| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Armistice Day
10. Mr. St. Aubyn: What are his plans for commemorating armistice day. [11743]
Dr. Reid: My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence will attend the Cenotaph ceremony on Remembrance Sunday, as will I and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. This is the formal national occasion for remembering all those, whether in a military or a civilian capacity, who made the supreme sacrifice.
Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister join Conservative Members in supporting the British Legion and its proposal
that a two-minutes silence should be observed on Tuesday 11 November? If so, how does the Minister propose to build on the success of the previous Government a year ago in promoting that idea?
Dr. Reid: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are committed to ensuring that Remembrance Sunday and the two-minute silence on that day are not forgotten, but observed with full dignity, respect and honour. He will realise, of course, that the observance of a period of silence either on Remembrance Sunday or on 11 November must be a personal decision. Indeed, one of the freedoms for which those who fell fought was the right of individuals to make that decision. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Ministers, including myself, and their officials will be observing that silence on both those dates.
Mr. Grocott: Amid the many and varied ways in which different communities commemorate Armistice Day, may I tell my hon. Friend about a very moving ceremony which takes place every year in my constituency and, no doubt, elsewhere? It is called the Ceremony of Light, when 100 names of people who have given their lives in wars this century are read out and for each name a candle is lit, usually by a young person in the constituency. Although I attend the ceremony every year, each year is deeply moving--not least because it involves people of all generations. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital that all generations--especially young people as they grow older--understand the awesome sacrifices that were made and the reasons why they were made to defend our freedoms?
Dr. Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for that. I am sure that the House will have found his description as important and moving as I did. It is absolutely essential that young people not only formally remember but recognise those who fell for this country--first because many of those who fell gave up their youth for succeeding generations, and secondly because, unless the torch of freedom and the sacrifices made are passed from generation to generation, we shall not retain the will power to stand up for democracy and freedom. That is what the people who died in the second world war died for. All of us and any future generation will forget that to the peril of the very democracies and freedoms for which previous generations fell.
Mr. Trimble: The Minister, like most hon. Members present, is wearing a poppy. Will he comment on the behaviour of the management of Coates Viyella Ltd. in Londonderry, which has sent home and suspended more than a dozen workers for wearing poppies and has even compelled visiting executives from England to remove poppies while on the plant? Does the Minister agree that a perverted interpretation of legislation is being used to support that outrageous action, and that the legislation should be clarified so that no person will be penalised in future for wearing a poppy?
Dr. Reid: I recognise the strength of feeling that the hon. Gentleman brings to the matter not only because of Remembrance Sunday, which is coming up, but because yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the terrible massacre in Enniskillen, which was a dastardly act by any
standards. I had the privilege of attending a ceremony held by representatives of the Enniskillen British Legion yesterday and presented them with a wreath from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to take back to Enniskillen.The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) will understand that, due to the nature of discussions that we are having on Remembrance Sunday and exchanges across the Dispatch Box, I do not want to address that particular instance on this occasion. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me, I am sure that we could meet on this subject and I could give him satisfaction.
Gulf War Illness
11. Mr. Todd: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy relating to Gulf war illnesses. [11744]
Dr. Reid: The Government are committed to dealing openly, honestly and sympathetically with the concerns of Gulf veterans who are ill. We shall continue to give the issue the highest priority.
Mr. Todd: I thank the Minister for that answer on behalf of constituents of mine who have raised the issue. Are we taking steps to gain access to American research on the subject?
Dr. Reid: I assure my hon. Friend that we are keeping in close touch with our American colleagues. In fact, I was in Washington a fortnight ago having a meeting with the joint inter-agencies which are handling the issue. We are also extending to the Americans any information that we receive--from fact finding and reports that have recently been published and from any future research discoveries that we might make. The American assistance is particularly useful with regard to chemical weapons. As in all other spheres of information, I should make it plain that we will release that information--as well as all other information--for the benefit of veterans.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: As the Minister has just acknowledged, exposure to chemical weapons from the regime of Saddam Hussein is a possible cause of Gulf war syndrome. Is it not therefore all the more chilling to learn that Saddam Hussein is persisting in the development of weapons of mass destruction, especially the nerve agent VX4, and is declining to allow United Nations inspectors access, in accordance with Security Council resolutions, to inspect the plants where the development is taking place? Can the Minister confirm that the Government stand four square behind the United Nations Security Council resolutions which authorise--if all else fails--the use of proportionate force?
Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman and take this opportunity to make it plain that Saddam's actions in relation to the United Nations Special Commission are completely unacceptable and he must now comply with the United Nations Security Council presidential statement of 29 October. We shall give our full support to the Secretary-General in his efforts to find a diplomatic solution to the problem and we are in close contact with our allies on that issue. Since the hon. and
learned Gentleman asks the question, I confirm that we do not advocate the use of force, but we do not rule it out if Saddam fails to comply.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister told the House during last week's two-day defence debate that, despite the best endeavours of his Department, he still has not been able to find out precisely what mixture of chemicals was given to how many soldiers serving in the Gulf. What further investigations has he made since then? In particular, what batches of chemicals were purchased from which chemical manufacturers, and on what day were they given to which units? Surely it is possible to arrive at a realistic conclusion.
Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman will understand if I say, with all due respect, that I have done more in six months on that matter than was done in the previous six years. I issued a detailed paper on organophosphates five days ago, and a detailed paper on the vaccines used has also been issued, warts and all, including information about decisions that hon. Members may find questionable. I have also doubled the resources allotted to the research side, put more people through the medical assessment in the past six months than were assessed in the previous four years, and established a fact-finding group to ascertain the answers to the questions that the hon. Gentleman raises.
I pledge again that the Government are committed, out of a duty of honour, to making all the information available to the hon. Gentleman's constituents and to those who served their country in the Gulf. If I cannot make up for all the mistakes of the previous six years in my first six months, I shall do my damnedest to do so in my first year.
PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION
The Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission was asked--
National Audit Office
34. Mr. Ian Bruce: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the funds available for the National Audit Office. [11769]
Mr. Robert Sheldon (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The National Audit Office corporate plan for 1998-99 to 2002-03 showed an increase in net cash resources from £39.8 million to £41.5 million in real terms over the next five years. There will be considerable increases in work load in this period as a result of the introduction of resource accounting, greater examination of regularity and propriety issues and involvement in accounting and tendering procedures in public-private partnerships. The cost of the extra work will be partly offset by continuing efficiency savings.
Mr. Bruce: I thank the right hon. Gentleman--I hope that he is indeed a right hon. Gentleman because he certainly should be by now--for that answer. Does he agree that the National Audit Office gives good value for money and that its reports often lead to further savings?
However, will the Public Accounts Commission consider whether we should put more funds into checking what is happening in local government? District auditors are supposed to ensure that the correct procedures are followed, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that they sometimes get too close to local authorities and that many problems seem to be missed? Is it not time that we got to the bottom of what is happening in local government?
Mr. Sheldon: I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the value for money that is obtained by the National Audit Office. It is one of the great ventures of the House, and since its introduction in 1983, it has succeeded in meeting all the aims of the National Audit Act 1983.
Local government is a matter for the Audit Commission. As Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission, I have co-operated with the commission, but local government is entirely a matter for it, as are any proposals that it may make to the National Audit Office or to the PAC.
Mrs. Dunwoody:
Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the excellent statement on public-private finance in the annual report of the NAO is drawn to the attention of all hon. Members so that they do not forget that the taxpayer has a vested interest when looking at all alternatives to the use of taxpayers' money to find out whether better value might be provided by remaining within the state system?
Mr. Sheldon:
The private finance initiative report by the NAO is very important and will be considered by the PAC in due course. We await that examination.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |