Previous Section Home Page

Column 508

asked him to consider one or two points that would help us to decide precisely how to proceed. I have no doubt that he will get back to me before long.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) : In view of the momentous political changes now being initiated by President Clinton in the United States, should we not, as a matter of urgency, debate the significance of those changes in relation to United Kingdom politics? In particular, should we not give the Leader of the Opposition a chance to come to the House, following his attendance at a lavish bash at the Dorchester--

Madam Speaker : Order. As I said earlier, hon. Members must restrict their questions to next week's business, and their questions must relate to the business statement. The hon. Gentleman's question is wide of the mark.

Mr. Oppenheim : Can we give an opportunity to hon. Members who support the policies to which I have referred to specify the policies that they consider relevant to the United Kingdom? Do they, for example, support President Clinton's--

Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is out of order. He has had a second bite at the cherry. I now ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle) : Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate about the Royal Mail? For the past 300 years, my constituents in Carlisle and the rest of Cumbria have lived peacefully alongside their Scottish neighbours ; their only differences have been cultural, and related to the existence of a border. On Monday, the Royal Mail is to introduce a new postmark for Cumbria, Galloway and Dumfries. Surely that is nonsense, and the House should have an opportunity to debate it.

Mr. Newton : I hear it suggested that that matter might be raised in an Adjournment debate. The hon. Gentleman may wish to seek such an opportunity. Beyond that, I think that this is a matter for the board of the Royal Mail rather than for my right hon. and learned Friend ; but I shall ensure that he is aware of the hon. Gentleman's complaint, as we must assume it to be.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge) : Will my right hon. Friend consider again the request by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) for a debate about revenue support grant? Would not such a debate enable us to discover why local taxpayers in Sheffield now find that their school crossing patrols have been slashed so that £55,000 of their money can be dished out to Labour Members of Parliament?

Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend has added an interesting point to what I said earlier about revenue support grant. It is clear from what I said-- that the details of RSG will be presented to the House before much longer-- that hon. Members will have at least two opportunities to raise the matter, as well as the opportunity presented by next week's questions to the Secretary of State for the Environment.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : Is the Leader of the House prepared to reconsider his decision about a debate on coal, given that we have recently been informed that, at some collieries, the pumps used to pump water from workings closed in years gone by cost £250,000 each to operate, which means that, if British Coal and the

Column 509

Government have their way, pits that are economically on the borderline will be closed on the ground that they are baling out water five, 10 or 15 miles away. If we cannot have a debate, will the right hon. Gentleman at least have that put on the agenda for the seminar?

Mr. Newton : I shall not attempt to add what I said earlier about the possibility of a debate. I imagine that the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday ; in any event, I shall certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend knows that it is on the hon. Gentleman's agenda.

Mr. Anthony Coombs (Wyre Forest) : I congratulate President Clinton on his inauguration. Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that there is great concern among hon. Members about recent remarks made by the new special trade representative of the United States, Mickey Kantor, regarding the EC-American farm subsidies agreement, upon which GATT depends? Given the importance of GATT for the world economy, may we have a statement next week so that we can emphasise the importance of achieving a GATT agreement on the fast-track approach by 2 March?

Mr. Newton : I cannot undertake to arrange for a debate, but I certainly re-emphasise the importance that the British Government attach-- as has been very clear in the activities of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others--to the achievement of a GATT settlement. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining that point.

Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston) : The Leader of the House will be aware of the hardship and health hazards that result from the disconnection of a household's water supply. In view of the urgency of the matter, will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State for the Environment to arrange to make a statement at an early date--possibly next week--so that we can address ourselves to it?

Mr. Newton : The list of questions for my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is already long. I reiterate that my right hon. and learned Friend will be here to answer questions of that kind and others on Wednesday.

Mr. Gary Streeter (Plymouth, Sutton) : May I encourage my right hon. Friend to change the business for next Wednesday so that, instead of discussing the Maastricht treaty again, we can have an emergency debate on unemployment in the far south-west? My right hon. Friend will probably have seen the early-day motion that I tabled recently pointing out that Plymouth has unemployment of 14.5 per cent., which continues to rise alarmingly. An emergency debate would allow west country Members to draw attention to the importance to Devonport dockyard of winning the all-important contract to refit the Trident boat.

Mr. Newton : I cannot undertake to arrange a debate along precisely those lines, although I appreciate the reasons why my hon. Friend has felt it right to ask for a debate. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the important comments made about the Government's general approach to both those questions at Prime Minister's Question Time not long ago.

Column 510

Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside) : Is it not unsatisfactory that there is to be neither a debate nor a statement on the alarming increase in unemployment? Is he aware that Wales is afflicted by the loss of manufacturing jobs in coal, steel and aerospace? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there should be a debate or a statement, bearing in mind the fact that Wales is top of the league for low wages?

Mr. Newton : In the light of the argument advanced by the hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members, those on the Opposition Front Bench may wish to reconsider the subject that they have chosen for their time on Tuesday. Clearly that is a matter for them.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : Will the Leader of the House arrange for a special debate on the problems facing this capital city of London so that emphasis can be placed on the problems of homelessness, buses and trains, the health service and education spending and on the serious social crisis resulting from high unemployment and the lack of a unified local authority for London that can tackle these serious problems?

Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman is overplaying his hand somewhat. I remind him that, if he wishes to refer to the health service in London, he can use the opportunity that will be provided to him on Tuesday by his right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Stephen Milligan (Eastleigh) : Now that more than two months have passed since the Chancellor's autumn statement, may I ask the Leader of the House whether there will be an opportunity next week to discuss the impact of the measures that the Chancellor announced to help the homeless? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency of Eastleigh, which had a severe homelessness problem, those measures have enabled more than 200 families--accounting for nearly everyone living in temporary accommodation--to find new homes?

Mr. Newton : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us that encouraging information. I suspect that it is only one item on a growing list of good pieces of information flowing from the important proposals that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made in his autumn statement.

Mr. Roy Hughes (Newport, East) : The Chairman of the Welsh Grant Committee and a number of hon. Members have expressed to me their concern about the fact that that body has not met recently. It would appear that the usual channels have become gummed up. Will the Leader of the House take whatever steps are necessary to unravel things?

Mr. Newton : That point was raised with me last week. I will ensure that it is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. In addition, a number of people have expressed the wish that the Welsh Grand Committee should meet in Wales. That would require a change to Standing Orders, which raises rather different issues.

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : Petrol companies are ripping off service stations which are contracted to them. That is especially the case with Esso. May we have a debate on that serious matter so that we can discuss the situation at the Heath service station in my

Column 511

constituency where the problem will arise tomorrow and where it is likely to continue? We should have an early debate on that topic.

Mr. Newton : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not expect me to attempt an off-the-cuff comment on his general point or on the specific case to which he referred. However, I will draw the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West) : Will the Leader of the Ho‡use have a word with the Prime Minister in order to widen the subject of the debate on Monday so that the Prime Minister can explain how high unemployment must rise before it becomes a price that is not worth paying and perhaps offer the country practical solutions to the unemployment problem which would be more effective than his two present solutions, which are to hold a seminar and a raffle?

Mr. Newton : I understand why the hon. Gentleman felt it appropriate to ask that question. However, I am bound to say that I find it impossible to see how I can widen a debate on the National Lottery etc. Bill to embrace that point.

Column 512

Points of Order

4.7 pm

Mr. Richard Caborn (Sheffield, Central) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order with regard to the conduct of hon. Members. I note that in today's Hansard at column 378, a question was raised by the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) about my activities.

I hope that my point of order will be helpful to me and to the rest of the House. I received a note from the hon. Member for Colne Valley at 1.10 pm yesterday after the Select Committee on Trade and Industry had finished its morning deliberations. As you will know, Madam Speaker, a resolution of this House requested the Select Committee to deal with the pit strikes.

Madam Speaker : Order. May I offer the hon. Gentleman a little guidance? If he raises a direct point of order with me, I must deal with it. If he reads column 378 of yesterday's Hansard, he will see that I dealt very adequately with the points of order that were raised at that time.

Mr. Caborn : I am sure that you dealt with that point of order very adequately indeed, Madam Speaker, but I would like to refer to a further point surrounding that particular issue. I wrote to the hon. Member for Colne Valley, as I think I informed your Office, Madam Speaker, that I would be chairing the Trade and Industry Select Committee at 2.30 pm. That letter was placed on the Letter Board at the same time that I deposited the letter in your Office at 1.45 pm. I would have expected the hon. Member for Colne Valley not to have raised the matter. Indeed, I would have expected him to comply with the request in my letter that he should raise it when I was able to be in the House.

I suggest that it was more important for me to Chair the Select Committee than to be in the House at 3.30 pm, which would have been impossible. May I therefore ask you, Madam Speaker, for guidance about the conduct of hon. Members when they raise points of order of that nature about other hon. Members ?

Madam Speaker : It is my understanding that the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) in fact did his utmost to inform all the hon. Members to whom he wished to refer. As far as I am concerned, I dealt with the matter yesterday. There is just one small matter outstanding. May I take it that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) has informed the hon. Member for Colne Valley that he was about to raise the matter today?

Mr. Caborn : It was not about the hon. Member for Colne Valley. Madam Speaker, I am asking for your guidance about any hon. Member who intends to raise the integrity of another hon. Member, when the House has instructed such hon. Members to be in Committee. Is it right that hon. Members should proceed when other hon. Members are not available to be in the House to answer such an allegation?

Madam Speaker : Several hon. Members were involved and, as the hon. Member for Colne Valley did inform them, in my view he was perfectly entitled to go ahead with

Column 513

attempting to raise a point of order, which was not, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central will see, a point of order that was acceptable either to me or to the House.

Mr. Caborn : On a further point of order, Madam Speaker. Are you saying that in future we adjourn any Committee of the House to make sure that we can be present on the Floor of the House to answer personal allegations? Is that the guidance that you are giving to hon. Members?

Madam Speaker : These are occasions when hon. Members must determine their own priorities. It is not for the Chair to do so. Once one hon. Member has informed another hon. Member that he is going to raise an issue, it is for that hon. Member to determine what his priorities are.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South) : On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. I pay tribute to the way in which you have chaired the House, particularly during Northern Ireland questions, but my point of order arises out of today's and previous Northern Ireland questions. In the first 10 questions today, three Northern Ireland Members had questions and were ready to be called. I happen to believe that this is the House for the whole of the kingdom ; on the other hand, we in Northern Ireland have this rare opportunity to bring specific issues to the House.

Today, when the first question had been answered, the hon. Member asking it left the Chamber, and another hon. Member withdrew his question. Bearing in mind that there are only 16 hon. Members who can come once a month for Northern Ireland questions, and also that, on the law of averages, we find it quite difficult to come up when we table other questions, is there any way that a greater proportion of Northern Ireland Members may have an opportunity of asking their supplementary questions rather than allowing certain hon. Members, as happened today, to farm out questions, thereby ensuring that we are down the list?

Madam Speaker : As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is the luck of the draw where questions fall on the order paper. I understand his frustration and that of all hon. Members from Northern Ireland who would like to come out very high on the paper as a result of the ballot ; but I see from my notes that I called the hon. Gentleman on question No. 1.

I think that the hon. Gentleman is making another point, which I understand and which I have mentioned before. There are occasions when hon. Members put their question, listen to the answer and then leave the Chamber. They are perfectly entitled to do so ; I simply happen to believe that it is a matter of courtesy to the House to stay for five or 10 minutes at least, until the House has moved

Column 514

on to other questions, but that is a purely personal opinion, because I would like to bring a little more courtesy into our dealings in the House.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett (Derby, South) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not want to detain the House, but further to the point of order raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn), and agreeing entirely with the point that you have just made about courtesy in the House, will you confirm that it would make your task easier, bearing in mind the difficulties that arise, if hon. Members on both sides could have heed to exchanges such as those which are made more difficult when hon. Members are chairing Select Committees or other major Committees? After all, there are plenty of opportunities to raise matters in the House when the hon. Members referred to are present.

Madam Speaker : I am sure that it would be helpful all round if, as the hon. Lady said, when matters like that are raised by hon. Members, they take into account the other responsibilities of hon. Members.

BILL PRESENTED

Railways

Mr. Secretary MacGregor, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang, Mrs. Secretary Shephard and Mr. Roger Freeman, presented a Bill to provide for the appointment and functions of a Rail Regulator and a Director of Passenger Rail Franchising and of users' consultative committees for the railway industry and for certain ferry services ; to make new provision with respect to the provision of railway services and the persons by whom they are to be provided or who are to secure their provision ; to make provision for and in connection with the grant and acquisition of rights over, and the disposal or other transfer and vesting of, any property, rights or liabilities by means of which railway services are, or are to be, provided ; to amend the functions of the British Railways Board ; to make provision with respect to the safety of railways and the protection of railway employees and members of the public from personal injury and other risks arising from the construction or operation of railways ; to make further provision with respect to transport police ; to make provision with respect to certain railway pension schemes ; to make provision for and in connection with the payment of grants and subsidies in connection with railways and in connection with the provision of facilities for freight haulage by inland waterway ; to make provision in relation to tramways and other guided transport systems ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 117.]

Column 515

The Gulf and RAF

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Arbuthnot.]

[Relevant documents : The Second Report from the Defence Committee on Procurement of Advanced Air-to-Air Missiles, HC 115 of Session 1991-92, the Second Special Report containing the Government's Reply thereto, HC 350 of Session 1991-92, the Sixth Report on the European Fighter Aircraft, HC 299 of Session 1991-92, and the Fourth Special Report containing the Government's Reply thereto, HC 262 of Session 1992-93.]

Madam Speaker : May I say at the start of the debate that I have had to impose a time limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm.

4.15 pm

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind) : The House last debated the Royal Air Force in May 1991, soon after the Gulf conflict. Operations mounted by coalition air forces over the past week have shown once again the exceptional standards of quality and professionalism which the service maintains and explain why we are combining this year's RAF debate with a debate on recent events in the Gulf.

My main themes this afternoon will be challenge and change. The RAF faces the challenge of mounting operations in Europe and the middle east when it is in the midst of an unprecedented period of restructuring as a result of changes in the strategic environment. I intend to deal with the changes being experienced by the RAF before turning to the wider issues of the Gulf.

Since our last debate, we have made considerable progress with the implementation of the plans announced for Britain's defences for the 1990s. In Germany, RAF Wildenrath closed at the end of last year and RAF Gutersloh will be handed over to the Army at the end of 1993. Three Tornado GR squadrons have been disbanded and one Tornado reconnaissance squadron has moved to the United Kingdom. The remaining four RAF Germany Tornado squadrons will be based at RAF Bruggen. The two Germany-based Harrier squadrons have moved from Gutersloh to Laarbruch, with the composite squadron of Chinook and Puma support helicopters due to follow in March.

In the United Kingdom itself, RAF Marham and Lossiemouth will be the main operating bases for our Tornado reconnaissance and anti-shipping forces.

The main thrust of United Kingdom air defence will continue to be provided by Tornado F3 squadrons based at RAF Leuchars, Coningsby and Leeming--as well as by ground-based systems. The Phantom and Shackleton fleets have been withdrawn, the latter being replaced by a Sentry E-3D AWACS squadron at RAF Waddington. The Nimrod maritime reconnaissance force, comprising three squadrons, is now collocated at RAF Kinloss.

We announced our plans for the future development of the search and rescue force in October, in the light of the reduction in military flying. The RAF in the future will have an all-Sea King SAR fleet. There will also be major changes for the RAF Regiment, reflecting the adjustments to aircraft basing.

These major changes in our front line capability will be matched by a streamlining of the support area. Since the middle of 1991, we have announced the closure of 13 RAF

Column 516

stations in the United Kingdom, most of which house support units. In addition, last November, we proposed that the RAF ground training organisation should be rationalised from six stations to three, with major savings in running costs. We also need to streamline our headquarters structures. Next year, two new RAF headquarters will form : logistics command at Brampton/Wyton, and personnel and training command at Innsworth, near Gloucester. This will lead to reductions in RAF HQ manpower of at least 20 per cent.

We have also embarked on an ambitious programme to market-test RAF support activities with a total annual running cost of over £200 million. This is a very significant commitment to the Government's plans to extend competition for the supply of public services. These changes will have a profound impact on our service personnel, their families and the civilian staff who support them. It will be of paramount importance to ensure that the morale and commitment of our people are maintained as the restructuring is carried through. The RAF has risen to this challenge, as we would expect, with its customary eelan and esprit de corps.

We are making every effort to ensure that manpower reductions are achieved as far as possible by natural wastage and voluntary redundancy. Some compulsory redundancies are inevitable, but all the 960 or so RAF redundancies necessary up to 1 April 1994 will be filled by volunteers. A second phase will be necessary during 1994 and 1995, details of which will be announced in due course. The restructuring process is happening when fewer people are leaving the RAF. Our manpower intakes are at historically low levels. But it is vital for the future that we ensure that the RAF continues to be seen as a top-grade employer. As the economy improves and our manpower requirements stabilise, we shall need to improve and increase our recruiting. Hon. Members will be aware of steps being taken by the services in the equal opportunities field. In the RAF, women are now employed in almost all branches and trades, without significant restrictions. Since the last RAF debate, all aircrew roles have been opened to women, including those on fast jets. Two female pilots and nine female navigators have entered squadron service. A further 29 female pilots and 13 female navigators are undergoing training.

Our policy is that the new force structure should be well equipped, highly trained and properly manned and supported. The keystone of the RAF's future capability is the European fighter project. The project enjoys support from all the main political parties, industry and the trade unions. I am grateful to hon. Members on all sides of the House who have given their support in a very effective and successful fashion in recent months during the period of uncertainty with regard to the future of the European fighter aircraft.

This broad basis of consensus has been of immense help in the recent difficult negotiations. Throughout the uncertainties of the past year, the Government have held to the view that there is a clear and continuing need for an aircraft broadly of EFA's capabilities, both for the defence of the United Kingdom homeland and for operations in other theatres. The programme is the only advanced fixed-wing military aircraft under development in the United Kingdom. It is important and, indeed, vital in terms of United Kingdom employment and technology, but its essential rationale is to meet a military requirement.

Column 517

The aircraft will be in service throughout the first quarter of the next century. As present events in the Gulf and elsewhere remind us, there is considerable and growing instability in areas adjacent to NATO, both inside and outside Europe. There are uncertainties about how the world will develop. We face the reality of risk and conflict. The aircraft that we procure must be able to defeat the aircraft of any potential adversary that our pilots might be called upon to face during its operational service.

Our current air defence aircraft--the Tornado F3--was designed to intercept bombers at long range. Even if it were updated with more modern missiles and sensors, the F3 would not be a satisfactory counter to agile fighters such as the MiG 29 and the SU27--let alone any future upgrades of those types, or more modern aircraft. We also need an offensive support and tactical reconnaissance capability. As many hon. Members will know, in the 1950s, the RAF had 12 different types of combat aircraft. We now have five. When the Eurofighter 2000 comes into service that will reduce to three : the Eurofighter 2000, an upgraded Tornado GR1 and the Harrier GR7. The multi-role capability of the Eurofighter will provide operational flexibility and should yield savings in support costs. I am glad that the Select Committee on Defence--which I commend for its excellent report in March last year--shared our view that there remained a requirement for a technically advanced multi-role fighter. Despite the importance of the Eurofighter, it must be affordable. The production costs which were quoted by industry in April 1992 were higher than expected. As a result, industrial studies for a range of design options were commissioned by the four Defence Ministers from Spain, Italy, Germany and the United Kingdom at our Madrid meeting. The studies concluded that a family of aircraft, based on the existing airframe and engine, was the most cost-effective solution to the budgetary and military requirements of all the four partner nations.

At our meeting on 10 December 1992, the four Defence Ministers agreed with the four chiefs of staff that some relaxations in the operational requirement were possible in the light of the changed international security environment. While some differences remained in national requirements, we reached agreement that these could be accommodated in a single collaborative programme, based on the existing airframe and engine. We also agreed that significant cost reductions were achievable with no change to capability, that further savings were possible with some reduction in performance and that the resulting aircraft should be renamed Eurofighter 2000. Deliveries to the United Kingdom and Italy will commence in the year 2000, and to Germany, and probably Spain, in 2002.

Considerable work remains to be done. We need to agree a revised programme and the differing standards of national variants. Detailed technical and financial negotiations with industry will be required, but our agreement means that the Royal Air Force can look forward with confidence to getting the aircraft that it needs to meet its operational commitments well into the next century.

Flexibility and mobility are the hallmarks of the new NATO strategic concept. Air power is well able to meet these challenges and the Royal Air Force will be making a significant contribution to the air element of NATO's new reaction forces.

Column 518

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South) : The House is delighted to hear what the Minister is saying. Could he give an assurance that the Government will never flinch from increasing manpower if necessary?

Mr. Rifkind : Of course that is the case. We remain committed to ensuring that the forces have the manpower. Such manpower must be capable of dealing with any of the obligations that may be imposed on it without unreasonable stress and strain. That is an important obligation, and we must keep it carefully under review.

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth) : I am sure that the House welcomes the commitment to ensuring that Britain possesses an adequate air defence capacity. Clearly, the Air Force must have high-quality combat aircraft. If the Air Force is to fulfil its continuing international obligations, it is essential that it has adequate transport and communications aircraft. Does the Minister accept that, although the Hercules may be superbly well maintained, it is an aging aircraft and it is in heavy use serving throughout the world? It cannot be many years before the Secretary of State or his successor will have to order a new aircraft to replace it.

Mr. Rifkind : The hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to the Hercules. It has, indeed, served Britain and continues to serve Britain in a superb fashion. But it is also right that we should give thought to the long-term replacement for Hercules. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that thought is being given to precisely that question.

The forces that I have described will enable NATO to respond rapidly and effectively to any crisis within Allied Command Europe. A total of up to 80 RAF aircraft will be available to the air reaction force. They will provide a broad range of capabilities for both the immediate and rapid reaction components of the force. Contributions will be drawn from the Tornado, Harrier and Jaguar forces. Rapier surface-to-air missiles will also be assigned.

The relevance, and immediacy, of this shift of emphasis to more mobile forces is amply demonstrated by the range of operations in which the RAF is currently involved. I should mention here the RAF's continuing contribution to the anti-terrorism campaign in Northern Ireland. As the House knows, the RAF Regiment provides vital ground defence for RAF Aldergrove. Wessex, Puma and Chinook helicopters provide support for the security forces and the Northern Ireland Office.

The RAF is making a key contribution to our support for the United Nations Security Council resolutions on the former Yugoslavia. Hercules aircraft contribute to the UN airlift of relief supplies into Sarajevo. These operations have had to be suspended whenever there is a risk that the aircraft will come under attack from the warring factions which surround Sarajevo. The most serious such incident, as the House will know, was the tragic loss of an Italian transport aircraft due to a missile attack on 3 September. But despite the dangers, the operation has continued whenever possible. So far, 310 flights by RAF Hercules aircraft have been successfully completed, bringing 4,152 tons of much needed aid to the people of Sarajevo. This is an important humanitarian role, which has been conducted with bravery and skill. Other Hercules undertake resupply sorties in support of the United Kingdom contribution to the UN protection force in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Column 519

Following NATO's agreement to the United Nation's request to assist in first monitoring and then enforcement of sanctions and the arms embargo, RAF Nimrod aircraft have been involved in a 24-hour surveillance operation to identify embargo-breaking vessels to the naval task force. The aircraft are currently deployed to Sicily as part of these operations. E3-D aircraft have joined a multinational force monitoring the air space of the former Yugoslavia in support of the United Nations resolution banning military flights over the area.

We have also deployed two Hercules aircraft, together with about 90 RAF personnel, to assist in Operation Restore Hope in Somalia. The aircraft are currently based with United States forces in Mobasa in Kenya. Since 12 December they have been engaged in the transport of humanitarian relief stores to affected areas inside Somalia. They have so far delivered over 3 million pounds of stores.

I turn now to recent events in the Gulf. Given the RAF's contribution in that region throughout the momentous events of the past few years, it is particularly appropriate that we should do so in conjunction with the annual debate on the RAF. Since the Gulf conflict ended in February 1991, RAF aircraft have been deployed again to the Gulf on two seperate operations. In both cases the aim was the same : to help protect the civilian population of Iraq from the brutality of the regime in Baghdad-- first, the Kurdish people in the north of Iraq from April 1991 and then the peoples of the marsh area in the south from August last year. The United Kingdom joined our United States and French allies in a coalition which established no-fly zones over the north and south of the country in support of United Nations Security Council resolution 688, which called on Iraq to cease repression of its civilian population. I should like to make it clear that the coalition is committed to the territorial integrity of Iraq, which is not threatened in any way by the existence of the no-fly zones.

Eight Jaguar aircraft and two VC10 tankers, based at Incirlik in Turkey, mount reconnaissance patrols over the northern no-fly zone. A similar function is performed by six Tornado GR1 and two Victor tankers in the south. Hon. Members will be aware that the Turkish Government recently agreed to extend the basing arrangements at Incirlik for a further six months. We are seeking the agreement of the Turkish authorities to base Harrier GR7 aircraft there from April in place of the Jaguars.

We should not let current preoccupations obscure the valuable contribution which the RAF has made to the no-fly zones in quieter times, when the attention of the world was elsewhere. The civilian populations of northern and southern Iraq have gained great comfort from the presence of coalition aircraft overhead. They appreciate more than anyone what Saddam Hussein might have thrown at them but for the existence of the no-fly zones. We expect RAF patrols to continue over the no-fly zones for the foreseeable future.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann) : I agree with the Secretary of State entirely about the work that the RAF has done in policing the no-fly zone. He will recall that recently there was speculation that it might be necessary for the United Kingdom to deploy ground forces in Kuwait. That danger may have receded over the past few

Column 520

days, but it may recur. In the event of that happening, and while we are so heavily involved in Bosnia, can the Secretary of State be sure that it will not be necessary to withdraw from Northern Ireland either of the additional battalions that have been deployed there recently?

Mr. Rifkind : I am aware of the reports to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but we have not yet received any requests from the Government of Kuwait for the deployment of any forces to Kuwait. Obviously, only if such a request were received would it be necessary to consider it. In any event, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we would not allow a request from any other part of the world to determine our obligations to the need for security forces to operate within the United Kingdom. Our commitments within the United Kingdom must always take precedence over any other international obligation, however important.

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : Does the Secretary of State intend to comment on the substantial change in the attitude adopted worldwide towards the decision to resume bombing last week? Is he aware that the Russian Government have expressed anxiety, that the Arab League has come out against it, that representatives of the Iraqi opposition, the Shi'ites and the Kurds, have come out against it, that the French Government have expressed anxiety and that carefully filtered statements have been released from No. 10 about six prime ministerial telephone calls to President Bush. What I and my right hon. Friends said on the night of the statement has turned out to be absolutely correct. The bombing has strengthened Saddam Hussein and has undermined the authority of the United Nations Security Council and the policy that the right hon. and learned Gentleman announced so proudly only eight days ago is in shreds. For that reason, many hon. Members will vote against the Adjournment tonight because we have been denied the opportunity to express our views against a properly framed Government motion.

Mr. Rifkind : The right hon. Gentleman is profoundly mistaken. No one is enthusiastic about military action, but the right hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that in the immediate aftermath of the three operations conducted by the coalition countries Saddam Hussein has now allowed United Nations inspection teams back into Baghdad--the first team was allowed in this morning--the attempts by the Iraqis to interfere with the frontier with Kuwait have been suspended and the allied countries are now able to operate in the no-fly zones without attack. The right hon. Gentleman might not like the fact that that has been the direct consequence of the recent action.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : Can the Secretary of State tell the House who was responsible for the attack on the Al-Rashid hotel? Was it planned or was it an accident? In either event, will it now be the subject of an inquiry? As he will know, a large number of delegates were attending an Islamic conference in the hotel and they included my constituent, Liaqat Hussain, the president of the Bradford Council for Mosques, who had gone to Iraq to press for the release of two Britons imprisoned there. Will the Secretary of State tell the House who was responsible for that reckless, irresponsible and ill-advised attack?

Column 521

Mr. Rifkind : The fact that the hon. Gentleman is even prepared to contemplate that the missile which struck that hotel might have been aimed at it deliberately shows the nature of his prejudices. It must be obvious to him that, whatever the source of the incident, it would not have been the deliberate desire of any country to inflict damage on a civilian hotel- - [Interruption.] So far as the consequences are concerned, I have not the slightest doubt that if the United States Government conclude that a cruise missile was responsible for the incident, they will wish to take all the necessary steps to try to identify the reasons why that might have happened, but the ultimate responsibility for an incident--

Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Hillhead) : They have accepted that it was.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : Order. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would contain himself.

Mr. Rifkind : Responsibility for any incident that has taken place in recent times must lie with Saddam Hussein, whose behaviour caused the necessity for coalition operations in support of United Nations resolutions.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Next Section

  Home Page