26 Nov 1996 : Column 133
House of Commons
Tuesday 26 November 1996
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
King's College London Bill [Lords]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the King's College London Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
Hon. Members:
Object.
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during any previous Session.--[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Debate to be resumed on Tuesday 3 December.
Considered; to be read the Third time.
26 Nov 1996 : Column 134
DEFENCE
Armed Forces (Deployment)
1. Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel are currently deployed outside the United Kingdom; and in how many countries. [4309]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): Over 44,000 British service personnel are currently deployed in 18 countries outside the United Kingdom.
Sir Michael Neubert: Is it not a remarkable tribute to our resolute defence policies and the professionalism of our armed forces that our participation is sought in so many parts of the world? Would not that be put at risk by the "painful consequences" of a Labour defence review?
With regard to Zaire, now that the Canadians have scaled down their estimate of the number of troops required by a factor of 10, to about 1,000, what are the prospects for the British contingent? Are they required at all?
Mr. Portillo:
It is indeed a matter of great satisfaction that our forces are so highly respected around the world. That is partly due to the fact that it is known that the Government give them full support. The Government have always been committed to sound defences; and the alternative Government, the Labour party, now pays some sort of lip service to our armed forces, but over a long period has been committed to sharp reductions in our defence.
The situation in Zaire has changed considerably since I last spoke to the House about it, although my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces brought the House up to date last week. Large numbers of refugees have gone home. We have little intelligence about the refugees in the southern part of the Lake Kivu area. We are seeking further intelligence at the moment.
There has also been a withdrawal of consent from a number of states in the area which we had supposed would be supportive of a multinational force. I think the correct posture for us is to continue to plan on a contingency basis and to make the most of the intelligence that we are busy gathering from the area.
Mr. Cohen:
The Minister told me in May that the cost of these overseas garrisons was £360 million a year. After excluding that amount, and other exceptional payments for nuclear weapons and for Northern Ireland, our defence budget is still £5 billion more than the average of our European NATO partners' budgets. Where does that money go?
Mr. Portillo:
It goes to maintaining the posture that is suitable for a country that takes its international responsibilities seriously. I know that the hon. Gentleman and many others in the Labour party--many who declare themselves and many who do not--want to cut our defences. As the hon. Gentleman says, he wants them cut
26 Nov 1996 : Column 135
Mr. Colvin:
As some of those deployments were on NATO missions, and as NATO is an organisation that has fulfilled its mission--the ending of the cold war, hardly a shot having been fired--and in the light of proposals to enlarge NATO, when will the countries concerned get together and decide NATO's new mission?
Mr. Portillo:
I believe that there will be a very significant summit on NATO's future in summer next year. I think that that would be the right time for NATO to decide on its new missions and restructuring, to begin negotiations with those countries that are applicants for membership of NATO, to begin serious discussions with them and to unveil a new partnership for peace for those countries that are not going to be members of NATO or are not going to be members of NATO at once. I believe that it will also be the occasion for NATO to strike a new relationship with Russia and probably write down what that new security relationship consists of.
Mr. William O'Brien:
Can the Secretary of State give the House a reason why members of the Gurkha regiments, which must leave Hong Kong to come to the United Kingdom, are not allowed to bring their wives and families with them? Is there a reason why the Secretary of State is taking that attitude?
Mr. Portillo:
I have taken no attitude beyond saying that the Gurkhas find themselves in a completely new position. Now that we are leaving the colony of Hong Kong, Gurkhas will be deployed in the United Kingdom. Those circumstances have not obtained before, so we must investigate carefully what their conditions of service should be.
We have not declared a position on that. We have said that we must review their conditions of service. That review is under way, and it must address several important topics that have been raised, including whether the Gurkhas can bring their families with them. I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that that will be considered thoroughly and without any preconceived position on my part.
2. Mr. Fabricant:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of the Whittington barracks, Lichfield, over the next five years. [4310]
26 Nov 1996 : Column 136
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames):
There are no plans to change the role of Whittington barracks, which houses the Army training regiment, Lichfield, over the next five years.
Mr. Fabricant:
I thank my hon. Friend for his reassuring answer. Will he take the opportunity to praise the role of the Army training regiment, which forges young, timorous boys into hardy men?
Mr. Soames:
It is certainly a pleasing prospect. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work of the Army training regiments. They do remarkable work, and I am sure that the House will agree with my hon. Friend that they do an excellent job of converting the basic material of new recruits into a well trained and motivated Army of the future. The House will also want to know that the quality of training undertaken in the Army training regiments is second to none in any organisation of its type in the world, and we are lucky with our ATRs.
3. Mr. Eric Clarke:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the problems of overstretch in the armed forces. [4311]
Mr. Soames:
The services continue to be very busy but are well able to meet their current operational commitments.
Mr. Clarke:
Does the Minister agree that it is gross Government incompetence to cut the armed forces by one third and make our troops overstretched? Can he explain that total incompetence?
Mr. Soames:
The hon. Gentleman has been ill briefed and ill served by his hon. Friends in asking so gauchely a question that has an important root--the nature and length of the commitments of our armed forces. As I have said, they are very busy--very pushed. We must be mindful of what we ask them to do. They are highly motivated, their morale is high and they are superbly equipped. Questions such as that make a fallacy of the truth.
Mr. Key:
Notwithstanding the superb performance of our forces in their peacekeeping role, will my hon. Friend always ensure that the country realises that our service men and women are recruited for a fighting and combative role above all?
Mr. Soames:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He may be assured that no one in the Ministry of Defence--including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friends the Minister of State for Defence Procurement and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State--or in any of the training arms of the armed forces is under any delusion in that regard. They know that all our troops must continue to be trained to fight the high-intensity battle and to be able to cope with the most demanding combat conditions as well as some of the new missions, which, as the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) meant to say, are indeed imposing some strain on the armed forces. Whatever they are asked to do, they acquit themselves superbly.
26 Nov 1996 : Column 137
Dr. David Clark:
The Government have allowed a situation to develop where the Army has a shortfall of more than 5,000 recruits. Why?
Mr. Soames:
The Army is, indeed, approximately 5,000 men under strength. At each Defence Question Time the hon. Gentleman asks the same question in a more gauche and foolish way. On each occasion he comes back with a more stupid question.
The reasons for the shortfall, particularly in the infantry, are plain. We cannot compel people to join the infantry. It is interesting that the technical arms--the sappers, the electrical and mechanical engineers, the signallers--are almost fully recruited. It is clear that we will have difficulty persuading people to join the infantry. Not everyone wants to be battle-fit 365 days of the year. We have a great deal to do. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be gratified to hear that enlistments are on the up and recruiting has increased by more than 35 per cent. compared with this time last year.
Dr. Goodson-Wickes:
I am confident that my hon. Friend will welcome signs that recruitment shortfalls in the Army are levelling out. However, the Government's admirable policies will mean that unemployment will fall lower, which will make recruitment increasingly difficult. In that context, will my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that a decision in principle has been made in his Department to reintroduce the admirable concept of junior leaders? Will he press his Treasury colleagues to ensure that that scheme can be put into action? Perhaps we shall hear an indication this afternoon.
Mr. Soames:
My hon. Friend is right that the junior leaders provided extraordinary technical and military leadership throughout all ranks and sections of the Army. My right hon. Friend and I are studying the scheme closely. We intend to consider whether to establish a pilot scheme of some sort, but clearly such matters must take their place in the priorities of ensuring that our people have the equipment they need to undertake the tasks that face them. I do not dissent from anything that my hon. Friend has said, and his support is extremely welcome.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |