| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Bosnia
9. Mr. Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green): How many British troops are currently deployed in Bosnia. [90207]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): The UK contributes about 4,500 personnel to SFOR, of whom about 3,500 are based in Bosnia.
Mr. McCabe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way in which we can reduce overstretch is to reduce the level of our overall commitments? When does he hope for a reduction in Bosnia, which is now relatively peaceful? When does he hope to announce a cut in numbers in Kosovo now that KFOR is virtually in place?
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is right to point to the success in Bosnia, which I hope will allow us to draw down some of our troops later this year. That will have an impact on the present strain on our armed forces. My hon. Friend is right also to say that we must examine carefully our commitments to Kosovo. The improvements in the security situation there and the continuing arrival in theatre of troops from other nations make it possible for me to announce some further withdrawals of British troops from Kosovo.
Between August and October, we shall be bringing home the 1st Parachute Regiment, the 1st Royal Gurkha, Rifles and the Irish Guards battle groups, together with their supporting elements. These withdrawals, along with withdrawals of units of the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy which were announced last month, will go a long way to help relieve the overstretch in the armed forces. Further withdrawals, including that of the headquarters of the Allied Command Europe rapid reaction corps, will of course follow.
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury):
Will the Secretary of State confirm that even if all the withdrawals that he
Mr. Robertson:
I confirm that there are more troops in the Balkans now than there were 18 months ago. That is pretty well self-evident. Troop numbers were quite high in Bosnia and we have put extra troops into Kosovo. I do not think that anybody among our armed forces or anyone in the House would suggest that because we had a degree of over-commitment before we should not have risen to the challenge that Milosevic posed in his genocidal violence inside Kosovo.
We must now move rapidly to reduce our commitment in as many areas as practicable, and that is precisely what I have said. We look to bringing more troops out of Bosnia because of an improvement in the security situation there. We shall reduce the number of our troops in Kosovo. All of that will contribute to bringing back the problem about tour levels to a position that will be more satisfactory for our troops and for us in the Ministry of Defence. Those are of enormous priority to us. They not only impact on our fighting forces and their efficiency, but they affect the individuals themselves and their families and, having met a number of service families recently, I know how important that is. That is why we are making it an absolute priority when we study the commitments that we have taken on and that we should have taken on.
Church Land
33. Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): What is his estimate of the income from rental for Church land for each of the last two years for which figures are available. [90232]
Mr. Stuart Bell (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): Income from the Church Commissioners' agricultural and mineral holdings was £8.6 million in 1997 and £9.9 million in 1998. A large part of the increase was due to accounting changes. Those relate to the commissioners' insurance provision for their agricultural estates.
Mr. Flynn: Is it not a matter of thanks and congratulations to hon. Members that, for ethical reasons, none of those sums will in future be invested in British Aerospace--something that hon. Members have requested for several Parliaments? In addition, are any Church lands under cultivation for genetically modified foods or will they be?
Mr. Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Since the inception of the commissioners' ethical investment policy
in 1948, they have never held shares in a company whose main business is defence. In view of the proposed sale of Marconi Defence Systems Ltd.--the defence arm of GEC--to British Aerospace, the Church of England's ethical investment working group has recommended to the central investing bodies that they should not retain the shares that are acquired in the new British Aerospace as a result of the sale, as its main business is defence.
On the second question, the growing of genetically modified crops requires, by law, a licence from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. No licences have to date been granted to grow such crops on the commissioners' agricultural land, but it would be difficult in practice to stop our farmers growing GM crops should they wish to do so. All our farmers have freedom of cropping and any attempt by the commissioners to prevent a tenant growing GM crops might be challenged in the courts.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet):
As the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) mentioned genetically modified crops, does the Second Church Estates Commissioner agree that it is important to find out whether GM crops have any deleterious effect on people's health or any adverse effects on the environment? Therefore, it is important to have test crop trials to find out the results. While it would be wrong to introduce the commercial growing of GM crops now, test trials organised by licence through the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would be perfectly ethical whether on Church land or not.
Mr. Bell:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The issue is indeed complex and requires careful and reasoned evaluation. We have received from MAFF a proposal to lease land from the commissioners to research the growing of GM crops under closely controlled conditions. Due to the circumstances surrounding the lease of that land, the decision about the proposed use will rest with the commissioners. The ethical investment working group, on which the archbishops' council is represented, will consider that proposal at a meeting later this month. The points that the hon. Gentleman made are those that will be fully considered at that meeting.
Archway Tower
35. Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North): What discussions he has had with the National Audit Office on the resource implications of examining public expenditure on Archway tower, N19. [90235]
Mr. Robert Sheldon (Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission): The commission meets regularly with the Comptroller and Auditor General to discuss the adequacy of the resources allocated by Parliament to the work of the National Audit Office. The Comptroller and Auditor General audits the accounts of the property advisers to the civil estate, which is the
agency responsible for the management of Archway tower and other vacant government property. In 1997, he published a report on the agency's management of vacant office accommodation throughout the United Kingdom, which recommended various ways of minimising the costs incurred. Although that report did not specifically examine the agency's management of Archway tower, I would be happy to pass on any concerns that my hon. Friend may have on that subject to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
Mr. Corbyn: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply and for what he said about passing information on to the Comptroller and Auditor General. I am concerned that a building that has been leased by the public sector--on a long lease to the Department of Social Security at a rent of £1 million a year--after being built by it has been empty for at least the past five years. The net cost to the public has been £1 million a year and, although £5 million has now been spent on refurbishing the building, I understand that the expected rent income will not meet even the existing cost to the public sector of that rent. The public sector has been ripped off and we are throwing good money after bad.
Will the Comptroller and Auditor General seriously consider the massive waste of public money on a building that is unsuitable and disliked locally? It would be better to pull down this expensive white elephant and turn it into something much more useful.
Mr. Sheldon:
I can confirm that the Comptroller and Auditor General naturally is interested in the matter. Negotiations on the terms of the lease have been protracted, but they are to be concluded shortly. There will be some sub-letting, which will of course provide some income to offset some of the costs to which my hon. Friend refers.
Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South):
While the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is looking into the issue of the Archway tower, will he look into the issue of the Millennium tower at Portsmouth--
Madam Speaker:
Order. This is a specific question.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |