THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
OFFICIAL REPORT
IN THE FOURTH SESSION OF THE FIFTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT OF THE
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
[WHICH OPENED 27 APRIL 1992]
FORTY-FIFTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF
HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II
SIXTH SERIES
VOLUME 277
ELEVENTH VOLUME OF SESSION 1995-96
House of Commons
Tuesday 7 May 1996
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
DEFENCE
Land Mines
1. Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his French counterpart on anti-personnel land mines.[26919]
3. Mr. Sutcliffe: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on the use of land mines; and if he will make a statement.[26921]
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is today attending the Western European Union Council of Ministers meeting in Birmingham and much regrets that he cannot be here.
We shall work actively for a total worldwide ban on anti-personnel land mines and keep in close touch with our allies about that issue. We welcome the outcome of the United Nations weaponry convention as an important step in the right direction.
Mr. Timms:
Will the Minister join me in commending the ban introduced by the French Government on the
Mr. Arbuthnot:
We need to balance the real need to protect our armed forces with the need to move towards reducing the humanitarian dangers posed by land mines. We believe that we have achieved the right balance. We are in close touch with the French and we believe that we are doing things similar to them.
Mr. Sutcliffe:
Is that not a contradiction: on the one hand, seeking a worldwide ban; while, on the other, seeking to modernise our requirements? Does that not point to a lack of clarity in the Government's view?
Mr. Arbuthnot:
When we seek to achieve a balance between two inherently conflicting aims--both of which are perfectly justified--it is inevitable that we shall not achieve one or the other in totality. There is a real need to protect our armed forces as well as to protect civilians from the increasingly damaging effect of the proliferation of land mines. For that reason, we have supported a total ban on anti-personnel land mines and we shall work hard to achieve that objective. We had hoped that that conclusion would come out of last week's United Nations weaponry convention. Unfortunately, we did not get that far. We would have liked to go further, but we were very pleased to progress as far as we did.
Mr. Menzies Campbell:
Is the Minister aware of the recent International Committee of the Red Cross report which says that the military value of anti-personnel land mines is substantially overstated? Does that not give rise to the moral question: should any self-respecting nation deploy weapons that cause human agony to civilians on a scale out of all proportion to their military value?
Mr. Arbuthnot:
Yes, I have seen and read that report. I disagree with its conclusions. We must remember also that we are trying to contend with the real issue of those
Dr. David Clark:
Does not the Minister's answer expose the Government's recent announcement that they would ban land mines as a sham of the highest order? The reality is that, at a time when most other countries are seeking to ban land mines altogether, the Government are planning to modernise their stock by purchasing brand new and more effective land mines. Where will the Minister get the new land mines? Does he plan to commission British companies to produce them or will we import them from a third country? Has he no shame in escalating the production of that most deadly and barbaric of weapons?
Mr. Arbuthnot:
Some 30 countries, including the United Kingdom, are hoping to ban land mines altogether. At the end of his question, the hon. Gentleman raised an issue that I freely acknowledge to be genuine, and that needs to be addressed, but we have not made a decision to upgrade our land mines. If we do not achieve a worldwide ban on land mines, as we would like, we shall consider at the appropriate time--which is not now--improving our land mines so that they incorporate a self-destruct capacity, which our present land mines do not. It must be sensible to make the land mines that we decide to continue to use--if we are forced into that position--less dangerous to the civilian population whom we are trying to protect.
Mr. James Hill:
Does my hon. Friend agree that the British arms industry cannot be blamed for the circumstances in some parts of the world, such as Cambodia? More money needs to be spent on those gallant groups that are searching for and destroying land mines and trying to make sure that village paths are clear and people can till their fields. Is there no fund that can be used to make sure those people are able to continue that work?
Mr. Arbuthnot:
My hon. Friend raised an extremely important point. I am pleased to say that the United Kingdom has contributed nearly £20 million to the clearance of mines in countries such as Cambodia. That issue is very much to the forefront of our thinking. The mines used by British forces do not pose a threat to civilian populations.
2. Mr. Turner:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's ability to recruit personnel to the Army.[26920]
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames):
We have taken and will continue to take decisive and urgent action to ensure that the Army gets the 15,000 high-quality new recruits that it needs each year.
Mr. Turner:
Is it not the height of incompetence that the Conservative Government have cut manpower
Mr. Soames:
I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman's spontaneous question. Although it is certainly true that the Army has been cut as a result of the greatly changed strategic setting and that certain sectors are finding recruitment difficult, for a number of different reasons with which the House is entirely familiar, not least of which is the present competitive job market, I am glad that we appear now to have turned the tide. In 1995, we saw a 33 per cent. increase in inquiries and a 25 per cent. increase in enlistment. We are not out of the woods yet, but we are well on the way.
Mr. Dover:
Will the Minister review the policy that removed recruitment centres in high street shops, as that was an effective and cost-effective method of recruitment?
Mr. Soames:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is quite right to say that local recruiting centres are extremely valuable. A number of planned changes have been halted, pending the results of a trial that is proving most successful and involves working with our friends in the jobcentres. I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance and confirm that they are indeed valuable sources of recruits.
Mr. Spellar:
Does the Minister now accept responsibility for the huge waste of public money in spending £500 million on redundancy and £100 million on recruitment in one year alone? Can he explain to the House how handing out compulsory redundancy notices would make recruitment attractive? Will he admit that his Department's handling of Army recruitment has been staggeringly incompetent?
Mr. Soames:
One of the reasons why the Conservative party will win the next election is that it is quite plain that the Opposition do not understand defence or how it is run. It is also quite plain that, during a period of drawdown, services need to recruit at all times. They need to refresh the specialisations and aid structure at all ranks. Quite clearly, during a period of drawdown, the perception is that the forces no longer need to recruit. We have addressed that with vigour and determination and our policies are gaining all the time. The hon. Gentleman's question was a pretty facile attempt at a rather poor soundbite.
Mr. Nigel Evans:
Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if the Government were to adopt Labour's policy and reduce defence expenditure of £4.5 billion to the European average, that would have a massive impact on personnel in the Army and other armed services and on equipment procurement, which would place in jeopardy the defence of the realm?
Mr. Soames:
My hon. Friend is completely right. Such a policy would not only greatly harm the interests of the United Kingdom, whose armed forces are such a golden asset, but would seriously damage the job security of all the splendid young men and women who serve in our three forces and the interests of British industry, which provides such splendid equipment for our forces.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |