HC Deb 30 January 1968 vol 757 cc1285-99

1.58 a.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart (Beckenham)

At this late hour I seek to raise the question of the disposal of military stores and equipment in Aden before and after out evacuation. I must apologise to the Minister for keeping him from his bed tonight, but if, as some commentators say, he is about to become the Government Chief Whip, I dare say he will give up sleep altogether, so that this may certainly be good training for him. In any case, there is an element of poetic justice in this, for if the replies to some of my Questions in recent weeks had been more informative, I doubt whether I would have found it necessary to seek this brief debate.

We are looking tonight at Supplementary Estimates for the Army of some £18 million, and I think it is plain that the buildings and equipment left by the Army amount to considerably more than £18 million. A few days after our forces had left Aden at the end of November, I put down a Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what equipment was handed over to the army of the Republic of South Yemen on the evacuation of Aden. On 13th December I received a Written Answer which said Certain items of equipment were included with installations handed over as 'going concerns' as reported in Command 3442. These were handed over without charge. In addition other items were handed over on repayment to the Southern Yemen authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December 1967; Vol. 741, c. 135.] The Treasury Minute, of which I have a copy, is Command 3442 and costs 6d., which is remarkably poor value. Except for the announcement that the buildings handed over are valued at £24.6 million, the only information which it gives is this: In addition, there are some items of movable equipment and stores which should be handed over with the buildings in order to permit them to continue as going concerns. The exact value of these items is not known as present, but it is unlikely to exceed £1 million. That statement is misleading. Following the Answer to my original Question, I put down further Questions to the Minister and, on the day that the House rose for the Christmas Recess, I received another reply which was very vague. It said that the information which I had sought about the amount of ammunition, vehicles, weapons and so on which had been handed over was not readily available, adding that it would be some time before the records were complete, but the Minister would write to me.

It has been said that, above and beyond the buildings estimated to be worth £24.6 million, stores worth £10 million were left behind as a good will gesture to the new Government of the People's Republic of Southern Yemen. I certainly do not advocate tearing out the telephones from Ministerial offices, as the French are supposed to have done when they left Guinea, but one wonders whether the Republic appreciates our gesture or thinks that we are soft in the head.

Of course, some items must be left behind. It might have been a fighting withdrawal, and our troops had to have operational equipment at hand until the. very moment of evacuation, and I would not argue that the Land Rovers of the last battalion should be flown out with the men or that they should take their ammunition, but it looks as if substantial quantities of supplies were unnecessarily left behind.

I note from the Estimate, for example, that we spent an extra £700,000 on ammunition and shipped out of Aden 7,000 tons of ammunition, but we seem to have handed over free to the Republican Army about 44 million rounds of small arms ammunition, along with mortar ammunition and artillery shells. I hope that the Minister can tell us with some precision how much ammunition was handed over.

Then there is the question of radar and signals equipment. I understand that we said, quite properly, that we would leave behind radar equipment at the civilian airport to enable Aden to have a functioning international civil airport. But what other radar and R.A.F. signals equipment have we left behind? I am told that Russian aircraft have already been refuelled at Khormakser. It would be ironic if this ex-R.A.F. station became the first Russian base protected by British radar.

I appreciate that not all the vehicles could be shipped out, but the Minister will appreciate that few things provoke more gnashing and grinding of teeth than stories about well-maintained Land Rovers being sold locally for £50. How many vehicles did we leave behind? I understand that two British businessmen were willing to purchase all the abandoned vehicles for £150,000 but were unable to get delivery of a substantial number of them. Did we make any agreements with surplus property dealers either in this country or locally in Aden?

Along the coast from Aden our friend the Sultan of Muscat and Oman is at present having to expand his forces because of the deteriorating security position in the area, and also because of the developing oil wealth of his country. Did we sell or give him any of the vehicles or other items of equipment which we left behind? I appreciate that, in the circumstances which arose during the last hectic days of our headlong withdrawal, not everything could be accounted for, but the evacuation of British families was completed many months before we left Aden proper. The cost of rehousing them is also reflected in the substantial extra sums shown in the Estimates for purchases of buildings. I am told that kitchen units, refrigerators, cutlery, glass and china worth £1½ million was left behind. Evidently furniture has been left in some 3,000 married quarters, although some displaced Army families have unfortunately had to live in discomfort in this country in recent months.

It has also been estimated that £500,000 worth of air conditioning units have been abandoned. Surely, in the months which elapsed between the departure of the British families and the final evacuation, much more of this valuable domestic equipment could and should have been removed. About two months have elapsed since the evacuation, and I regret that, so far, the Government have not been able to give any meaningful reply to the Questions I have tabled. The Government's only boast in the defence field is that they got the sums right, although they do not seem, in this instance, to be able to produce any sums at all, although I can understand their reluctance to provide information at a time when the sale of arms anywhere to anyone is such a sensitive subject.

It is only seven months since the ghastly massacre of British soldiers in Crater. Members of the present People's Government of Southern Yemen rejoice in their individual terrorist records. I should not be entirely surprised if some of the equipment we left behind was used against our friends in Muscat and the Gulf States. I wonder if some of those responsible for implementing our disposal policy in Aden will receive even greater recognition than a mention in despatches. Possibly such recognition would be justified, but meanwhile I am certain that the British taxpayer is entitled to know what was done with the equipment he paid for in far greater detail than we have been told so far.

2.11 a.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe (Windsor)

Even at this late hour my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Good-hart) has rendered a public service in raising this very important issue. The whole of the withdrawal from Aden and the hasty disposal of stores, equipment and other materials is almost a classic example of waste masquerading in the guise of economy. It is also a classic example in a much wider sense of how not to de-colonise.

Before asking any further questions about the actual details of disposal of stores, I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute, in which I am sure the Minister will join, to the courage, discipline, restraint and efficiency of the British troops who conducted themselves with almost incredible efficiency under the most trying circumstances and under the almost impossible orders of right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I put a Question to the Secretary of State for Defence on 6th December about the value of all these stores. I received a reply in very similar terms to that received by my hon. Friend, that the total sum of the assets transferred amounted to £24.6 million. That seemed a very low figure.

When I was in Aden in April, the value of installations and buildings in Little Aden alone amounted to £16 million. It included barracks, married quarters, recreational facilities and other buildings, many of which were not yet completed. They were in process of completion, and so was air-conditioning plant. There was a huge generating plant costing nearly £1 million which had not been completed. It was being dismantled bit by bit in the name of economy and going bit by bit to Bahrain. I suppose that it has been dismantled again because there has been another plan. This is all in the name of economy. It seems very strange. Apart from the accommodation and buildings in Little Aden, there was all material on what one can call the mainland. Is the Minister to tell the House that that was worth only £8 million?

There was the whole of the equipment in the docks at Steamer Point; there was the whole of the headquarters of the Navy, the Air Force and the Army; there was the whole of Government House, which was much bigger than anyone would want as an embassy, with all the offices attached to it; there was the airfield, as my hon. Friend said, with radar and everything else. Suppose Ell that had been nationalised, so to speak, by some foreign Government on a takeover bid. I find it very difficult to believe that any British Government would have put in a counter-claim for a value as low as £24 million.

I must say one word about the airfield, which is, perhaps, the most important of all, because it had some very sophisticated equipment. I do not know what was left. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman knows what was left. If one gets out in such a hurry it is very difficult to know what is left. All I am certain about is that we left a vacuum and I am equally certain that the vacuum will not remain a vacuum. All those facilities will not be used by the People's Republic of South Yemen. Somebody else will use them. I think my hon. Friend is right. I suspect that Soviet planes have already refuelled on that airfield. Perhaps that may shock even the hon. Gentleman the Minister, in his knowledge of strategy and long-term thinking for the whole of Middle East defence.

In the Answer to my Parliamentary Question on 6th December there was one absolutely splendid sentence. I must read it to the hon. Gentleman: Other moveable equipment and stores not required for use elsewhere or not economically worth transporting were sold, prior to withdrawal, to the Federal authorities, to other Governments, or on the open market in accordance with normal Services disposals procedures."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1967: Vol. 755, c. 315.] To the Federal authorities? There were not any, because the Federal Government were not in being. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had sabotaged any chance of a federal Government by negotiating with the terrorists. So it was not to the Federal authorities. One cannot sell stores to a future Government when that future Government are not in being. When we handed over there was no Government. So it was not to the Federal authorities. So to whom did they hand over?

Secondly, it says "other Governments." To what other Governments? The Sultan of Muscat? Sheiks farther up the Gulf? To Egypt? To the Yemen? To whom? Well, the hon. Gentleman laughs. I am asking him to what other Governments.

When it comes to on the open market in accordance with normal Services disposals we all know what that means. Anybody who has been to the Middle East knows what that means. People who have not been to the Middle East know what that means. I should think the hon. Gentleman knows what that means: the biggest black market free-for-all scramble there ever has been. That is what that means.

I put another Question on the same day and got a Written Answer. I was anxious to know what the cost of the build-up would be in Bahrain. There was all this stuff being moved, under the great plan, from Aden, from which we were withdrawing, to Bahrain, which we were to build up. Everybody was saying, "Do not worry about going out of Aden. That's all right. We are going to Bahrain." I had the feeling that to switch from one base to another might be a bit expensive. I have had several hunches, but it will now be even more expensive than I then thought. What about all that equipment?

What about the air-conditioned houses at Sharjah? Are they being demolished? They are only half-built now. What about all the accommodation in Bahrain? Is that being stopped now and nothing further done? If it is to be completed it will be very expensive, as we are getting out by 1971. If it is not to be completed, where will the troops be accommodated? It must be one way or the other.

In my Question I asked what the cost would be of transferring from Aden to Bahrain in 1967. The Answer was that it was very small in foreign exchange. The Minister said: The forecast foreign exchange cost of our forces in Bahrain including works costs in the current financial year is about £7 million."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th December, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 316.] I asked for that figure to be compared with the figure for 1955–56, which I chose fairly arbitrarily. The Answer the Department gave was that no records of such expenditure were kept in 1955–56. But there was a Senior Naval Officer in the Persian Gulf, if my recollection is correct, and he was based on Bahrain and had a staff. I believe that there were also some troops there.

We want to know, even at this late hour, what the balance sheet tots up to. The taxpayer foots the bill, and it is high time to stop this nonsense by which the move from Aden to Bahrain and from Bahrain to nowhere is all done in the name of economy. I have a shrewd suspicion that for its size it will turn out to be about the most expensive economy the Government have ever performed.

2.22 p.m.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds)

I was interested in some of the remarks of the hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe), and I assure him before going any further that the sums of money which have been talked about tonight, and even in the newspapers, are but the tiniest possible fraction of the tens of millions of pounds-worth of arms which were left in the Suez Canal base in 1956 and which have been used against us all over the Middle East ever since. Perhaps we can just leave the matter at that. If the hon. Gentleman wants to be objectionable to the present Government, there is a great deal one could remind him about concerning the amounts of money lost on equipment alone, apart from the airfields used by Russian aircraft in the past 10 years.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe

If I were the hon. Gentleman I should not use that argument. If I recollect correctly—and I was in the area at the time—it was the Labour Party that was most vocal in suggesting to us when we were in power that we should evacuate the Suez base, which it had helped build up.

Mr. Reynolds

I am not the hon. Gentleman and he is not me. He is criticising us over sums of money which are very small compared with what was deliberately left behind by the Administration which he supported in 1956, and which has been used against us ever since, as well as aerodromes used by Russian aircraft.

We are dealing with what happened to equipment and stores in Aden in 1967 before our withdrawal, and what has happened to them since. Some has gone to Sharjah and Bahrain. The hon. Gentleman asked about the build-up there. That was not the subject of the debate, which is on the much narrower ground that I was given notice of—the disposal of stores and equipment. But I do not deny that buildings are still being completed in Sharjah and Bahrain. We are still in the process of moving out as part of our redeployment from Aden, and it was recently announced by the Government that we shall leave the Gulf in about 1970–71. But that is some time away, and we shall have to spend a bit more money there putting in facilities needed in that climate for the troops in the next two or three years. We could not leave them there without some facilities still to be provided for the hot weather.

The main point of the debate is the question of what happened to the stores and other equipment in Aden when we left that area.

It was not just a question of getting stores and equipment out. There was the problem during 1967 of moving some 20,000 Servicemen and their families out t the same time. I regret that I still cannot give full information on the problem. Even the task of bringing out all the paper connected with the movement of stores was quite a job and some of it is still in Bahrein and being worked on there, while part of it is already in London. Again I cannot give complete information on this yet but I can give more than it has been possible to supply so far.

Khormakser is a civil airport and is not within my responsibility. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down Questions about it and we may be able to provide some information. Mostly during the latter stages of the run-down, some 48,539 tons of stores were brought out by ship during 1967 to the United Kingdom from Aden, while 68,009 tons were taken elsewhere, much of it to the Gulf. Aircraft moved 2,759 tons to the United Kingdom and 12,803 tons elsewhere, including the Gulf.

The total tonnage of equipment moved out of Aden during the withdrawal amounted to 132,110. Much of it came to the United Kingdom, much went to the Gulf and some elsewhere. I can give some breakdown. About 50 per cent. of the vehicles moved were Land Rovers, the remainder being heavier vehicles, some armoured. Altogether, 1,082 vehicles were taken to the Gulf during the period and 1,060 were brought here or elsewhere. This makes a total of 2,142 vehicles brought out during the withdrawal period. Again, 6,225 tons of ammunition and explosives were brought out to here, the Gulf or elsewhere. These were very large tonnages of material and they were taken out of Aden at a time when our forces were operating under exceedingly difficult conditions.

I turn now to individual pieces of equipment. A decision had to be taken about what was to happen to these. Some £400,000 worth of furniture was taken out from Aden to the Gulf because this was found to be cheaper than obtaining new furniture in London or elsewhere and taking that to the Gulf. There was a large quantity of furniture in Aden, and an investigation into costs took place to see whether it would be worthwhile to crate it all up and ship it here or to dispose of it in some other way. After the investigation, it was decided that it would not be economic to move the bulk of it and that it should be disposed of in the area by sale of one form or another. I will come to the question of the refrigerators later. Some were fixtures in the flats.

We took what we wanted to the Gulf. Some 20 per cent. of it was damaged on the way and is now being repaired. That is one of the problems in shifting bulky things liable to breakage. To do the job properly, one would have to package, and that would be very expensive. We took what we wanted and disposed of the balance locally.

We made disposals to the South Arabian Government and other Governments in the area but as it is not the practice to give details of arms sales to other Governments in the normal commercial pattern, I cannot tell the House who these other Governments were. But can give certain information about what was sold to the South Arabian Government and other Governments, mainly in that area. To the South Arabian Government, we sold nearly £1,200,000 worth of goods from stores in Aden. Some £65,000 worth of vehicles, £8,000 worth of arms. £806,000 worth of ammunition of all kinds and £316,000 worth of various technical and general stores were also sold.

A very large part of this will be met by transfer to the Ministry of Defence, because it formed part of the arms aid programme announced in this House. Money will be reimbursed to the Ministry of Defence's Vote from the Votes of other Departments. When one comes to sales to other Governments these totalled in the period £96,000, including £6,800 on vehicles, £32,000 on arms, £4,000 on ammunition and £53,000 worth of general technical stores of one kind or another. There is the full figure, but I cannot give details of which Governments actually purchased the equipment.

Then there were a number of local disposal sales. We disposed, either by tender or private treaty, of £283,581 worth of equipment, including the contract. The balance was sold to a local contractor who was responsible for taking it away afterwards. We then sold some material to other Governments amounting to £13,000 and we sold a certain amount, mainly bedding and light furniture and kitchen equipment, to the Servicemen who were living in married quarters. They were given the option of buying some of the stuff that we did not want to take elsewhere and bringing it home with them to the United Kingdom. There were difficulties about transport, as each Serviceman has a ration on the load that he can take with him by way of heavy baggage or on the aircraft.

Anything purchased in this way had to be brought back to the United Kingdom either in the normal free allowance or paid for at the proper rate. There was only a limited market and we sold £18,642 worth of goods, mainly bed linen and kitchen equipment to Service families, who took the stuff with them when they moved out of their married quarters on their way home. We sold £30,647 worth of goods to the landlords of hirings when we gave up the hirings. This is where the refrigerators mentioned by the hon. Gentleman come in. Refrigerators actually fixed in the flats when we handed over the flats to the landlords were in many cases bought. A number of other fittings and furniture in the hirings was also bought.

This covers the bulk of the sales other than to local Governments there. The hon. Member mentioned property handed over, and the Treasury Minute in the White Paper giving details of it. We discussed the position in 1966 with the local Government there and got agreement on which assets we would be handing over to them. They were mainly buildings of all kinds with fixtures such as air-conditioning, kitchen equipment. boilers and other things of that nature, which will make it possible to use the buildings for the purpose for which they were designed.

We realise that the local Government have no assets with which it would be able to pay for this particular property, so it was agreed to give them to the local Government, free of charge, and the value comes to £24.6 million. This is what is described as depreciated present day replacement cost, not the cost necessarily, but the amount that it has cost us over a period of years to provide accommodation and the facilities to which the hon. Gentleman referred in Little Aden, and what he called the mainland.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe

The hon. Gentleman speaks of the local Government. Is that what is in the Parliamentary Answer to my Question. Does he mean the Federal Government. If it is said that we can give it to local Government, then obviously do not sell it Is it given a notional value?

Mr. Reynolds

These assets were given to the local Government. When the discussions started it was the Government of the Federation of South Arabia. When we came out it was the Government which was formed only a matter of ten days before we left which took these assets from us. They were given to the local Government. The Government changed from the time of the original discussions until the time of handing over. We agreed also to hand them over in as satisfactory a condition as possible, so we included in the offer, some equipment, again mainly of the bulky type, which it would be uneconomic to bring back, such as school desks, hospital beds and other accommodation from hospitals, telephone exchanges and technical and medical equipment.

As the hon. Gentleman says, Cmnd. 3442 stated that the value was unlikely to exceed £1 million. I still cannot give the actual value of the stores—it is still being worked out but it will be some where between £500,000 and £1 million. I cannot go further than to say that it will not exceed £1 million for the assets that go with the building. This arrangement reflects the peculiar circumstances of our withdrawal from Aden, and cannot be regarded, any more than can other arrangements we have entered into with other countries, as a precedent for any future withdrawals that might take place.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the photographs that appeared in The Times and the Daily Telegraph on 23rd January, 1968. I understand that they were taken at Slave Island. In fact, the military forces in Aden have never had on Slave Island any military equipment such as that shown in the photographs. Looking at the photographs, one can only assume that the material was equipment purchased from us by various contractors and moved by them for their own purposes to Slave Island.

Painted on one lorry pictured one can see a lot number which, by the look of it, was put on in connection with the auction or whatever way the lorry was purchased. Again, one sees a large aero engine. This is a Centaurus engine, some 13 of which were disposed of in Aden in 1967 as scrap. The engines were from Beverley aircraft, which have virtually gone out of service with the R.A.F. The R.A.F. had no further use for them.

The hon. Gentleman referred to an the Sunday Telegraph on 3rd December. 1967, which spoke of some £10 million worth of stores having been left behind. I can tell the House that that figure bears no relation whatever to the facts of the situation. I am talking now of stores, not of the assets worth £24.6 million covered by the Treasury Minute. One must realise that in an area like Aden the wear and tear on vehicles is very high, and if vehicles are to be used for military purposes they must be in extremely good condition.

In Aden, in 1966, we sold as unsuitable for further military use some 700 vehicles, of which about 50 per cent. would be Landrovers, as they are much used there. During 1967 until we came out of Aden, we disposed of about 1,000 military vehicles—only 300 more than we disposed of in what could be regarded as a normal year—1966. Therefore, on the vehicle side, I do not think that anyone could claim that we left behind a lot more than the normal number of vehicles that are disposed of in any case. A number of vehicles were shipped round to the Gulf because, although they were to be disposed of, it was realised that more could be obtained for them there than in Aden.

Mr. Goodhart

If £10 million is not the right figure, can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the right figure is?

Mr. Reynolds

Not at the moment. I shall in due course, but the figures I have given form the bulk of the picture. Some of the material was deliberately left behind because it had been sold to local governments, and to the Government itself in the Republic of Southern Yemen. Not many more vehicles were sold than is normal.

I might add that we left quite a lot of naval fuel behind. Unfortunately the tanks holding it were so constructed that not all the fuel could be taken from them. About 11,522 tons of naval fuel were left in the bottom of the tanks. I was told that some of it would have had to be chipped out because it had solidified. It had a value of some £60,000. No one can be blamed for leaving that fuel at the bottom of the tanks but, theoretically, it was available there and, theoretically, it was worth £60,000. We did not get a penny for it and it is still there, but I doubt if it is a great deal of good to anyone.

One has to realise the general conditions in Aden during the whole period. The troops out there, and other people working with them were being constantly harassed in what we have grown used to regarding as a typical internal security situation. They also had to make alternative plans because they did not know the actual date of withdrawal until a few weeks before; they had to assume different dates and make checks on whether the plans should be brought up to date, or altered in any way so that the political options were left to the Government in London.

We had to set up a Port Operating Unit and it had to set up records of the tonnage it managed to get through the Port of Aden. We managed to clear, in the last few days, the vast bulk of all the stores which we wanted to bring out of Aden. Vehicles were virtually driven out of Crater straight on to the airfield and sent to the Gulf with men who only one and a half hours before had been on duty in Crater and other parts of Aden. All that happened reflects great credit on the staff planning the withdrawal of technical and other stores and munitions amounting to thousands of tons and credit on those responsible for the physical work of checking them out and getting them to the United Kingdom, to the Gulf and other parts. When the records are gathered together, we shall be able to give more information than we can now.

The figure for what we left behind in the Suez Canal has never yet been stated.