HL Deb 09 November 1999 vol 606 cc1252-4

2.52 p.m.

The Earl of Carlisle

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the Treasury's decision to bill the Ministry of Defence for the cost of operations in Kosovo and East Timor has affected the training, equipment programmes and morale of the Armed Forces.

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, the financial arrangements for ongoing operations in Kosovo and East Timor are not expected to affect the training, equipment programmes or morale of the Armed Forces. It has been agreed with Treasury colleagues that the reserve will cover the net additional costs of operations in Kosovo where the MoD cannot accommodate them without detriment to other commitments. Final decisions on the handling of the costs of East Timor operations have not yet been taken.

The Earl of Carlisle

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Was it not the case that the costs of the Gulf War and, indeed, the South Atlantic campaign were met in full from the Consolidated Fund? Will she make urgent representations to the Treasury that all the costs of the East Timor and the Kosovo campaigns are met out of that fund rather than from the grossly overstretched defence budget?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, I hope that I have given the noble Earl the reassurances he sought. The reserve will cover the costs of the operations in Kosovo where the MoD cannot accommodate them without detriment to the important points raised by the noble Earl; that is, recruitment, training, equipment programmes or morale in the Armed Forces. The question of East Timor, where costs are very much lower and the action is of recent history, is still under discussion with the Treasury. On the one hand we are talking about costs of some £100 million in relation to Kosovo; on the other, as far as concerns East Timor, we are talking about £7.5 million. However, I hope that the noble Lord is reassured by my comments on the Treasury reserve fund.

Baroness Williams of Crosby

My Lords, there are continuing problems facing refugees returning from West Timor to East Timor. I understand that probably another 200,000 are due to return to East Timor. Can the Minister give any idea of how long British forces are likely to be involved there in the near future?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, we have said that the British forces were going in for a limited period. As far as I am aware, there has been no review of such a period. If the position changes, I am sure that my right honourable friend Mr Hoon will make an announcement accordingly. However, until he does so, I believe we can rest on the position which was announced at the time that the Gurkhas went into East Timor. There has been no change as yet.

Lord Bramall

My Lords, perhaps I may crave the indulgence of the House for a moment in order to say how sad I am that this is the noble Earl's last Question in your Lordships' House.

Noble Lords

Hear hear!

Lord Bramall

The noble Earl speaks with passion, from the heart and without notes; all attributes that this House can ill afford to lose. I wish I could share the Minister's complacency about the defence vote when her Ministry is struggling desperately to correct manifest ills of undermanning and overstretch, and to enhance the confidence and commitment of those who serve. Does the Minister not accept that any additional burden such as this, accentuated ceaselessly by the arbitrary Treasury cuts of 3 per cent compound interest per annum presented on the palpably spurious grounds of efficiency savings, means in practice that all major votes on equipment, accommodation and training are now being seriously cut back and eroded?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, I agree warmly with the comments of the noble and gallant Lord in respect of the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle. We shall all miss his contributions, not only on defence matters. I think I can safely say that no one in your Lordships' House can rival the noble Earl's expertise on the Baltic states. That will be sorely missed by all of us, especially those who have answered his Questions on the subject.

Having said that, I disagree profoundly with the comments of the noble and gallant Lord regarding the MoD. There is absolutely no complacency in the MoD about our running costs. Perhaps I may remind him that we have attempted to deal with the question of overstretch, for example, by the withdrawal of troops at the height of our operations in Kosovo this year. We contributed 37.4 per cent of NATO's troops. We are now down to a contribution of 10.1 per cent. Far from retrenching on questions of training and morale, the MoD is investing more in such aspects, particularly on service morale. I refer, for instance, to more telephone calls for the families, introducing guaranteed periods of post-operational tour leave and a whole range of issues. The MoD is not retrenching but meeting these issues with considerable confidence.

Lord Marlesford

My Lords, is not the real point underlying the noble Earl's Question that we should seek to move to a system whereby any country providing armed forces under the authority of United Nations receives 100 per cent reimbursement of the cost from a fund to which all members of the United Nations contribute pro rata to their GDP?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, that is an interesting question. The noble Lord may be interested to know that it is exactly the one I asked officials when being briefed to answer this Question. Whether costs are repayable or eligible for sharing will always depend on the operation in question. We aim to use the appropriate arrangements for each of the operations in which we engage. NATO, for example, has an agreed set of funding principles for the peace support operations undertaken since the IFOR deployment in 1995. The noble Lord raises an important point, not only so far as concerns NATO, but so far as concerns the UN; it is one on which we should reflect.

Lord Burnham

My Lords, I seem to have been asking this question or questions like it with regard to operations in different countries ever since this Government came to power. Is it possible for Her Majesty's Government to develop a consistent policy whereby the costs of any foreign operations undertaken as a result of that policy are automatically covered by the Consolidated Fund and not out of the defence budget?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

My Lords, my colleagues in the MoD would be delighted were that to be the case. However, as the noble Lord knows, after 18 years of his party being in office these matters must be agreed throughout Whitehall. The scale and cost of different operations are enormously different. For example, Kosovo and Bosnia involved the deployment of thousands of troops at great cost to the defence budget. Access to the reserve was therefore essential if the government commitments under the SDR were not to be gravely damaged. That was the assurance I gave earlier to the noble Earl. But that is different from the scale of costs involved in other operations such as the ongoing operation in the Gulf and that in East Timor. The costs there are much lower. As the noble Lord is aware, it is normal for these matters to be discussed between the MoD and the Treasury with the Foreign Office also playing a role in the discussions.