| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's comments. I think that he has paraphrased my remarks rather loosely, but I do not have the text before me. He will be aware that I was speaking about the position of the Grand Committees in relation to Scotland and Wales, and about enabling those Committees to conduct hearings in those countries. I think that that is rather different from the point he makes.
Mr. Walter Sweeney (Vale of Glamorgan): In view of the risk of increased unemployment, higher taxes, the handing over of many of our remaining powers to Brussels, the risk of the break-up of the United Kingdom and of a reduction in law and order, does my right hon. Friend agree that time should be found to debate the dangers of new Labour?
Mr. Newton: We may see some of those indirectly, and no doubt unintentionally, during the Opposition day on Tuesday 23 July. I can only suggest that my hon. Friend might come along and try to expose as many of those dangers as he can.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): Will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister to come to the House to explain that, despite the employment legislation passed by the House, it is the view of Her Majesty's Government that democratic ballots should be overturned at the whim of whichever political party happens to be in power at the time?
Mr. Newton: I have arranged for the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to be here next Wednesday, and the hon. Lady might like to put that question to her.
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham): May I support the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) in his call for a debate on the increase in pay for Members of Parliament and Ministers, because it would be an opportunity to highlight the fact that Ministers voted neither for the vast increase in pay for Members of Parliament, nor for the increase in pay for Ministers, about which he carefully gave the opposite impression? Furthermore, when it came to which Lobbies were occupied, it could be highlighted that those in the Lobby for a large increase in pay were overwhelmingly Labour Members, and those in the Lobby against a large increase in pay were a vast majority of Conservative Members.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Member for Bolsover(Mr. Skinner), not for the first time--he clearly does not mind--put himself in a rather dangerous position in relation to the people behind him.
Points of Order
4.5 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of which I think that you have notice from Madam Speaker, which is also a point of curiosity. It refers to the notice of motion for an unopposed return.
It may be within the recollection of the House that Sir Richard Scott, in paragraphs D4.40 to 4.42, D6.69 and F4.68, came to the conclusion that, had detailed questions that I put on Lear Fan and Colchester Lathes been properly and truthfully answered, the whole course of events in relation to the inquiry on arms exports to Iraq would have been somewhat different.
Therefore, forgive my curiosity in asking about this CD-ROM. Why is it that this notice of motion has appeared on the Order Paper at the very fag end of the Parliament, when it was laid on 15 February? Why was it not under the usual Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions? Doubtless there is some explanation, but the Chair will forgive us being suspicious that this suddenly appears when perhaps Parliament has its mind on rather different matters. Surely it could have appeared much earlier.
Technically, it is not all that difficult to produce a CD-ROM. If there had been any will to make all this available, surely we could have had it by April or May, rather than waiting until July.
Some of us are curious about the substance and content of the CD-ROM. We know that it is the technique of Governments to leave such things to points in time when they are least likely to be looked at. I have no idea what the substance is, but I think that there is justification for being rather suspicious about this extraordinary parliamentary procedure.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse):
I will try to satisfy the hon. Gentleman's curiosity. The notice of motion is in the usual place on the Order Paper. With all his experience, the hon. Gentleman knows that the decision about when such motions appear is a matter for the Government.
Mr. John Marshall (Hendon, South):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you may know, earlier today I applied to Madam Speaker under Standing Order No. 20 for an emergency debate on the problems on the London underground, which have inconvenienced a million Londoners and put at risk--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer to a failed application under Standing Order No. 20.
Mr. Dalyell:
Of course you are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course it would be a matter for the Government, but the Leader of the House has done us the courtesy of remaining. Perhaps he will explain the procedure and why it was left so late.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
I have already answered the hon. Gentleman on this point of order. I am not aware that the Leader of the House wishes to reply.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton):
It might be helpful if I explained one factor, which the hon. Gentleman might wish to bear in mind. This is the first time that a proposal to publish in CD-ROM has been made, and it has entailed detailed consideration by various domestic Committees and the House of Commons Commission before the arrangements could be made.
Mr. Dalyell:
Is it in order to ask the Leader of the House a further question? Which Committee--
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. If the hon. Gentleman is continuing his point of order--I assume he is--he should address it to me, not to the Leader of the House. The answer is the Administration Committee. I do not think that I can be of any further assistance to the hon. Gentleman on this point of order.
Mr. Dalyell:
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This all appears to have happened by alchemy. Who are these Committees? Which Committees decided that this should happen? This is a very curious matter--it really is.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
The Committees are appointed by the House. In fact, there have also been written answers about it. I can go no further to help the hon. Gentleman this afternoon.
Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham):
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether you are aware of the considerable difficulty that quite a number of hon. Members have found in getting to the House this afternoon owing to the extreme traffic congestion outside, which affects not only hon. Members but--more important--our constituents who have to come in to London to work. If we are not allowed to use Standing Order No. 20, what means do we have to raise this important matter?
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
The hon. Gentleman is again questioning a failed Standing Order No. 20 application, on which I have ruled. It has not been brought to my notice that any hon. Members who wish to be in the House today have found it impossible to do so.
Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside):
I thank the House for the privilege of being invited to introduce this debate on British forces in Bosnia. It is certainly timely because of the elections that are due in that country in the middle of September. It is an appropriate subject for an estimates day, as class I, vote 1 is entirely related to defence expenditure, and we shall be asked to vote an extra £6.25 billion from the Consolidated Fund to meet additional defence costs.
I was interested to hear the exchanges during business questions and noted the fact that many of them related to procurement matters. I was also interested to pick up from the Board a letter from my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, which makes an announcement about LPDs--landing platform docks. I am sure that the House will be delighted to hear that the Secretary of State is to make an announcement today about replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid, for which the House, and certainly the Select Committee on Defence, has lobbied for many months.
I am told that the contract to build both LPDs is to be placed with GEC Marine at the Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. shipyard in Barrow-in-Furness. No doubt £450 million of what we shall be voting today will be used to assist the MOD's important purchase. Perhaps, when he winds up the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister of State will tell us a little more about the number of jobs that the order will provide, and about when the ships are likely to come into service; but I think that the House will applaud the Government's determination to ensure that our country retains an amphibious capability.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces for his note telling us that he would be unable to stay until the end of the debate because of pressing engagements of an international nature. It is good to see that he is here for the beginning.
The Defence Committee visited Bosnia between 22 and 24 April this year, just after the D-plus-120 Dayton deadline for withdrawal to military barracks had been largely met. Its report has been published as our fifth report for this Session, and the Government's reply, which the Committee received, has been published as the sixth report.
Last October's ceasefire in Bosnia was described by the United States peace envoy Richard Holbrooke as
The peace implementation conference held in London last December saw Carl Bildt appointed as high representative to take charge of the civil side of the peace agreement and co-ordination of the civil and military operations. On 20 December--the so-called D-day--authority was transferred from the United Nations protection force, UNPROFOR, to the NATO implementation force, known as IFOR, and Bosnia was divided into British, United States and French multinational military zones, known as MND--multinational division--north, MND south-west and MND south-east.
I think that it was with relief that our British troops in UNPROFOR took off their blue berets and put on brown helmets. It then became clear to everyone that they meant business. This debate gives the House an opportunity to pay tribute to those forces. Anyone who has visited them--as the Defence Committee has done not just this year, but for the past four years--cannot fail to be impressed by the skill, professionalism and enthusiasm with which individuals and units carry out their tasks. The relative calm in Bosnia this year should not make us forget the real dangers that British forces have faced in the past, and the potential risks that they still face. The House will recall that, since 1992, 24 British soldiers and four aid workers have lost their lives while serving in the Bosnian theatre.
When IFOR took over from UNPROFOR, British troops moved quickly to open up crossing points across the former confrontation lines, and to demonstrate the new mandate under the Dayton agreement. That decisive action set the tone for the completely new style of operations being undertaken by IFOR, with a clear set of military rules and a single politico-military chain of command. It did not have that under the UNPROFOR arrangements.
The Committee was impressed with how soldiers of the Queen's Royal Hussars had deployed with their Challenger 1 tanks to a disused factory at Bosanski
Petrovac, both to deter anyone tempted to resort to military force and to reassure people seeking to rebuild their homes and lives. That increased military capability is a key feature of IFOR--tread softly, but carry a big stick. A good example of soldiers getting job satisfaction was how the men and women of the Royal Engineers built bridges, restored power supplies and helped local people to clear minefields. They were putting into practice what they were trained to do and could see how the local population benefited.
No tribute to the British forces in Bosnia would be complete without referring to our allies who work alongside them. In April, the Committee visited American, Dutch and Canadian forces. The close co-operation was striking, and the subtle differences between styles of operation and the emphasis placed on creature comforts were clear.
Fifteen NATO countries are involved in the IFOR operation, but there are also 15 countries that do not belong to NATO. The operation in Bosnia has allowed countries such as those that are members of "Partnership for Peace", which have aspirations to join NATO, to demonstrate how well they can operate militarily under the NATO umbrella. Of the non-NATO countries, the Russians have the largest number of troops on the ground. It was quite something to meet a Russian colonel taking orders from an American general. That shows how far we have come since the iron curtain came down in 1989.
We were given one clear example of the risks faced by soldiers serving with IFOR. On the day that we visited the Dutch battalion at Novi Travnik and its medical facilities--which, I regret to say, were at that time, although not now, rather better than ours--a soldier from that unit lost a leg in an explosion in a minefield. Between 3 million and 6 million mines are estimated to have been laid in Bosnia. They will have to be cleared. That is a major job with the funding of which European Union countries can help. It may be too late to speed up the operation this year, but a fully supported effort next spring is badly needed. It was also clear that without the repair work and support of our forces, especially the Royal Engineers, the £332 million humanitarian aid effort could not have been delivered.
What has been the effect of the Bosnian operation on the Army? IFOR shows how British armed forces may operate in future. The UK contingent is tailor-made for the task, drawing together a wide variety of front-line and support units to meet the specific needs of peacekeeping in Bosnia. That means that we must plan for a much wider range of possibilities than in the past and we need the flexible command systems that enable the right combinations of forces to be put together for a particular mission at short notice.
We were struck by the effectiveness of the headquarters in Sarajevo of the so-called ARRC, the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps, under the command of a British general, Lieutenant General Sir Michael Walker. Its multinational NATO headquarters, based in Germany, is led by Britain and 60 per cent. of its general staff are British. The bulk of them are engaged in communications. Quite apart from the contribution of British forces on the ground, the provision of a significant British element amounting to a high proportion of ARRC's communications facilities is a major part of the UK's participation in IFOR. While such a varied operation, involving a wide range of units, must be good for training,
the disadvantage of having so many soldiers involved in peacekeeping missions is that training for their essential war role of high-intensity combat can suffer.
The Committee has seen no evidence to show that it is wise or practical to train our armed forces solely for peacekeeping roles. Not only have we had to deploy tanks and major artillery to Bosnia to ensure peace enforcement and the protection of our soldiers, but the discipline, organisation and command required to carry out high-intensity operations are still needed for a mission such as IFOR. As the Committee's report notes in its opening paragraph, 10,500 British troops are serving on the ground in Bosnia--more than one tenth of the trained strength of our Army.
The Territorial Army volunteers and reserves made a significant contribution to the British presence in Bosnia. Between 500 and 600 soldiers have filled a variety of posts to bring Regular units up to full operational strength. They include sappers, Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers personnel, signallers, military police, logistics personnel, catering and pay staff. We applauded the valuable work done by those volunteers, their employers' tolerance in releasing them and the way in which the Ministry of Defence has adjusted its arrangements for call-up and bounty in the light of experience in Bosnia. The enactment of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 will help still further.
With further commitments overseas and other units preparing for, or recovering from, service in IFOR, more than one third of our Army is committed to operations worldwide. As we saw from the "Statement on the Defence Estimates", we now have deployments in more than 33 countries. As a consequence, for many units, tour intervals between deployments have dropped well below the target level of 24 months, training for other missions has suffered and a substantial proportion of the United Kingdom's communications facilities are unavailable for other tasks. Our report concludes that in the wide range of post-cold-war scenarios in which our armed forces might be needed, either a prolonged peacekeeping mission such as IFOR is too large a task, or the Army is too small.
Are there any weaknesses to be identified in the Bosnian operation? While the logistics operation to support British forces in Bosnia is impressive, during its April visit, our Committee identified and reported some weaknesses. As a result, the Government decided to purchase two containerised operating theatres, to fund the provision of bottled water for British troops, to improve access to welfare telephones and to enhance the capability of logistics communications. Those small areas of difficulty highlight a shortage of UK campaign stores.
We saw that the American and Dutch forces had better accommodation and facilities than those of the British soldiers. For those reasons we concluded that, if the UK is to be involved in peacekeeping missions in future, the Ministry of Defence clearly has to acquire and maintain a greater quantity of campaign stores to meet a variety of eventualities. We also suggested that the Ministry of Defence needed to show a faster response to meeting unforeseen needs for supporting soldiers in the field--including access to welfare telephones.
[Relevant documents: Fifth report from the Defence Committee of Session 1995-96, House of Commons Paper No. 423, on the British Forces in Bosnia and the Government reply thereto in the Sixth Special Report of Session 1995-96, House of Commons Paper No. 592, and the Government's Expenditure Plans 1996-97 to 1998-99--Ministry of Defence (Cm 3202).]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum not exceeding £6,228,158,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1997 for expenditure by the Ministry of Defence on: personnel costs, etc of the armed forces and their reserves and cadet forces, etc; personnel costs, etc of Defence Ministers and of certain civilian staff employed by the Ministry of Defence; movements, certain stores, supplies and services; certain spares and maintenance; plant and machinery; charter of ships; certain research; lands and buildings; works services; certain contingent liabilities; certain services provided by other Government departments; some sundry services, subscriptions, grants and other payments, including those abroad, including assistance to foreign and Commonwealth governments for defence-related purposes; and set-up costs, loans and funding to trading funds.--[Mr. Arbuthnot.]
4.12 pm
"not peace, but a big step forward."
The purpose of today's debate is to give the House an opportunity to review progress in the peace process, and in particular the continuing role of British forces in Bosnia, which is described in our report. Since the ceasefire, the Dayton peace plan has been signed by the countries involved, and by the warring parties in Paris on 14 December last year. The agreement maintains a single unitary Bosnian state within internationally recognised borders, with Sarajevo as capital, but divided into two semi-autonomous entities, the Muslim-Croat federation and Republica Srpska--the Serb Republic.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |