain to us why he was so highly amused when somebody was talking about grants--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. That is a good try, but it is not a point of order for the Chair. It is a matter for the Minister.

Column 166

Orders of the Day

Defence

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [ 16 October ]:

That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995 contained in Cm. 2800.--[ Mr. Portillo .]

Which amendment was: to leave out from `House' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

`declines to support the policy of the Government as set out in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995; condemns the continued instability in the armed forces caused by the Government's failure to establish a long- term strategic overview; notes that this undermines the morale and operational effectiveness of the United Kingdom's armed forces and fails to prepare the United Kingdom for the challenges of the post cold war world; calls upon the Government to establish a strategic defence review; deplores the way that United Kingdom defence capabilities and installations are being run down in an unstructured way instead of the Government seeking to manage the worst effects of change on communities and individuals through a defence diversification agency; urges a positive approach in the negotiation of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty and the immediate ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention; condemns the Government's financial mismanagement and waste in defence; congratulates the excellent work carried out by British forces throughout the world and expresses pride in their continuing presence in United Nations peacekeeping operations'.-- [ Dr. David Clark. ] Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

[ Relevant documents: The Ninth Report from the Defence Committee on the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995, Session 1994-95, HC 572; the First Report from the Defence Committee on the Defence Estate, HC 67; the Fourth Special Report containing the Government's Reply thereto, HC 318; the Fifth Report on Defence Costs Study Follow-up: Defence Medical Services, HC 102; the Sixth Special Report containing the Government's Reply thereto, HC 641; the Sixth Report on Defence Use of Civilian Transport Assets and Personnel, HC86; and the Seventh Report on Reconnaissance, Intelligence, Surveillance and Target Acquisition, HC 319. ]

4.44 pm

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to speak to the Government motion. Before I start, I must say something about the speeches yesterday by the two Opposition spokesmen on defence, the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). Before I do, I should like to apologise to the hon. Member for South Shields for wrongly mentioning that he had not moved the motion. He had moved it so I was wrong to say that. All of us, however, who heard those speeches found them to be truly disturbing and, perhaps, an exceptional revelation because they demonstrated an inherent triviality, a total lack of understanding and an apparent lack of any concern for the big and complicated issues that dominate defence today.

Of course, we understand that the Labour party is on difficult ground. It is wedged between very real internal splits on defence, astonishing superficiality and ignorance and, in the case of the hon. Member for Carlisle, an almost hopeless naivety combined with an unhealthy obsession with something called sexism.

It is plain that Labour simply does not understand the armed forces. It has no vision and no strategy for defence; its views are null, void and invalid. Labour is, in short,

Column 167

wholly unconvincing and, as every sensible person in the land knows, it could not and cannot be trusted with the defence of the realm.

Dr. John Gilbert (Dudley, East): While the Minister is in an unusually apologetic mood, may I ask him whether he is correctly quoted at column 115 as saying that this party, of which I am a member, has for the past four elections been "entirely unilateralist and pacifist"? Is he correctly quoted? Would he like to amend that remark or, if not, would he repeat it outside the House?

Mr. Soames: I was referring to the manifestos and not to the honourable exceptions, such as the right hon. Gentleman, who have always championed the cause of multilateral defence.

One of the recurring themes of yesterday's debate was the many expressions of pleasure at the success of the VE and VJ day celebrations. This is an appropriate occasion for us to reflect on what has been a most significant and poignant year. The whole nation came together to remember how much we all owe to the wartime generation and the armed forces were able to pay their own tribute to the past in a series of dignified and extremely moving ceremonies. The House was able to pay its own unique and touching tribute through Madam Speaker. Some 57 world leaders gathered in London to mark the end of the war in Europe. It seemed that the entire nation paused in solemn and grateful reflection for the two-minute silence on the evening of 8 May.

I think, however, that the images that will rest longest in many of our minds were those of VJ day--of the millions of poppies drifting down from a Lancaster bomber and of the rank on rank of veterans, no longer the forgotten army, marching past Her Majesty in a seemingly endless stream. It is unlikely that there will ever again be a parade of such pride and distinction as when the nation united around the person of the sovereign to give due honour to worthy pride and still, in many cases, to remember unforgettable and inconsolable sadness. I had the honour when in Ottawa a few weeks ago, on my way to visit our troops training at Suffield in Canada, to unveil a stone plaque at the foot of the Canadians' beautiful and impressive national war memorial. It was a tribute from all the people of Britain to the 111, 548 heroic and selfless Canadians who gave their lives in the cause of peace and freedom in two world wars. It was a small but truly heartfelt token of the solemn gratitude, respect and admiration of the British people to the Canadians for their supreme gallantry and almost incredible endurance in circumstances which today are almost beyond the call of modern imagination.

Sir Anthony Grant (Cambridgeshire, South-West): Is my hon. Friend aware that the declining band of people who served in the far east were particularly touched and impressed by the remarkable dignity of the VJ celebrations? Will he assure the House that the Government will not forget them in the future, particularly those who were prisoners of war of the Japanese?

Mr. Soames: I am sure that my hon. Friend will remember that one of the central points of the celebrations was the tribute and promise parade when just such a promise was made and just such a tribute was paid.

Column 168

All the countries that fought alongside us are bound together with us still to this day by sometimes hidden but nevertheless profound ties of blood and sentiment which have stood the test of time. The message of the commemorations is that we must ensure that the awful sacrifices of our forebears and their courage, comradeship and sense of purpose are put to good use in this disorderly and dangerous world. The VE-VJ celebrations showed that their actions still command to this day the wonder, the reverence and the gratitude of the British people.

The House will, I know, wish to congratulate the world war 2 commemoration team at the Ministry of Defence on its wholly remarkable work in staging many of these unforgettable events.

Mr. David Martin (Portsmouth, South): May I tell my hon. Friend how much his presence in Portsmouth was appreciated during the course of the commemorations and how much I endorse what he has just said? In Portsmouth, they do not feel forgotten any longer.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the highlights of the commemorations were the celebrations for the forgotten fleet. I pay tribute to the town of Portsmouth and all those who organised what was a deeply memorable and moving parade and one which I shall never forget.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North): When the Minister pays tribute, as he rightly does, to all those who fought, suffered and died in the last war, is not it necessary for us to remember that we were collaborating with other countries to defeat fascism and, though many of us may have many reservations about possible developments in the European Union, many of us were sickened by the sort of xenophobia demonstrated by the Secretary of State for Defence in Blackpool last week? Surely the last thing that we want to do is to create such anti-foreign and anti-European feeling which causes such deep offence abroad, and rightly so.

Mr. Soames: That was a uniquely foolish and stupid point to make, my having paid a lasting tribute to all those who fought beside us, and particularly in front of my right hon. Friend who had himself done exactly the same thing yesterday. But I suppose it comes of giving way to the hon. Gentleman.

I come now to the quite exceptional range of activities in which the armed forces have been involved during the last year. Given both the events of the last few months and the quite extraordinary achievements and efforts of the British forces in the theatre, I will start with the former Yugoslavia. All told, there are currently some 8,000 personnel from the United Kingdom on the ground in the former Yugoslavia. About 3,000 more act in support of United Nations and NATO operations.

Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State paid a handsome and warm tribute to the part played by the British forces in the United Nations and NATO operations to make Sarajevo safe for the civilian population following the brutal marketplace attack on 28 August. Twenty eight British aircraft--Tornado F3s, Harrier GR7s, laser-designating Jaguars, and Sea Harriers from HMS Invincible--all played their part in this the largest air operation in the alliance's history.

On the ground, 19 regiment Royal Artillery, the Highland Gunners, from the rapid reaction force, provided vital support from their positions on Mount Igman. They

Column 169

have now been dug in on Mount Igman for more than 80 days--a truly impressive example of toughness, endurance and resolve.

In central Bosnia, British forces remain at the forefront of the United Nations efforts to sustain the peace between the Croats and Muslims. That work is not as exciting to the media as air strikes and, as such, is more often than not overlooked by them, but we should be in no doubt as to its importance. It too is a difficult and sometimes extremely dangerous task. We saw the steadiness and courage displayed by the Royal Welch Fusiliers, the 24th of foot, during the hostage-taking incident in May this year.

For almost two years now, peace, albeit a fragile one, has existed between the Croats and Muslims in central Bosnia. British forces have been absolutely key in sustaining and nurturing this. They have helped to reconnect water and electricity supplies, to mend roads and to rebuild schools. They are working with local people and they are slowly helping them to take back control of their own lives and, with skill and patience, they are quietly laying the foundations for a lasting peace.

Mr. Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent): As the Minister is describing our involvement in the former Yugoslavia, would he care to comment on the fact that we supplied many of the arms which almost certainly have been used in the present conflict?

Next Section

Home Page