| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
European Security
3. Mr. Bernard Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met his French opposite number to discuss European security issues. [34899]
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence meets his French counterpart regularly; they last meet during the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in Brussels on 13 June.
Mr. Jenkin: Whatever bilateral or multilateral arrangements we make with our European counterparts, does my hon. Friend agree that, unless they are supplementary to the fundamental alliance we have in NATO across the Atlantic with the Americans, we are treading down a dangerous path? Has he considered what risks are posed to the credibility of NATO by new Labour and the new danger of its proposal to give up the veto?
Mr. Arbuthnot: As always, my hon. Friend puts his finger on the point. I agree that closer ties with France, with Europe and with the United States are all essential, especially for defence procurement. We shall continue to procure equipment in the United Kingdom, in Europe and in the United States: from wherever it is best, and financially and economically sensible, to do so.
Mr. Kaufman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State would have been able to discuss those issues with the French Minister of War Veterans and Victims of War had he been present a week yesterday at the Somme commemoration at Thiepval? A constituent of mine who was present has written to express his "disgust and dismay" at the fact that, while the French had a "splendid contribution" of
- "a full company of over 200 French troops and a full French military band",
- "a lone Scots Guard piper and a couple of . . . buglers."
Mr. Arbuthnot: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman feels it right to make cheap points out of a very important commemoration, at which we were fully
represented at the highest level by a Cabinet Minister whose father fought on the Somme. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman feels it right to behave in such a way.NATO
4. Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future development of NATO. [34900]
Mr. Portillo: NATO is the cornerstone of European defence arrangements. It must evolve to reflect the demands of its new missions, to absorb new members, and to develop a European defence identity within the alliance. We shall play our full part.
Mrs. Gorman: Given that NATO has preserved the peace in Europe for the past 50 years and that, throughout that period, our nuclear weaponry has been jointly under control of our Government and of the NATO allies, will my right hon. Friend comment on the report issued by the Defence Committee of the European Union which calls for our nuclear weapons, together with those of France, to be placed under the control of a new European defence force?
Mr. Portillo: That proposal is severely misguided. Our nuclear deterrent has, as my hon. Friend said, had a dual purpose since its inception. It has been available for national defence and has been made available for NATO defence. NATO is the appropriate body for the security and defence of Europe. It will remain so, and Britain will remain among its firmest supporters.
Mr. Macdonald: Is not the credibility of the NATO mission in Bosnia constantly being eroded by the continued freedom of Karadzic and Mladic? Is it not time that NATO took serious action to bring them to justice, and is not a NATO follow-on force inconceivable while they are at large in Bosnia?
Mr. Portillo: I have largely dealt with those points already. I add only that, although the long-term peace of Bosnia-Herzegovina depends upon those people being brought to justice, I do not conclude that if, for any reason, they were at liberty at the end of the year, we could not have a follow-on force; nor do I believe that the credibility and effectiveness of the NATO force is called into question by the matter.
Horseshoe Barracks, Shoeburyness
5. Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to make a decision on the future of the Horseshoe barracks, Shoeburyness. [34901]
Mr. Soames: I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that we decided last Friday to dispose of most of Horseshoe barracks, Shoeburyness. My Department will retain a small enclave to provide facilities for Defence Evaluation and Research Agency staff at New Ranges.
Sir Teddy Taylor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his statement, as the barracks have been under-used for a long time. Can he give me a clear assurance that he will
work together with the local council to make sure that, as far as possible, this superb site is used to increase employment in Southend, where it is very much needed?
Mr. Soames: I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I thank him for all the work that he has done to push us forward to this conclusion. I regret that it has taken so long. As my hon. Friend knows, there is no further defence use for the site. We will therefore establish a joint working party to consider all the options open to us. It will consist of the Ministry of Defence, Essex county council, Southend-on-Sea borough council and possibly English Heritage. I am happy to give my hon. Friend all the assurances that he seeks.
Married Quarters Estate
6. Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the sale of armed forces' married quarters. [34902]
Mr. Portillo: The Government are committed to providing decent quarters for service families and to maintaining military communities which provide service families with security and support. The sale will enable us to spend money on improving the condition of the houses and will progressively remove from us the burden of empty properties.
Mr. Bayley: Why does the Secretary of State think that the Royal British Legion does not know what it is talking about when it says that the Conservative party's proposal to sell off the homes of the families of members of the armed forces
- "demonstrates ignorance of service people's real needs"?
Mr. Aitken: Does my right hon. Friend find it rather surprising that there should be so much ado about a scheme which will provide better married quarters for service personnel? Will he confirm that there is no other way in which £100 million could have been spent on upgrading the majority of service homes to grade 1 condition in five years? Does he accept that the cause of good accommodation for the services should be one that unites rather than divides the House of Commons?
Mr. Portillo: I agree with that. I know that, when my right hon. Friend held responsibility in the Ministry of Defence, he wrestled with this question and came to a conclusion similar to my own--that the sort of money needed to improve the quality of the housing could be released only by this method. I believe that it will enable the Ministry of Defence to take a much clearer view of
the way in which the housing estate should be managed--that is to say, to make sure that we have the right sort of properties in the right place at the right time and that when we dispose of properties, which is something that we need to do, we pay more attention to preserving the integrity of military communities.
Dr. David Clark: Does the Secretary of State not realise how much anguish, concern and worry this ill-thought-out scheme has caused the families of our service men and women? Does he not yet appreciate how important it is for the peace of mind of men and women serving abroad that their families are safe and secure back here in Britain? Will he not, even at this eleventh hour, look at this scheme again, follow the suggestion of the Royal British Legion and announce a postponement of the scheme pending a full review?
Mr. Portillo: No, I do not think that that is a good idea. It is not an ill-thought-out scheme and has not been put together in a hurry; it is something about which the Government have been thinking for a matter of years. The proposals in their present form have been communicated to people since last November; there has been a lot of time for people to think about them. My Ministers and I have been rigorous in explaining the scheme's details. I regret that some people have been caused unnecessary anxieties and have been led to hold fears about the scheme that simply should not arise from it. While I entirely agree with the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that it is extremely important to allay the fears of families, particularly when the service person may be serving abroad, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to add to those concerns and anxieties unnecessarily.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |