---

Iraq (Detainees)

9. Adam Price (East Carmarthen and Dinefwr) (PC): For what reason no reference was made to the prohibition of hooding of detainees in Iraq in guidance issued to service personnel until 30 September 2003. [184476]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Ministry of Defence training makes it clear that the use of hoods during interrogation and tactical questioning is not permitted. However, hooding as a means of blindfolding where this is militarily justified—for example to prevent prisoners from viewing sensitive areas—has been routine practice in successive conflicts and is considered to be compliant with the relevant international conventions.

Adam Price: I thank the Minister for his reply. He will know that the policy on hooding was changed in September as a result of the death of Baha Mousa, in which that practice was deemed to be a contributory factor. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the International Committee of the Red Cross had previously expressed concerns on the practice of hooding to the British Army? Having failed to act on that advice until it was too late, must not the Government accept their share of responsibility for Mr. Mousa's death?

Mr. Ingram: I am conscious that, every time I answer a question from the hon. Gentleman on this matter, a misinterpretation of what I have said appears in either The Independent or The Independent on Sunday. Either he does not understand my answers or there is a deliberate practice of trying to read too much into them. I do not accept the premise in the opening part of his question, and I must point out that these matters are under investigation, although I understand that he might want to judge people guilty before due process has taken place. He also asked me to confirm that discussions had taken place with the ICRC. Again, I do not think that he has been listening to the answers that have been given in the House. The International Committee of the Red Cross makes it very clear that its dealings with and reports to Governments are confidential, so we cannot discuss the matter and I cannot comment on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. If he has been told something different by the ICRC, I hope that he will write to me and we can take the matter up with that body.

Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab): Was hooding used following the operation by British troops in Majar al-Kabir in May? Have any complaints been received about that operation and, if so, what has been their nature? Will the Minister say what the proper procedure is following such military action? Is it to remove bodies? Is it to take prisoners if at all possible, and to keep them alive? How are the relatives of the deceased notified—

Mr. Speaker: Order. One supplementary question will suffice.
 
19 Jul 2004 : Column 16
 

Mr. Ingram: One of the issues that we have been dealing with is a report from another body, Amnesty International. I replied in detail on 1 July to submissions made by Amnesty across a range of issues, and all that material has been placed in the Library of the House of Commons. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman refers to those detailed responses, and if he wants to write to me further on the back of the detailed examination that is taking place in respect of each of the known complaints and the way in which they are being conducted, perhaps we can get to an established answer that will satisfy him.

Rosyth Dockyard

10. Rachel Squire (Dunfermline, West) (Lab): If he will make a statement on the future of Rosyth dockyard. [184477]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Rosyth royal dockyard has always carried out a significant element of Royal Navy surface ship refit work, and will continue to do so. I am pleased to announce the decision to award the upkeep contracts for HMS Edinburgh and HMS Walney to BSSL—Babcock Support Services Ltd.—at Rosyth. I pay tribute to the work force and management at Rosyth dockyard for their success in being awarded these contracts.

Rachel Squire: I sincerely thank my right hon. Friend for giving such excellent news to Rosyth and to Scotland, and for praising the Rosyth work force, who stand out for delivering ships at or below cost, on or before time and to the highest standards. Does he agree that the UK's defence industrial base will benefit from maintaining Rosyth's naval and maritime skills in the lead-up to its playing a major part in the construction of the future aircraft carrier?

Mr. Ingram: Let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been assiduous in supporting the case for Rosyth and has been in almost daily contact with me, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence or the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, the noble Lord Bach. Her hard work has paid off, and she is also right to pay tribute to the work force and management at Rosyth dockyard. As for Rosyth's future shipbuilding capabilities, it is one of the four yards named last year with the potential to be involved in the construction and assembly of the new future aircraft carriers. While I cannot confirm Rosyth's future involvement in the carrier programme at this stage, this is none the less promising for the future.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): Does the Minister accept that the future of both Rosyth and Faslane is bound up with that of the strategic nuclear deterrent? While appreciating that specific systems will be decided on in the next Parliament rather than in this one, can he send a signal of encouragement to the communities in Rosyth and Faslane that the Government still accept in principle that Britain should continue to possess a strategic nuclear deterrent as long as other countries have nuclear weapons?
 
19 Jul 2004 : Column 17
 

Mr. Ingram: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper to get the answer to the latter part of his question. I am sure that he will understand that the life cycles of the nuclear deterrent and the boats that carry it last for long years, so the future for many years ahead is assured for those who carry out the support work. I reflect that not so many months ago, I announced the retention of about 1,000 jobs—I think that that is the correct figure—at Faslane for 25 years. We hardly got any recognition in the Scottish press for that statement. I just hope that they report the good news for Rosyth.

Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Pollok) (Lab/Co-op): Although the Minister's recent announcement about orders being placed is welcome, may I ask him what steps he is taking to investigate claims made by the work force in Rosyth that the playing field is biased against them by unfair subsidies given by the MOD to their competitors? What steps is he taking to end the hunger-and-burst system of orders with the introduction of a best-value system that smoothes out procurement work?

Mr. Ingram: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend heard my original answer, but this is good news for Rosyth. It has won the contract, not lost it, and I am sure that all the other yards may ask whether there is a level playing field in such circumstances. Obviously, if any dockyard or shipbuilder offers substantive evidence to prove bias, we must investigate it. The way in which my hon. Friend poses the question, however, is not based on fact.

Front-line Personnel

11. Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham) (LD): If he will make a statement on the implications of the comprehensive spending review for the number of front-line service personnel. [184478]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): The spending review settlement will provide an additional £3.7 billion for our armed forces in 2007–08 compared with 2004–05, with average annual real growth of 1.4 per cent. It will allow us to take forward our modernisation plans, so that our forces are ready for the challenges of the 21st century. I expect to announce the detail of our plans to the House on Wednesday.

Dr. Cable: The spending review suggests that additional funding for front-line staff will come by cutting 15,000 support staff. Is the Secretary of State in a position to say where those redundancies will occur and whether the staff concerned have yet been told?

Mr. Hoon: Obviously, the precise details will be announced on Wednesday. The usual process of consultation will take place: indeed, I attended a meeting this morning with some of the trade unions to discuss with them the ways in which programmes will be taken forward. By and large, given the time scale of the proposals, we hope that it will be possible to ensure that those redundancies occur without involving significant harm to the work force—generally through natural wastage.
 
19 Jul 2004 : Column 18
 

Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle) (Lab): But why are we so dependent on Commonwealth recruits, and particularly on recruits from Fiji? I have the figures in front of me, and it appears that the British Army could not function without Fijians? Will the spending review allow for more UK recruits to be attracted into the British Army, and what exactly is the problem with recruitment?

Mr. Hoon: I am sorry that my hon. Friend responds in that way to the valuable contribution that citizens from Commonwealth countries are making, and have always made, to Britain's armed forces. Their contribution to our armed forces is tremendous, and long may that continue. He is also wrong to suggest that there is not an increase in the number of recruits coming from the United Kingdom—that is the fact, and it is revealed in the latest survey of where our recruits come from.

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): We must wait until Wednesday to find out how large the cuts in numbers and in the training of our armed forces will be, but may I remind the Secretary of State that the last time the Conservatives held a big defence review, just after the Berlin wall came down, there was a war going on in the Gulf? May I suggest that this is no time to be thinking about cuts? Let us see the Iraq crisis through, and think about cutting afterwards.

Mr. Hoon: The fact is that this Government are spending more on defence. We planned to spend more on defence in each of the last six years, and that will continue in the latest spending review round. The Government who directly preceded us could not make such a claim; indeed, they presided over a cut in defence spending of some 15 per cent. That was not during the period immediately after the cold war, but during a period following the Gulf war, when it was clearly necessary for us to improve our armed forces in the light of lessons learned. The hon. Gentleman's comment—which he will no doubt repeat on Wednesday—could be taken a good deal more seriously if he recognised the cuts imposed by Conservative Governments, and also recognised that this Government are significantly increasing our defence spending.

Ms Dari Taylor (Stockton, South) (Lab): Will my right hon. Friend confirm that over the past 20 years this Government's spending round has provided more money for the armed forces than that of any other Government? In fact, the two Opposition parties are set to cut spending. Would my right hon. Friend not describe that as a testament to the Labour party? Is it not the case that defence is safe in Labour's hands?

Mr. Hoon: I would have some difficulty in disagreeing with my hon. Friend, and let me say for the record that I do not intend to. As Conservative Members wind themselves up and as those in Conservative central office prepare the script for next Wednesday's announcement, they should recognise that we are seeing a sustained increase in defence spending over a longer period than was ever possible under the Conservatives in recent times. That is something of which we are proud, and on which Conservative Members should congratulate us.
 
19 Jul 2004 : Column 19
 

---