| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
New Zealand
8. Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): What co-operation there is between his Department and the Defence Ministry in New Zealand on matters of common interest. [117886]
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): Our defence relations with New Zealand remain very good, and are based on strong and traditional links between the armed forces of our two countries. Our main ties are through the five power defence arrangements, but British and New Zealand forces have also worked together in UN operations, including in Iraq and Bosnia, and in East Timor and the Gulf.
These strong ties are reinforced by a number of exchange programmes between the UK and New Zealand, the provision of training for members of the New Zealand armed forces, visits by Royal Navy ships, and, where the opportunity arises, exercises--both bilaterally and as part of FPDA. The naval task group deployment to the far east this year will include an FPDA exercise off Malaysia which will involve elements of the New Zealand navy and air force. It is planned that elements of the task group will visit Wellington.
Mr. Mackinlay: Has the Minister noticed reports that the Prime Minister and Defence Minister of New Zealand's very radical Labour Government are proposing to announce formally on ANZAC day posthumous pardons for the New Zealand soldiers executed in world war one? I wholly applaud that action, but it is unilateral. Should not the British Government revisit this matter, given that, in strict legal and constitutional terms, the power to pardon all soldiers in the British Empire forces still resides in London? Would not it be silly and grossly unfair to the other 300-odd executed soldiers if the New Zealanders were to be pardoned, and they were not? Will my hon. Friend have a chat with the other Commonwealth countries involved, and revisit with an open mind this important and popular issue?
Mr. Spellar: My hon. Friend rightly draws attention to an issue that is very strongly felt, not just by himself but by others Members of the House and many others in the country. He will be aware that my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), made an effective and moving statement to the House on 24 July 1998. He went through the very difficult arguments about the first world war executions. Subsequent to that announcement, a number of decisions have been made locally about adding to war memorials the names of some of those who were executed. There are differing views on that, but I think that it has been very well handled by all those concerned.
Having reread the statement by my predecessor, I find it immensely persuasive. I think, therefore, that we should stick to that policy, unless there are overwhelming reasons for not doing so.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): On the Minister's first answer, does he agree that we should pay tribute to the New Zealand defence forces, particularly for their deployment in East Timor which, I believe, was their biggest since our involvement in Korea? Is he aware that New Zealand forces worked alongside the Royal Marines,
Canadian forces and Australian forces? Does he agree that when English-speaking nations get together, their common interest and heritage, as well as a common language, mean that they work well for the future safety of all the world?
Mr. Spellar: I pay considerable tribute to those who were involved in many combined operations, not only with the countries mentioned by the hon. Gentleman but with the countries of NATO. He will be aware that English is also the operational language of NATO.
Falklands
9. Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle): If he will estimate the cost of garrisoning the Falklands (a) since the restoration of democratic Government in Argentina and (b) for the last 12 months for which figures are available. [117887]
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): Our best estimate is that some £2,263 million was spent on the Falklands garrison between 1983 and 1999. That includes the cost of constructing the Mount Pleasant airfield. In 1998-99, expenditure on the Falklands garrison came to £69 million.
Mr. Prentice: Two billion pounds is a huge amount of money, and so is £69 million a year. Can that be justified, given the restoration of democratic government in Argentina? In these days of overstretch, is there a greater perceived threat to the Falklands than there is, for example, to Gibraltar from Spain, which also has a territorial claim?
Mr. Spellar: We very much welcome the restoration and development of democracy in Argentina. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently visited Argentina, and had very constructive discussions with Ministers there. He also visited the Falkland Islands and, again, had very useful discussions there, reinforcing our policy that the Falkland Islands are British and that sovereignty over the islands is not for negotiation. Accordingly, it is right that we should maintain a military presence as long as Argentina claims sovereignty over the islands.
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire): Can the Minister guarantee that the air bridge will be maintained at its current frequency when discussing the cost of garrisoning the Falklands?
Mr. Spellar: We always look at sustainability, and how to undertake that most cost-effectively. The mechanism by which we do that is to consider and discuss it with the armed forces. The key thing is to ensure that we maintain an effective and viable presence and, indeed, that that is quite clear to the Argentines. We learned from a previous Government, who dropped their guard and perhaps gave the wrong signals to the Argentines.
Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside): Does my hon. Friend agree that garrison costs could be lower if he had available to him a heavy lift aircraft such as the A400M?
Can he say when there will be a decision? Is it not best to go for the short-term Antonov solution rather than the ruinously expensive C-17?
Mr. Spellar: I think we shall have to institute a competition on how my right hon. Friend will manage to raise the subject of the A400M in any possible Defence questions. Once again, I congratulate him on his ingenuity. As he is aware, Ministers are considering the matter closely and hope to make an announcement shortly.
Weapons of Mass Destruction
10. Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): What is his policy on giving up all British nuclear weapons while other countries still retain some weapons of mass destruction. [117888]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): As we made clear in the strategic defence review, our minimum nuclear deterrent will remain a necessary element of our security while large nuclear arsenals and risks of proliferation remain.
Dr. Lewis: Does the Secretary of State realise that the reason for my concern is the quiet and subtle shift on that matter in the previous two Labour election manifestos? In 1992, the Labour manifesto categorically stated that until "elimination" of the
- world's stock of nuclear weapons . . . is achieved, Labour will retain Britain's nuclear capability.
However, the 1997 manifesto stated only:
- When satisfied with verified progress towards our goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons, we will ensure that British nuclear weapons are included in multilateral negotiations.
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments on the process of drafting a Labour manifesto. It is the first time in the manifesto's history that it has been described as "quiet and subtle". I assure him that we stand by the commitments set out in the manifesto on which we were elected and that we shall take fully into account the existence of nuclear arsenals elsewhere. That would certainly be the most important factor that we would consider before any change in our own strategic security position.
Mr. Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green): Surely we should all welcome the ratification of the START 2 treaty as a major breakthrough. Despite the concerns that many of us may have about some of Mr. Putin's other policies--especially in Chechnya--does my right hon. Friend agree that further multilateral arms negotiations are a real prize that we must pursue?
Mr. Hoon: I agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make precisely that point to the Russian president-elect when he meets Mr. Putin today.
De-mining
12. Helen Jones (Warrington, North): What steps his Department is taking to assist those involved in humanitarian de-mining. [117890]
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The Government were among the first to sign and ratify the Ottawa convention and we are committed to humanitarian de-mining and the clearing of land mines. The Ministry of Defence works closely with other Whitehall Departments and non-governmental organisations. Ministry of Defence personnel provide technical expertise, management and specialist skills to support mine action programmes worldwide. In the UK, the mine information and training centre at Minley remains the focal point for information on de-mining and mines awareness advice. The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency is examining ways in which mine detecting technologies would be suitable for humanitarian de-mining. In addition, we have gifted surplus military equipment to NGOs for use in their humanitarian mine clearance operations.
Helen Jones: May I thank my hon. Friend for that reply? I especially welcome his comments on DERA. Does he agree that there is a huge potential for exploiting the technological expertise of that agency to produce low-cost de-mining equipment that can be used for humanitarian purposes? Will he tell the House when he expects to be able to make an announcement on whether the agency has been successful in obtaining further money for such research from the Government's capital modernisation fund?
Mr. Spellar: I shall certainly write to my hon. Friend on that matter. I join her in paying tribute to some of the innovative work being undertaken by DERA. However, we must consider how we put that work into practice; the donations that we have made to several NGOs enable them to work actively, with local labour, on de-mining in many areas that have been particularly affected to the enormous detriment of the population and local economies.
Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport): The United States Government take the view, which I share, that land mines have a part to play in certain special circumstances, such as the denying of land to potential aggressors in the Korean peninsula. May I congratulate the Government on supporting the American position by allowing land mines to be stored in ships off the territorial waters of Diego Garcia?
Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman rightly draws attention to the position of one of our allies. In fact, other allied countries take that view. It is not a view that we share, and we are campaigning and working with those Governments to try to spread the Ottawa convention. As has been graphically illustrated on television and in newspapers, in many areas land mines have an enormous effect on the populations that are left behind, often when conflict is finished, and--as I said in my previous response--a considerable effect on their economy and their ability to regenerate their society and become part
of a modern society once again. We are working hard on that, and on persuading other countries of the correctness of this position.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |