| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Nuclear Proliferation
8. Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current assessment of the threat posed by nuclear proliferation. [6345]
Mr. Arbuthnot: The threat posed by potential nuclear proliferation remains serious, and the Government continue to make strenuous efforts to prevent such proliferation.
Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Bearing in mind the continuing threat from nuclear proliferation, does he agree that it is important that we retain our independent nuclear deterrent, which is a credible defence for this nation and sends out a very clear message? Does he further agree that there would not be such a clear message should the Labour party come to power, with its proposals in its defence review, which would indeed just whittle away and, finally, ditch our own deterrent, which is the guarantee of our security?
Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right. The Labour party would play hokey cokey with our nuclear deterrent. It does not believe in the nuclear deterrent when it says that it does. But sometimes it says that it does not, and still it does not.
Mr. Wareing: If the Government are so supportive of non-proliferation, does that include the south Pacific? How does the Government's policy of supporting French nuclear tests square with the policies that the Minister has outlined now? Will the Government declare a unilateral moratorium on British testing?
Mr. Arbuthnot: It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that the French Government already possess nuclear weapons, so it is not really a question of non-proliferation. The French Government were given advice that they should test their weapons to pursue safety, and we could not possibly question that. We have already declared that we will abide by the US moratorium, so there is no need for us to take the step that the hon. Gentleman suggests.
Married Quarters
9. Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy concerning the sell-off of the married quarters housing stock. [6347]
Mr. Arbuthnot: We propose to take forward the transfer to the private sector of the married quarters estate in England and Wales.
Mrs. Prentice: Having already wasted £6 million of taxpayers' money on a previously ill thought out housing sell-off, will the Minister now give the House some assurance that further taxpayers' money will not be
wasted in that way, or is he convinced that, with David Hart as the adviser in this sale, he will get it right this time?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I have considerable confidence that we are getting it right. We have made it clear, however, that the sale will go ahead only if both the price and the terms are right. There are tremendous benefits to be obtained. We want to improve the management and the quality of the married quarters housing estate. I hope that that is an objective that the hon. Lady shares.
Mr. Whittingdale: Does my hon. Friend accept that, in some cases, the quality of the married quarters housing stock, such as that at Colchester garrison, leaves something to be desired? Will he confirm that the sale of the housing stock will release resources that can be used to improve the properties, and may also make available surplus properties for use by the local community?
Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is quite right. The purpose of the sale is to achieve a number of benefits, including an investment in upgrading service homes, but also genuinely to transfer risk to the private sector, which is best placed to take that risk. It will help us to dispose of surplus properties more effectively and, as I said in answer to the previous supplementary question, it will improve the management and quality of service housing.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister accept that the disposal of Ministry of Defence property, including service housing and other property, can raise considerable anxiety, as evidenced by the description by Lord Hill-Norton, Admiral of the Fleet, of the Minister's right hon. Friend as "a little creep"--a description that one certainly could not apply, for many reasons, to the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames)? There are, of course, considerable apprehensions in the minds of many people about the future of Greenwich, about the future of the old Admiralty and of Admiralty arch itself. What assurances can the Minister give the House that those properties will be properly dealt with?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I am a little disappointed in the hon. and learned Gentleman. Perhaps he was not here earlier when I answered a question about Admiralty arch. I have made it plain that the Government have no intention, and never had any intention, of disposing of Admiralty arch. The question of Greenwich has been raised and dealt with in the House on many occasions; it is clear that the facility needs to be used properly, to the nation's best advantage, and it will be so used.
Mr. Dykes: How many married quarters will be relinquished during the gradual phasing out of RAF Stanmore Park? Can my hon. Friend confirm the good news that the combination to form RAF Bentley Priory will eventually create more civilian jobs?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I can answer yes to the second question, on the advice of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. I am afraid that I cannot answer the first without notice, but I will write to my hon. Friend.
Bosnia
10. Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the evacuation arrangements for British troops in the event of an emergency evacuation from Bosnia. [6348]
Mr. Soames: The NATO-led implementation force, of which the British troops form a significant and important part, is robustly configured and fully capable of ensuring its own defence and enforcing local compliance with the peace agreement, should that become necessary.
Mr. Jones: We are given to understand that the NATO troops are capable of responding vigorously to infringements of the Dayton agreement, but how can that be credible in relation to one of the combatants, Croatia? As our supply lines run through that country, will we not face a choice between turning a blind eye to any Croatian infringements and withdrawing our troops?
Mr. Soames: I am happy to be able to report that there have been very few infringements and firing incidents. Compliance is generally good. Indeed, most of the firing incidents that have taken place so far have been fuelled by an excess of new year cocktails, which in Bosnia can lead to recreational firing of a thoroughly dangerous type.
The general commanding UK 3 Division, General Jackson--to whom I spoke today--assures me that all the British soldiers are in excellent heart, and that they have a clear sense of purpose, a proper military mission and the equipment that they need to carry it out. They are doing a first-class job.
Sir Patrick Cormack:
Does my hon. Friend agree that "evacuation" is not a word that should ever occur in the NATO manual?
Mr. Soames:
As my hon. Friend knows, members of the Brigade of Guards do not retreat; they advance backwards. There is no question of evacuation. IFOR, the implementation force, is robustly and fully equipped to undertake its job, and it will do that job. It is encouraging that compliance has been very good so far: that is good news, and it means that the operation will be able to take place on the agreed time scale.
Mr. Murphy:
Has the Minister seen today's reports that a soldier in the Royal Welch Fusiliers, when captured by the Bosnian Serbs some time ago, was subjected to torture? Is there any truth in that report, and what does the Minister intend to do about it?
Mr. Soames:
I had only just heard of the report when I came into the Chamber. I have no reason to believe that it is true. I should add that that regiment acquitted itself with great distinction and considerable courage in very difficult circumstances, and I cannot believe that what is reported happened.
Mr. Atkins:
Were not British troops chosen to perform the tasks that they are performing in Bosnia because they have some of the best equipment in the world, and are the best-trained troops in the world? Have not their presence and their activities so far justified the world's judgment in wanting them to be there?
Mr. Soames:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to the remarkable achievements of British troops in Bosnia, where they have
Food Procurement
11. Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will issue guidelines covering the procedure for food procurement in the armed forces. [6349]
Mr. Arbuthnot: Procurement and supply of food to the armed forces is undertaken by NAAFI against a three-year contract which began on 1 October 1994. Food is required to meet specifications or standards agreed between the MOD and NAAFI and to provide value for money.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The Minister may be aware that I have been organising a national boycott of Campbell Soups products because of the disgraceful way in which that company treated my constituents when it announced the closure of an extremely profitable factory in Maryport. May we have an assurance that Ministers will say to NAAFI, "Boycott Campbell Soups products and, in particular, Fray Bentos products"? Will the Minister also advise the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to follow suit?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I suspect that a bowl of soup is just what I need at the moment. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's vigour in pursuing his campaigns. The NAAFI does not buy soup from Campbell Soups, because it buys on the basis of price and does not buy condensed soup. An interesting statistic that the hon. Gentleman will wish to know is that the Army spends £125,000 a year on soup.
Mr. Wilkinson: Although Napoleon Bonaparte rightly understood that an army marches on its stomach, is not the problem with the British Army today that it gets rather more food than it needs, as is shown by the performance in objective procedures such as the P Company selection test and the basic fitness test?
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the Minister confirm that the guidelines covering procedure for the procurement of military ambulances ensures that the cheapest unit that meets the specifications is the one that is purchased?
Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Lady is again to be congratulated on her ingenuity. I know of no guidelines on the procedures covering military ambulances in terms such as she suggests.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |