| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Balkans (British Deployment)
6. Rachel Squire (Dunfermline, West) (Lab): If he will make a statement on the work of British forces in the Balkans. [163778]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): British forces are deployed in both Bosnia and Kosovo under NATO command to provide a safe and secure environment there. They are assisting the international community in creating conditions that will support eventual self-sustaining security in the region.
The purpose of the recent deployment of NATO's operational reserve force to Kosovo is to restore calm to the province and to prevent unrest from spreading to
areas outside Kosovo. The 1st Battalion, Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment is providing the core of the battalion group. UK troops will conduct routine patrolling, the guarding of sites such as the UN mission and public order duties, as tasked by commander KFOR.
Rachel Squire: Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to the excellent and rapid response of our armed forces, particularly in dealing with the latest crisis in Kosovo? Does he agree that the announcement that Bowman has achieved its in-service date months ahead of schedule will be very good news for our troops in the Balkans and elsewhere, as it will improve their vital personal communications technology? Does he further agree that that is one example of where the Government have acted on lessons learned in previous Balkans operations and delivered with remarkable success?
Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. Dealing specifically with the Bowman development, we made it clear in the lessons learned exercise on Kosovo in 1999 that there had been shortcomings in our tactical combat radio capability. The Bowman system is designed to provide a modern, secure successor to Clansman, and I am delighted to announce that Bowman has today achieved its in-service date ahead of target.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): Last week's announcement that further troops are to be sent to Kosovo only adds to the overstretch that our military already face. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that he will look carefully at the tasks that our armed forces are expected to undertake throughout the world to ensure that that overstretch is not added to; otherwise, a time will come when it bursts completely, which would be unacceptable?
Mr. Hoon: First, there is no overstretch. Secondly, this deployment does not add to any apparent overstretch, not least because the troops that were sent were held at very short notice. High-readiness forces are available there for precisely this kind of deployment, as the hon. Gentleman should know.
Mr. Jim Marshall (Leicester, South) (Lab): I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks about progress in Bosnia, and I am sure that we all welcome the improvement in its political and security situation. However, can he give any reasons why similar progress is not being made in Kosovo? Perhaps one reason is that NATO has not placed as much emphasis on the political situation as it should. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?
Mr. Hoon: I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend's conclusions. One difference between the two situations may be owing to no more than the passage of time. In both places, there were appalling incidents involving attacks on rival ethnic communities, but in Bosnia more time has passed and some of the wounds have healed, whereas in Kosovo, as we saw last week, those wounds are still very painful to the two communities. That is not meant in any way to suggest to
my hon. Friend that we should not proceed in Bosnia and in Kosovo with a political and constitutional settlement that allows all the communities in the Balkans to live peacefully together.
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con): The Secretary of State will know that at the end of the year SFOR hands over to the EU in the Balkans. Can he tell us under whose command British troops will then fall—that of the EU or of those NATO forces remaining?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is usually slightly more precise than his question would suggest. As he will be aware, there has not yet been a decision by NATO to take the responsibility and to pass it across to an EU operation. The United Kingdom has indicated that, were that to happen, it would be willing to lead such an EU operation. As the arrangements develop and are decided, I will of course inform the House about the circumstances.
Mr. Nigel Beard (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab): Can my right hon. Friend say why it is proving so difficult to arrest General Mladic and Radovan Karadzic?
Mr. Hoon: The short answer to that is that they are not telling us where they are. I assure my hon. Friend and the House that determined efforts are being made, and will continue to be made, to bring both those men to justice.
Warship Procurement
7. Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire) (Con): If he will make a statement on the progress of the procurement of new warships for the Royal Navy. [163779]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Ministry of Defence has embarked on the largest procurement programme of new ships for the Royal Navy in many years, including orders for six Type 45 destroyers, three Astute class submarines and four landing ships dock, auxiliary.
Future plans include the purchase of two new aircraft carriers, further orders of Type 45 destroyers and Astute class submarines, the joint casualty treatment ship, and the progressive replacement of existing Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service vessels through the military afloat reach and sustainability project.
Mr. Luff: I am grateful for that detailed reply, but is the Minister confident that the planned pattern of future warship procurement and development remains appropriate in the light of increasingly asymmetrical, non-state warfare?
Mr. Ingram: Yes, but everything must be kept under review.
Mr. Peter Mandelson (Hartlepool) (Lab): Alongside his plans for procurement, will my right hon. Friend disclose those for decommissioning? In particular, will he state what is intended for HMS Intrepid? Will it be
scrapped in the UK as a matter of Government policy, and will that policy apply to all other Navy vessels in the future?
Mr. Ingram: I understand my right hon. Friend's interest and the campaign in which he has become involved. I appreciate the strength and the merits of his case in terms of the total fleet—merchant and naval—that requires decommissioning in the years ahead. The best that I can offer is to hold a meeting with him and any interested parties to talk through his proposal so that it could help us to reach a decision on the matter.
Mr. Colin Breed (South-East Cornwall) (LD): How can the Minister reconcile paying off four Type 42 frigates as surplus to requirements? If they are no longer required, why was HMS Nottingham, which is about to emerge from a £26 million refit, brought all the way back from Australia?
Mr. Ingram: If I read the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) correctly, he suggested that, in one sense, we should not have any such ships because the asymmetrical threat means that we do not need that defence element. On the other hand, the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) says that we should keep everything. We cannot live in such a world. We must judge what is appropriate in the light of future threats and make appropriate decisions at the right time. What happens to specific ships therefore becomes a matter of military assessment and judgment about what the size of the fleet should be, set against the new procurements that are coming on stream, to ensure that we have a significant naval force—indeed, perhaps the second biggest and best in the world.
David Cairns (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab): My right hon. Friend doubtless recalls the warm welcome given to the Government's warship building programmes in the areas that can reasonably expect to play a part in constructing the new vessels, such as my constituency and others on the River Clyde. He will also know that media speculation in recent weeks has added some uncertainty to that role, especially in relation to the aircraft carrier programme. Will he restate firmly the Government's commitment to proceed with the warship building programme in its entirety and thus reassure workers in Greenock and Inverclyde and elsewhere that the Government's commitment to British shipbuilding is as strong as ever?
Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend is another intrepid campaigner, not only on behalf of his area but of shipbuilding throughout the United Kingdom. We have a firm commitment to retaining design and construction in the UK shipbuilding industry. That is why the RAND report was commissioned. Its purpose is to examine how best we can position the UK shipbuilding industry to meet the growing demand that I outlined in my earlier answer. It will conclude shortly, and the findings will be published, with commercially sensitive information taken out. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for continuing to push for such an important industry.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex) (Con): Will the Minister confirm that, such is the uncertainty that surrounds the future carrier programme, it is now said that the Ministry of Defence will become the prime contractor? Is he aware that such a situation flies in the face of all previous experience and advice? How does he intend to proceed with the contract? What are the timing implications as a result of the disastrous way in which the matter is being tackled?
Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman appears to want to talk down all the significant projects. We are considering a major procurement. Of course, when he was doing my job, he had a history of cutting and slashing defence expenditure. We have announced the largest shipbuilding programme for many years—I thought that he would welcome that.
On aircraft carriers, the hon. Gentleman should know that stage three of the assessment is due to continue until spring. It is therefore reaching a conclusion. Rather than respond to press speculation, why does he not wait for the outcome? Work on the design is progressing and all the parties are actively engaged in discussions on that alliance strategy. That is the important way forward, as is the need to get it right, to keep to budget and, most important, to ensure that we get the necessary capability for the Royal Navy.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |