| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Cyprus
10. Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): If he will make a statement on the threat from terrorism to UK forces in Cyprus. [128427]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (
Mr. Ivor Caplin): All threats to United Kingdom forces in Cyprus are carefully monitored and contingency plans are in place to handle a range of eventualities, including the possibility of terrorist attack.
Mr. Hawkins : As the Minister is well aware, I have many constituents serving in the Royal Logistic Corps and other regiments stationed on the sovereign bases on Cyprus or working as troops under UN command. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there are many of us in all parts of the House who take an interest in Cyprus and who are concerned at the potential risks to our forces there? Is he prepared to meet those of us who take an interest in Cyprus to discuss those concerns? Will he confirm that the Government intend to keep in regular touch with President Tassos Papadopoulos and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus on any terrorist threats to the sovereign bases or to the Republic of Cyprus?
Mr. Caplin: I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in the matter, and the interest taken by the entire House. There are many parliamentary groups that represent the interests of Cyprus. Clearly, the important thing for us is protection of our armed forces, and I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that that is one of our highest priorities in Cyprus. I will be happy to meet him and other colleagues, as I am sure would others in the Ministry.
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot): Cyprus is one of the countries that last year's Iraq dossier clearly implied could be attacked at 45 minutes' notice. How does that square with John Scarlett's evidence to the Hutton inquiry that the 45 minutes referred to battlefield mortars and small-calibre weaponry—clearly not weapons of mass destruction capable of reaching Cyprus? So to which weapons was the Prime Minister referring in his own preface when he stated that Iraq's military planning
- "allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them"?
Mr. Caplin: We stand by our assessment in the dossier of 24 September. That element of the threat has been significantly reduced by the recent operations in Iraq.
Balkans
11. Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): If he will make a statement on the security situation in the Balkans. [128428]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The overall security situation in the Balkans remains stable.
Mr. Wilkinson : Can the Minister then explain why the European Union has not yet taken over control of the peacekeeping elements of the Alliance in Bosnia? Why
has NATO maintained its command structure in that area? Does the Minister foresee a change in the current arrangements?
Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the autumn periodic mission review is being carried out by NATO and that will condition our thinking about the NATO posture in the months ahead. The close relationship between NATO and the EU looking towards the future structure in Bosnia will continue and we will work in harmony to achieve that end.
David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire): Following the assassination of Zoran Djindjic on 12 March in Belgrade, a state of emergency was declared and more than a thousand people were detained by the Serbian police. There have been widespread allegations that torture is being used to extract information from those who have been arrested. Could the Minister tell the House what observations and knowledge he has of that?
Mr. Ingram: I can give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance that where there is any breach of human rights in any of the areas where we have an interest and personnel on the ground, we would carry out the actions required to ensure full compliance with human rights. I point out to my hon. Friend that it is not just a matter of the United Kingdom's interest in the matter—it is the United Nations and all the other nations that are trying to make sure that the Balkans and Bosnia come into the comity of nations as part of the overall objectives that we are seeking by our presence on the ground there.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate): How long has the badly overstretched British Army been in Kosovo, and how long does the Secretary of State expect it to remain there?
Mr. Ingram: Until the job is done.
Afghanistan
13. Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton): If he will make a statement on the security situation in Afghanistan. [128430]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We and our allies in NATO, in the coalition and more widely, continue to work to help the Afghan people bring greater security to their country. The United Kingdom's contribution to that effort is significant. We are an important troop contributor to the international security assistance force in Kabul. We lead the provincial reconstruction team in Mazar-e-Sharif and we are active in support for security sector reform.
Linda Gilroy : Given the tragic death of the two American soldiers in August, and given the attacks on non-governmental organisations such as Save the Children, may I press my right hon. Friend to say more about how the provincial reconstruction teams can be enabled to provide security throughout Afghanistan?
Mr. Hoon: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the deaths of not just members of the armed forces but of
those working for NGOs—working hard to reconstruct Afghanistan. The whole point of the provincial reconstruction teams, however, is not just to provide a degree of military security but to bring together representatives of the Department for International Development and the Foreign Office so that they can unite in development work, and enable people in places such as Mazar-e-Sharif to feel reasonably confident that there is an international interest in development—and, crucially, that there is a central Government in Kabul who are responsible for the entire country.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet): Does the Secretary of State think it fair to say that the interim Government in Afghanistan have a reasonable amount of control over the metropolitan areas, but no influence or authority in the south-east? If that is so, does he accept that, while NATO has control at present—which I personally welcome—it is essential that the United States forces remain part of that NATO force?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman's description of the situation in Afghanistan might have been accurate six months ago, when there was concern about the inability of the Government in Kabul to extend their authority elsewhere in the country. During those six months, however, the situation has improved steadily, and there are now clear signs that the Government in Kabul are extending their authority around the country. I accept that the south-east is experiencing some of the problems that are the most difficult to overcome—remnants of the Taliban remain in parts of the area—but there has been significant progress during those six months.
Mrs. Ann Cryer (Keighley): Does my right hon. Friend believe that the position of women in Afghanistan and their human rights are now better than they were before the confrontation with the country?
Mr. Hoon: Their position is undoubtedly better than it was in the days of the Taliban. Schools have opened, women are being educated, and a much fairer, more tolerant society is developing. That is not to deny that there is still considerable progress to be made.
Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon): What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the Pakistani and Afghan Governments' continuing concern about the number of al-Qaeda terrorists who are allegedly operating from Pakistan back into Afghanistan? Has he been asked to provide any extra special forces, and will he support the Americans in their endeavours to deal with this acute problem?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight a particular area of difficulty. The border region between Afghanistan and Pakistan has been a source of difficulty not just since this particular conflict, but for hundreds of years. It provides a safe haven for terrorists who move from one country to the other to escape the security authorities on both sides of the border. What we need, and what we have been encouraging, is action by the two Governments working closely together, and working closely with coalition forces. We continue to try to bring that about.
Strategic Defence Review
14. Ms Dari Taylor (Stockton, South): What measures are being taken to improve the ability of Britain's armed forces to be more rapidly deployable as set out in the strategic defence review. [128431]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The 1998 strategic defence review established the concept of the joint rapid reaction force to provide more capable, more deployable and better-supported joint forces. In order to ensure its deployability, we have greatly enhanced our strategic air and sealift capability through the leasing of four C-17 aircraft and the phased acquisition of 25 new C-130Js and 25 A400M aircraft, six ro-ro vessels and a number of new ships to support amphibious and sea-based operations. The landing platform helicopter, HMS Ocean, together with our two new carriers planned to be in service in 2012 and 2015 respectively, provide a valuable additional capability in support of rapid deployment operations. All that represents a significant enhancement of the current and future mobility of our armed forces, the value of which has been demonstrated time and again, most recently in Sierra Leone, in Afghanistan and obviously in Iraq.
Ms Taylor: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that frankly excellent reply, may I ask him as he prepares the defence White Paper to ensure that the new structures for the armed forces, if there are to be such structures, and the equipment provided for them are the best available? We ask our armed forces to do an increasingly complex task and they deserve the best. In his considerations, will he look at language training for the armed forces, particularly the infantry? I think that that is more and more of a requirement. Finally, does he agree—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That makes two questions.
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend will recall that when I announced the £3.5 billion extra spending in the defence budget last year, I said that the additional resources for defence were a mandate for accelerating the modernisation and evolution of the armed forces. I am sure that that extends to language training as well. I have set out to the House on many occasions the need to adapt our armed forces to changes in the strategic environment and technology. In doing so, we need to apply the lessons of recent operations, focusing on what can be achieved—on the effects—and move away from a rather outdated approach that simply counts the number of platforms and units.
Derek Conway (Old Bexley and Sidcup): Is the Secretary of State content with the quality and availability of kit deployable at company and battalion infantry level in the theatres in which our troops are now working? Despite whatever difficulties he is experiencing at the moment, the jury on supplies and services to our front-line troops will be very harsh on him indeed if he continues to behave as he is and send men and women into active theatre without decent and serviceable equipment.
Mr. Hoon: I simply do not accept that that has been done. While there is always a necessary trade-off
between efficiency and delivery, I assure the hon. Gentleman that no decisions are taken to allow our forces to go into dangerous situations without the appropriate equipment. What is important is that we reach our destination quickly. If we simply wait for every last piece of equipment to be available, the rapid deployability that I described will not be such a strong feature of our armed forces and so envied by other countries.
Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe): In assessing the Secretary of State's observations, it would be helpful to know the background when we took office in 1997. How much force were we able to deploy rapidly in 1997? Did it differ significantly from zero?
Mr. Hoon: It did differ from zero. I accept that the United Kingdom has always had the ability to deploy certain forces rapidly—that was a hallmark of those forces. What has changed since 1997 is that that has become commonplace for our forces and in all three services, as well as the support systems that they require. There has been a very significant step change in the ability of our armed forces to deploy rapidly.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): The Secretary of State says that it is outdated to count platforms, yet he must be aware that the First Sea Lord has expressed concern that the 32 frigates and destroyers that he currently has available may not be enough for the tasks in hand. Will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance today that he has no plans to cut further the numbers of frigates, destroyers or submarines? If he will not give that assurance, will he tell us by how many he intends to cut those classes of vessel? If he does not want to answer directly, will he undertake to brief the MOD press office to give the right answer to any journalist who comes up with the right numbers?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is obviously an assiduous reader of The Sunday Telegraph. Unfortunately, in reading The Sunday Telegraph he should not be seduced into thinking that he is reading the news. The interview in yesterday's newspaper, to which he refers, was conducted on 21 January this year and published on 7 March. The article has an invented headline and contains a purported quotation that is extracted from several different parts of that interview. It omits various quotations from the First Sea Lord, such as:
- "I think the Royal Navy is in a very good condition . . . I think . . . the Navy has an equipment programme in progress that is its biggest since I joined the Royal Navy 37 years ago."
The reality is that we have set out clearly to the House the importance of ensuring the availability of equipment to do a particular job. If the hon. Gentleman wants simply to count platforms, he will no doubt include HMS Victory in that.
Mr. Russell Brown (Dumfries): My right hon. Friend will be aware that during recent weeks we have heard several rumours emanating from Opposition Members to the effect that we are about to lose a number of our regiments. Quality regiments such as the King's Own
Scottish Borderers and the Cheshires have been put very much at the forefront of people's minds. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that they are nothing more than rumours, and can he scotch the whole notion of dispensing with some of our quality regiments? Does he agree that that does nothing to assist the morale and recruitment of those regiments?
Mr. Hoon: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that those observations are no more than rumours. Speculation about the loss of infantry battalions is certainly damaging to those in the regiments that he mentioned, to their families and to their morale. I encourage people not to repeat such speculation.
Angus Robertson (Moray): In that case, will the Secretary of State give a categorical assurance to the House that none of the historic regiments in the UK armed forces is set to be amalgamated or disbanded? If he is not prepared to give that assurance, how on earth can he argue that it would improve the deployability of the armed forces?
Mr. Hoon: I find it rather surprising that the Scottish nationalists should take such an astonishing interest in defence given that, as I understand it, their policy remains to withdraw from NATO and from any kind of international defence organisation—in which case, there would be no regiments left to defend.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |