| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Fraud
10. Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the level of fraud within his Department's operations. [819]
Mr. Arbuthnot: The level of fraud is low and the National Audit Office supports that assessment. We are, however, determined to bear down on fraud and are taking action against it with a wide range of measures.
Dr. Wright: In view of the recent damning report of the NAO on Ministry of Defence contract fraud, and the Gordon Foxley case in particular, will the Minister give a number of assurances that none of the firms involved in the Foxley case is still doing MOD work, that the MOD will not deal with any contractors who prevent employees from reporting fraud, and that it will put in place secure procedures to enable members of staff to report suspected fraud and to save taxpayers millions of pounds in the process?
Mr. Arbuthnot: As I said, we take this matter extremely seriously. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he asks for that the firms involved are no longer given work by the Ministry of Defence. We have put in place, because we take the matter so seriously, a Defence fraud unit. We have also brought in a new code of procurement ethics. I am very pleased to say that the NAO's report was not damning because it displayed the fact that we have a huge budget and that a relatively tiny proportion of it is lost to fraud, partly due to the Government's vigilance and partly because of the very high standards expected of, and received from, our public servants.
Force Levels
11. Dr. Michael Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on force levels of reducing United Kingdom defence spending to the European average. [820]
Mr. Portillo: If any British Government were to reduce our defence spending to the European average, it would have a devastating impact on the size of our forces. The Government will not allow that to happen.
Dr. Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we get excellent value for money from our armed forces? Will he reassure the House that, at the current level of expenditure, our worldwide commitment to humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping and protection will not be diminished, and our national defence will not be put in jeopardy?
Mr. Portillo: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we get very good value from our armed forces. They have a fine reputation and they project the prestige and
influence, and, when necessary, the power of the country, on a global basis. Their contribution to peacekeeping is demonstrated by the announcement that I made by written answer yesterday that 13,000 British troops are to become part of the implementation force in former Yugoslavia. Of course I take extremely seriously the necessity of the defence of the realm. That is my duty, and I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.
Mr. Burden: Given that achieving value for money must surely be important in reducing defence expenditure, does the Secretary of State agree that it was not good enough for the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) that, in connection with the purchase of military ambulances, the Government were merely considering the choice between Land Rover and an Austrian company?
Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the report that appeared in The Observer on Sunday that the rules of the competition were being changed to benefit the Austrian company? Does he agree that the Government should be interested in having the reliable spares and service back-up that can be provided by buying British?
Mr. Portillo:
As a matter of policy, I do not comment on stories in The Observer. We do not change the rules of competition halfway through. My hon. Friend said that no decision had yet been taken, and I remind the House that Britain buys about 90 per cent. of its defence procurement from British companies. That happens not through favouritism but because they provide value for money, and that will continue to be an important criterion for us.
Mr. Cash:
Does my right hon. Friend agree not only that we give enormous credibility to our British Army and the performance that it puts up in relation to the defence of Europe, but that the report in The Sunday Telegraph suggesting that he might favour moves towards a single army was complete rubbish, and that he would have nothing to do with any such proposals?
Mr. Portillo:
Yes, the report was absolute rubbish. I am pleased to say that I have had the opportunity on any number of occasions to make our policy clear, but if I may repeat it: NATO provides the cornerstone of security for Europe, but Europeans need to demonstrate that they can do their bit, which they can do through the development of Western European Union. The comment made in The Sunday Telegraph was disappointingly ignorant and ill informed.
Dr. Reid:
On defence expenditure, Defence Ministers are in a state of advanced self-delusion. Do they not recognise that, under the Conservative Government, there has been a 30 per cent. cut in defence expenditure? There has been a cut of more than 100,000 in personnel, and defence spending has been reduced from 5.8 per cent. to 2.8 per cent. of GDP. Is it not time for everyone in the House to give up the juvenile name calling that has marked defence debates for the past 15 years and face the real challenge of a low defence budget, which is to identify the essential framework and to reach a national consensus on national security policy?
Mr. Portillo:
Last year, the United Kingdom spent 3.3 per cent. of GDP on defence; the European average was 2.5 per cent. Yesterday, I was in Germany having
The delusion is in the mind of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), because when he sees 42 Labour Members of Parliament calling for savage reductions in our defence spending, he deludes himself that it has not happened, or that those people are not Labour Members. Unfortunately, they are. The threat from Labour is real, and the country cannot trust Labour on defence.
Mr. Atkins:
Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if the cuts suggested by the Labour party took place, he would not be able to order next week 2,500 vehicles constructed by British companies--including Leyland Vehicles in my constituency, as well as companies in many other constituencies the length and breadth of the country--and that he might then be forced to order Mercedes vehicles, which he, like all Conservative Members, knows would be unacceptable to all his hon. Friends?
Mr. Portillo:
Thousands of jobs would be lost in the British defence industries if the savage cuts advocated by Labour Members were put into practice. If those cuts were made, we would not be able to play a role as a power of global significance in military matters, we would not be able to play a part in NATO and we would not be able to form part of the implementation force in Bosnia. We would be a wholly different and reduced country if Labour's policies were put into effect.
12. Mr. Rendel:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to reduce the number of Ministry of Defence policemen and policewomen. [821]
Mr. Soames:
The overall manpower requirements for Ministry of Defence police are kept under constant review. We will shortly be issuing consultative documents concerning our proposals for future defence police and guarding requirements.
Mr. Rendel:
Does the Minister agree that security at sites such as Aldermaston and Burghfield which have nuclear materials is so important that it would be a bad mistake to reduce the number of MOD police at the sites or to replace them with other less well-trained or less highly skilled personnel?
Mr. Soames:
Clearly the hon. Gentleman is right: the policing and guarding of those sites are extremely important. Quite properly, the Government have examined whether there is scope for reducing costs without in any sense reducing essential standards. The safety and security of personnel and the establishments and the effectiveness of our operations have remained and will remain our primary objective.
Mr. Key:
My hon. Friend knows that scores of MOD police work in my constituency, and he has already expressed his support for the work that they do. Will he undertake as swiftly as possible the review that he mentioned? The MOD police have been faced with
Mr. Soames:
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion of all the defence establishments and personnel in his constituency. I agree that the MOD police fulfil a very important role, but they are--I have to say--extremely expensive. We must therefore examine carefully where we need the MOD police to exercise constabulary powers and where we do not need people of such superior quality. I agree that we need to get that news into the public domain as soon as possible, and my hon. Friend has my assurance that that will happen. As he knows, there are some complex issues to be resolved.
Mr. Foulkes:
Is the Minister aware that the MOD police who monitor low flying using Sky Guard are doing a very good job? But does he realise that there is far too much low flying in the borders area? The number of low-flying sorties in the borders is on the way up, whereas in the country as a whole it has fallen by 30 per cent. Is he aware that an all-party delegation--including the right hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro)--saw the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, and that we were absolutely furious at the lack of action from the Ministry of Defence on the matter? Will the Minister, who I know is a man of honour, give a personal pledge that there will be a review of low flying so that the borders tactical training area gets no more than its fair share?
Mr. Soames:
The hon. Gentleman managed to turn a question about the Ministry of Defence police into one about low flying, which was clever even by his standards. I shall give no such undertaking at this Dispatch Box. I acknowledge the important meeting that he had with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and I am aware of the concerns in the borders. I can report to the hon. Gentleman that the MOD police hugely enjoyed his visit to Sky Guard.
Sir Michael Shersby:
Does my hon. Friend agree that the MOD police are a splendid body of men and women whose skill and professionalism are renowned? Does he also agree that they are able to give civilian back-up wherever that is required? Will he take that into account during his review?
Mr. Soames:
My hon. Friend speaks with a good deal of specialist knowledge. He is right to say that they are a fine body of men and women, and we are fortunate to have them on the strength. We are very much aware of the important role that they can play in a civilian capacity in backing up the civilian police. My hon. Friend can rest assured that we will liaise with the civilian police and the civilian police authorities as we come to our conclusions on this complex matter.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |