THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
OFFICIAL REPORT
IN THE FIRST SESSION OF THE FIFTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND [WHICH OPENED 7 MAY 1997]
FORTY-SIXTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II
SIXTH SERIES
VOLUME 302
NINTH VOLUME OF SESSION 1997-98
House of Commons
Monday 1 December 1997
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
DEFENCE
The Secretary of State was asked--
Territorial Army
1. Mr. Brazier: What steps he is taking to ensure that Territorial Army units can continue to conduct unit-level exercises and participate, as units, in formation-level training. [16794]
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Dr. John Reid): Territorial Army units take part in a minimum of six days collective training each year and two of those are spent on a unit or formation-level exercise. The future training requirement for TA units will depend on the outcome of strategic defence review work into the future size and shape of the Regular and Reserve forces.
Mr. Brazier:
Is the Minister aware that such unit and formation-level exercises attract and retain the best- quality people in the TA? Is it true that an admiral has been asked to head the relevant strategic defence review team which will conduct the Reserve forces study?
Dr. Reid:
In response to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, we recognise the importance of collective training for individuals. The TA units took part in four formation-level exercises this year, compared with two last year, and four are planned for next year. We shall obviously bear that in mind during the strategic defence review considerations.
As regards the make-up of the project team, senior personnel at two-star level have been given the task of overseeing each of the main project areas under consideration in the strategic defence review. The study on the Reserves is being conducted by a mixed civil and military team and includes the Director of Reserves and Cadets, Richard Holmes, whom I shall see tomorrow as part of those discussions. Brigadier Holmes and that group are overseen by an assistant chief of the defence staff programmes, who, as the hon. Gentleman says, is an admiral, but is also a purple post.
Mr. Edwards:
May I remind my hon. Friend that the oldest Territorial regiment in the British Army is the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers, based in Monmouth in my constituency? Does he agree with me that the outstanding work that it has performed in Bosnia recently demonstrates the important operational role that the Territorial forces can play following the strategic defence review?
Dr. Reid:
I thank my hon. Friend for that observation. I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute not only to the generality of the TA, but,in particular, to the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers. We particularly recall those who have done and continue to do such sterling work in areas such as Bosnia. We are truly fortunate to be able to call upon such dedicated, professional and highly motivated individuals who make up the voluntary Reserves. We are intent on ensuring that their use is as flexible as possible. Indeed,
2. Mrs. Roe:
If he will make a statement on the(a) financial and (b) service personnel impact forthe Royal Engineers of his Department's land mines strategy. [16795]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson):
Our land mines strategy will have no significant impact on the operating costs or manpower of the Royal Engineers. I am pleased to say that they will be playing a direct role in the Mine Information and Training Centre at Minley.
Mrs. Roe:
I am grateful for that reply. Does the Minister envisage that Royal Engineers personnel will play a more active role on the ground in mine clearing overseas?
Mr. Robertson:
In peacetime, it is not the role of our soldiers to get involved in humanitarian mine clearing, although they have considerable expertise in the clearance of areas following conflicts. I assure the hon. Lady, and I am proud to say, that the Royal Engineers will play a distinguished part in the work of the Mine Information and Training Centre. Its expertise and knowledge will be used in Government and non-governmental organisations to ensure that the task of humanitarian de-mining, which is of such great importance in the world today, is conducted in the most professional and expert way possible.
Mr. Savidge:
With the Ottawa treaty being signed this Wednesday, does the Secretary of State agree that we should now be concentrating on the task of ridding ourselves of those land mines that have already been sown? Will he tell us more about what the Government will be doing to assist those involved in the humanitarian task of de-mining?
Mr. Robertson:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A significant moment in history will occur on Wednesday when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development will be in Canada to sign the Ottawa treaty, which will ban the export, import, transfer, manufacture and, ultimately, use of anti-personnel land mines. That, in itself, is one step in the direction in which, I believe, the world wishes to go.
All across the globe there are the legacies of previous conflicts--areas that cannot be walked on owing to the potential terrible, wanton destruction of anti-personnel land mines that lie in the way of so many civilians. I am pleased to say that British Army expertise is to be used at a much greater level to assist in that project. Already, British troops have been involved in helping to rid parts of the world of the scourge of land mines. Those areas include Afghanistan, Angola, Belize, Cambodia and Cyprus. This country played an important part in establishing the United Nations mines action centre in Bosnia. We shall play our part and I hope that other countries will do the same.
Mr. Martin Bell:
Is the Minister aware that the position of the head of his Department's humanitarian
Mr. Robertson:
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, in every area where there is concern on humanitarian de-mining, we are moving with expedition. My visit to Bosnia was designed to highlight a new five-point programme on humanitarian de-mining. Colonel Alastair McAslan has been nominated as the British Army's representative on humanitarian de-mining. We are fulfilling all the obligations which, as a major military nation, we should.
Mr. Gerald Howarth:
I hope that the Secretary of State had an interesting visit to the Royal School of Military Engineering at Minley in my constituency. I was interested to hear him say that he reckons that the centre of mine expertise will not have a significant financial impact. When it was announced in October, it was reported that it would cost £125,000 to set up the centre. Will that money come out of the defence budget or that of the Overseas Development Administration?
Mr. Robertson:
Of course it will come from the defence budget, as it should, as it involves military de-mining. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is as proud as I am of the work that has been and will be done at Minley. The £125,000 is a good investment in the sort of jobs that will be done at that establishment by the Royal Engineers.
3. Mr. Gill:
If Her Majesty's Government will repay to former prisoners of war the amount deducted from their pay on which they had paid taxes and which was not refunded to the German and Italian Governments in a post-war settlement. [16796]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar):
My decision on the review of officer prisoners of war and protected personnel pay deductions during the second world war was taken after very careful consideration of the submissions from ex-officer prisoners of war and protected personnel, and of the long and detailed report of the review, a copy of which is in the Library of the House. I concurred with the findings of previous Ministers that the contemporary evidence did not support the claims being made for further refunding of deductions.
Mr. Gill:
The Minister will be aware that this matter was discussed in the House earlier in the year, when there was support for the plight of ex-officer prisoners of war on both sides of the House. They will be disappointed in the answer that he has just given to my question. One of those who will be disappointed will be my constituent, Squadron Leader B. A. James MC, who, along with thousands of other people in the same circumstances, feels that he has been ignored and treated very badly. This question has rumbled on since 1980 and it is disappointing to hear the Minister say that he is not prepared to review the matter. Those involved would like there to be an independent inquiry at which prisoners of war could express their evidence in a way that they have previously been unable to do.
Mr. Spellar:
With respect to the hon. Gentleman, we have, as promised, reviewed the situation. I have gone
Mr. Dalyell:
Roughly how many people and how much money are involved?
Mr. Spellar:
There is considerable argument about several aspects of this matter, especially as much of it relates to records that no longer exist. All the issues were fully discussed in the House and fully examined by the then Government after the second world war and decisions were made on that basis. Successive Governments have gone through the information and confirmed those decisions because the case for doing otherwise has not been made.
Mr. Rendel:
I understand that the Government accept that money was deducted from prisoners of war and should therefore have been paid back after the war; but that, now that they have lost all their records, it is impossible to go over the case once again and decide who should be paid and how much. Can we have an assurance from the Government that, at least, individuals who have kept their own records and can prove how much they lost will be paid back?
Mr. Spellar:
The hon. Gentleman is not looking at the case. In reality, a number of those who came back after the war were refunded by the authorities. There was discussion about that at the time. In a number of other cases, camp funds were put together, but that is a separate issue. Many of those who had had moneys deducted and who were able to demonstrate that they did not receive the moneys in the camp got a refund after the war. All that forms part of the body of facts that we have established and gone through, which is why we made the decision.
Mr. Gibb:
In preparing the report, what steps were taken to ensure that the first-hand experiences of the officers involved were reflected in that report? Is the Minister aware that those ex-prisoners of war, who served our country valiantly and selflessly during the last world war, feel strongly that they have been cheated and that they cannot get justice? Would it not be wiser to offer some consultation with them or, better still, to appoint an independent person to arbitrate on that matter?
Mr. Spellar:
All hon. Members, this Administration and previous Administrations fully understand the tremendous contribution made by many of those individuals, both before they were taken prisoner and, in many cases, afterwards, when they tied up many German and Italian troops in trying to recapture escaping prisoners of war. That is common ground. When we move on to the question of whether deductions were adequately repaid, we find that many of the investigations took place immediately after the war, that the issues were discussed in the House of Commons and that parliamentary questions were tabled. At that time, contemporary evidence was closely examined, which is why the
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster:
Will my hon. Friend accept that much of the evidence on which he relies was produced before the election of the Labour Government? Several of my constituents have written to me saying that they understood that they had no hope with the other lot, but that they hoped that fresh consideration would be given to this matter. Much of the evidence put to me and to my hon. Friends is new evidence, and I ask that it be reconsidered.
Mr. Spellar:
Much of the evidence was considered by the Attlee Labour Government after the last war and the issues examined by those who were much closer to the evidence at the time. That evidence was re-examined by the previous Administration and by this Administration and, when we did it, we looked at a number of representations from those with an individual viewpoint, both officer POWs and protected personnel. We examined that evidence and compared it with the contemporary evidence and with the documentation. It was for that reason that we took our decision.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |