House of Lords
Thursday, 1 April 2004.
The House met at eleven of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Armed Forces: Gallantry Medals
Lord Beaumont of Whitley asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether they will review the rule that members of the Armed Forces recommended for gallantry medals must be shown to have employed their weapons.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, there are no plans to review the rules for the award of gallantry medals. To be considered for an award, specific and verifiable acts of gallantry are required, but there is no specific stipulation, and never has been, that requires a weapon to have been employed.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. In the tragic case of the military police murdered in Iraq, when there were no witnesses and therefore gallantry could not be verified, did not his department say that one of the problems was that one of the rifles that was recovered had not been fired? Would he not agree that in today's rather odd forms of fighting, it may be more gallant not to fire one's rifle than to fire it?
Lord Bach: My Lords, all kinds of circumstances occur in war time, including the one that the noble Lord mentioned at the end of his question. However, he will be relieved to know that whether weapons have been employed or not is not a criterion of an award for gallantry.
In the case of the tragic event in which six members of the Royal Military Police died, we have to await the board of inquiry before decisions are taken. I want to emphasise to the House, and I am sure that the House will agree, that that in no way lessens our respect or gratitude for those who died in the service of their country. The sacrifices made by those men have been honoured by their regiment and acknowledged by Ministers and Army commanders alike—and, of course, by their fellow countrymen.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, in general, should this not be a matter for the Armed Forces and not left for politicians to decide?
Lord Bach: My Lords, that is absolutely right. I should make it absolutely clear that the process that is involved is entirely separate from Ministers, as it should be. It would obviously be inappropriate for any Minister to
seek to influence it in any way. What happens is that the chain of command decides whether someone should be put forward in given circumstances; that goes up the chain of command until eventually Her Majesty, on the advice of the Secretary of State—who himself receives advice from the Ministry of Defence service honours committee—makes the announcement.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, may I agree with my noble friend the Minister in all the things he has said? Is he aware that my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall told me, just before he left for a memorial service, that he had recommended many people for gallantry and that not many of them had used weapons? Many of them were doctors, rescuing people.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I had an opportunity to speak to the noble and gallant Lord before he left, and he made the same point to me.
Stansted Airport
11.3 a.m.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a resident of north-west Essex.
-
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the scale of the British Airports Authority's plans to expand the site of Stansted Airport is in keeping with the White Paper The Future of Air Transport.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. He saves me to some extent the trouble of reminding the Government of their own policy on expansion at Stansted. However, if I might be permitted to remind him exactly what the Government said, they said that the first new runway in the south-east should be at Stansted but that:
- "Noise should be strictly controlled, and loss of heritage and countryside kept to a minimum. We do not support options for two or three new runways at Stansted".
Is my noble friend aware that BAA's current plans for the expansion show an increase in size of the site from 9.5 square kilometres to 16.5 square kilometres? Apart from the devastating impact that that would have on local communities, that naturally gives rise to the suspicion that BAA's ultimate aim is, indeed, to build yet more runways. Could he say what the
Government will do to ensure that their own policy is not thwarted by transparently ambitious land-grabs by BAA?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the White Paper does not authorise or preclude any development; it merely sets out policies on how we respond to the obvious demand for increased air travel. It is for the British Airports Authority to pursue planning authorities in the usual way, through the planning system. I understand—and this may be a welcome indication for my noble friend—that 74 properties fall within the boundary published by BAA. Further work is being carried out in the coming months to see if it is possible to reduce the size of the area required.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, in the event of a second runway at Stansted, will the Government work with BAA to ensure that they will be satisfied with the provisions for generalised blight compensation? Will they ensure that that compensation is adequate?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the White Paper draws the parameters of airport development. The development of the airport is then dependent on the planning process which British airports need to go through. The issue with regard to compensation falls within those requirements.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the effect on the residents around Stansted will depend very much on the surface access to the airport? While he has passed to BAA certain things, in the remarks that he made to the noble Baroness who raised the Question, would he ensure that proper planning is put into the development of surface access? I am referring to access not only from London but also from Birmingham and elsewhere—and, possibly, from the west of London, from where it is very difficult to reach Stansted. If that is done in good time, the effects of the enhancement there will be mitigated. I am sure that the Minister will need no reminding that the Strategic Rail Authority must turn its attention to this sort of thing, rather than spending all its time with its head down, embedded in the wretched project to enhance the West Coast Main Line.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I was about to rise in almost full agreement with the noble Lord, apart from with his last jibe. However, let us concentrate on the issues that surround Stansted. He is absolutely right, of course, that it is necessary for plans to be developed to extend the rail communication between London Liverpool Street and Stansted. Work needs to be done and heavy investment made on that issue. With regard to roads, he will recognise that there has been significant improvement to the road structure of the M11 and its surrounding roads, in anticipation of the already developing expansion of passenger numbers at the airport. However, he is right that
the infrastructure that supports and sustains air travel needs careful attention and investment. He is also right that that is the Government's responsibility, not the airport's.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, did my noble friend see the reports in the press last week about research carried out by OAG, the timetable experts? It showed that last year, for the year up to March, the number of flights to Europe carried out by the low-cost no-frills airlines fell by 5 per cent and the number of domestic flights by those airlines fell by 21 per cent. Is it not time for the Government to take a rather more realistic view on airline expansion and demand when planning for airport expansion?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is important that the Government take a realistic perspective on these matters. My noble friend has identified some interesting figures. The projected expansion of Stansted airport is based not only on no-frills airlines but also on more extensive demand for air travel. He will recognise that, although the figures he quoted represent a slight check on the rapid expansion over the past decade, we dare not underestimate the demand for air travel. As noble Lords will recognise, it is clearly very buoyant. Our citizens choose to travel by air within the United Kingdom and to go abroad.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Sheppey Group, which seeks to safeguard east Essex and Kent from the adverse effects of airport development. Does the Minister accept that many thousands of people in east Essex and Kent, including Kent County Council, are delighted that the Government have chosen to expand at Stansted rather than pursue a grandiose scheme of airport development in the Thames estuary area—at places such as Cliffe Marsh, Sheppey and Foulness—which, as was found at the time of the Roskill commission, 30 to 35 years ago, would have been an environmental, economic and transport disaster?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page