House of Commons Hansard Debates for 5 Jun 1990

Column 558

Government love to bash managed their estates in the same way as the Ministry of Defence, the Government would soon push them into court.

Another important issue affecting morale is the ethnic composition of our armed forces, which still does not reflect the ethnic composition of our population. It is a complex problem and will continue to exist as long as the numbers coming into the forces are low. It is only as the numbers increase that the racism that exists in the services will decline.

The Peat Marwick McLintock report to which I referred in the Royal Air Force debate on 28 February said that the poor image of the services on racial issues was the single most important reason for low application rates. I hope that the Government will do more about that. Perhaps the Minister will say whether additional training for recruitment officers will be introduced. Will recruitment advertising be reorganised to present a more positive image of ethnic minorities? Above all, what steps do the Government propose to tackle racism in the services?

Another act of the Government which results in the loss of service personnel is the imposition of the poll tax on members of the armed forces. We have received a tremendous number of complaints. It is another example of the grotesque unfairness of the poll tax. A private soldier on about £7,600 a year will pay the same poll tax as a general on £72,000 a year. Service personnel on the same pay will pay widely differing rates of poll tax depending on where their barracks or married quarters are located. The quartering charges that were payable before 1 April have in many cases gone up more than tenfold. Service personnel in multi-room accommodation will pay the same as officers in single-room accommodation.

No one can tell me that the imposition of the poll tax on the members of our services is fair. Conservative Members have condemned the imposition of this charge on, for example, the Gurkhas. The hon. Member for Hampshire, East pointed to that grossly unfair demand on troops stationed in this country. That unfairness is compounded by the fact that foreign troops do not have to pay, but troops in the British service, even though they do not use many local authority facilities, have to pay the poll tax.

One of the most disturbing events in the past year, certainly for me and for other hon. Members who have a respect for our serving soldiers and who served in the Army, was the publication of the book "The New Model Army" by Michael Yardley and Dennis Sewell, who are former cavalry officers. Their claim of

"undeniable symptoms of moral decay"

in a system that rewards "ruthless careerism", and tolerates bullying in an organisation that contains

"the worst racial bigots in Society"

is extremely disturbing. [Interruption.]

Those criticisms are voiced by two former cavalry officers and not by the National Council for Civil Liberties or by someone from the Labour party. The criticisms come from two of the Army's own. I know that Conservative Members will feel vindictive towards those two officers, who have probably voted Tory all their lives, but they should at least listen to what those men have to say. I am not saying that their views are shared by me or any of my hon. Friends. The two ex-cavalry officers say more philosophically that the Army is

Column 559

"divorced from the body of the nation tolerated by the rest of the community either because we do not know what is going on or do not want to know."

Those are matters for debate, but they also accuse the Army of being a professionally competent but often brutalised elite which deliberately keeps aloof from the society it serves, and that is a matter of great concern. I am not quite sure about the motives of the two ex-officers in writing the book, but Conservative Members will applaud me when I say that I do not go along with their prescription for what they call a new model army.

The two ex-officers have come up with the idea of voluntary national service

"to keep youngsters off the dole queue"

in order to relate the Army more to the community that it serves. That would be accompanied by a home defence force, the members of which would keep their weapons and ammunition at home. That is said to be

"not dissimilar to the rifle volunteers of the late Victorian era."

I know that that will strike a chord with the Prime Minister, but it fills me and my hon. Friends with great alarm.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden) : The hon. Gentleman earlier praised the Army for its proficiency, and he included other ingredients that made it what he thought was a thoroughly commendable institution. Does he agree with the criticisms that he has just read to the House?

Mr. Rogers : My experience of the Army goes back some 30 years, so I have to admit that perhaps in this context I am out of touch with the Army as it exists now. As I have said, these were comments not by the NCCL but by ex-cavalry officers. I understand that the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) served as a captain in the Army. He is aware of the structure of the Army and the elitism that exists within it. I should have thought that some of the criticisms are justified. Without saying whether I agree with them, I have to say that I am worried that they have been made. I am also concerned about the wall of silence surrounding the book. The Government have made no comment on it since it was published in September, and that is a little disturbing.

Many procurement issues are linked to the inevitable decline in the number of people in our Regular Army. One of the most important decisions will be that about the Challenger 2 tank. Its procurement will have to be critically examined, because it will reach its third milestone test in September, which is just 12 weeks away. The examination should be most urgent. I hope that the Government are aware of the severe economic and industrial consequences on the areas concerned that will flow from their decision. I hope that they will firmly consider the Challenger 2 over and above tanks from any other country.

Another procurement decision that causes concern relates to the third- generation anti-tank guided weapons system, the TRIGAT family. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what is to happen about that. It seems that the future of the programme is in doubt, first on the ground that it may not have the ability or the capacity to penetrate some of the new types of armour that have been developed, and secondly, I understand, on the ground that the premise of great tank battles is no longer valid. There is no up- to-date

Column 560

information about how the project is faring in meeting its milestones, or even what targets have been set. Perhaps the Minister can tell us something about that.

Another uncertainty in procurement is the future requirement for military helicopters, including those for the Army. Originally, the need for greater air mobility was seen as a response to a specific Warsaw pact threat in central Europe and there was a widespread perception that this would require more and better helicopters for the Army. This threat has disappeared, but the case for air mobility and more helicopters is being presented as a response to the new situation--the development of a flexible, mobile Army. Perhaps the Minister can give us an idea of what the Government intend to do about helicopter equipment for all the forces.

As I said at the outset, change has been thrust upon us by the momentous events in eastern Europe. Change can take place in different ways--in a purely reactive manner, waiting for events to pressure the changes, a la the Secretary of State, or in a simplistic way, by drawing up a list, a la the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. It can also take place in a reasonable, structured and orderly fashion, attempting to maintain morale, to retain manpower, and to ease job and company losses in critical procurement sectors. The Opposition would choose that latter option. The sooner the Government get out and let us take the decisions on the country's defence, the better.

Several Hon. Members rose--

Mr. Speaker : Order. I remind the House that the 10-minute limit on speeches will operate from 7 o'clock.

6.42 pm

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith (Wealden) : The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) made a number of interesting points, some of which we can only profoundly disagree with. I am tempted to follow him down some of the paths that he has trodden so delicately, but I fear that I should outstay my welcome if I did, because I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to speak. I have a number of points that I wish to make on my own account. However, I was glad to hear that the hon. Gentleman does not expect any quick fix to the problems of defence or any quick peace dividend. I hope that that message will go as loud and clear from the Opposition Benches as it has from the Government Benches. It is important that the public understand this.

We all know that my right hon. and hon. Friends with responsibility for defence have a most difficult task. They have to determine how far it would be wise to reduce expenditure on defence or to reduce the size of the armed forces in a period of uncertainty and instability, as my hon. Friend the Minister called it. They must be seen to respond to the promising developments in eastern Europe, while still protecting the essential fabric and integrity of the armed forces. They must be aware that prudence will no doubt be denounced by people impatient for what they call a peace dividend. That is why I am so pleased that the hon. Member for Rhondda spoke as he did. They will be challenged by others to justify the continued existence of the NATO alliance. However, I am confident that, in laying their plans for the future, the Government--I hope that the Opposition will go along with them on this--will recognise that, at this time and for the foreseeable future,

Column 561

to call for the demise of NATO would be short-sighted, unrealistic and ultimately damaging to the long-term cause of peace and stability.

If hon. Members think that that is going too far, let me remind them of the recent debate in plenary session of the North Atlantic Assembly, when delegates from 16 countries discussed the future of the alliance. There was overwhelming support--which embraced all sections of major political parties in western Europe--for a resolution stating that membership of a united Germany in NATO was essential for security in Europe. The German delegation agreed that Germany could not be neutral. It was led by one of Germany's senior spokesmen on defence matters, from the SDP.

Secondly, the resolution asserted that the Conference on Security and Co- operation in Europe has an indispensable role to play in Europe which should not be thought of as a substitute for the alliance, which remains essential to western security. Thirdly, the resolution advocated an enhanced political role in NATO in view of the decline of the military threat. We warmly support that. Fourthly, it called for the creation of a true European pillar within the alliance. Fifthly, it urged the assembly to establish ties with eastern European Parliaments and to contribute to the building of democracy. It also agreed on the necessity to have a north American presence. That is a substantial agenda for an organisation that has helped to preserve the peace of the world.

Mr. Tony Banks : The North Atlantic Assembly is bound to pass such a resolution. The desire for a united Germany in NATO might have been expressed by the representatives of the Federal Republic at the Assembly, but, according to the latest opinion polls in both East and West Germany, that is not the opinion of the German people, who would like a demilitarised zone around their country, with the withdrawal of both Soviet and American troops.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith : I am sorry to have to tell the hon. Gentleman that he misunderstands the purpose of the North Atlantic Assembly. It is not composed of paid officials or of people who subscribe to the views of NATO. It is composed freely of representatives of the Parliaments who come there and debate solidly. All kinds of criticisms fly around, but it would be unwise of the hon. Gentleman to dismiss with contumely what I have said. The Government of the Federal Republic strongly believe in a united Germany and that that united Germany should be part of NATO. I regard the views expressed by Chancellor Kohl as carrying far more weight than the public opinion polls mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. The German people are the very people who supported his idea for unity, knowing very well for what it is that he is asking.

We all know that there is room for manoeuvre and debate--we have all heard my hon. Friend the Minister--in respect of East Germany and what, when it becomes part of a united Germany, should be the position of the troops of the Warsaw pact, of the Soviet Union and NATO. That is a strong view. Even if the hon. Gentleman does not agree with me, he should agree that a wide number of issues demand the continued presence of NATO. The hon. Gentleman should welcome rather than deplore the agenda that I set out.

Column 562

We should not forget that one of the great benefits of NATO is that it is the only defence organisation in the world that has the integrated military structure, the resources and plans to enable it to take the prompt action necessary to protect the security of the nations that belong to it and, if necessary, the security of Europe as a whole. To dismantle it at this time in our history would undo all the progress that we have made in the past 40 years. Therefore, I hope that we shall hear little from Opposition Members, and certainly not from those on the Front Bench--I am glad to have the nodding head of agreement from the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes)--about dismantling NATO in the foreseeable future. At least there is one voice of agreement there, and we shall hear from the hon. Gentleman when he winds up for the Opposition.

I recognise that NATO will have to change as events develop. No one should say that it should be frozen as events were frozen during the cold war. If, as seems inevitable, nations move to smaller forces, this should increase the incentive to produce a more rational defence effort through such innovations as role specialisation. I understand that it is ludicrously expensive for nations to cover the gamut of their defence needs. They have to co-operate more closely with other nations. Therefore, in their options for change, I hope that the Government will develop their own ideas for a more effective distribution of roles and missions within the alliance.

My hon. Friend the Minister has already spoken about the formation of multinational units, and I am glad that he took such a positive approach to this. As he knows, NATO's integrated command structure is integrated not only at headquarters level but down to Army level. The creation of a multinational corps comprising several national divisions would, in my view, be practical. As is recognised by most people on both sides of the argument--it was certainly recognised by the hon. Member for Rhondda--too many reductions would mean a not very practicable force. The United Kingdom -Netherlands amphibious force provides us with a good model on which to base any further expansion.

When restructuring our forces, we should above all avoid making short-term salami cuts for the sake of economy. That would pose a danger that has caused chronic problems in most other countries that have faced the same difficulties. Such economies usually prove expensive in the long run : they demoralise the armed forces, and leave them thoroughly ill balanced and incapable of fulfilling any military role. The result is a shambles.

The Army has had to face some pretty drastic changes in the past. In 1957, when conscription ended, it became an all-volunteer force, relying on the Territorial Army for further expansion. It weathered the storm, but the 1960s and 1970s brought both amalgamations and disbandments. When the previous Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), was a Back Bencher, he and I would carry into the House ballot box after ballot box loaded with requests for us to save the Argylls. Thank goodness we had the sense to do so. We do not want to go through that again if we can help it.

During the past 33 years--since the end of conscription--our all-volunteer Army has served us well. It has, on the whole, been well equipped and exceedingly well led, and its soldiers have attained the highest professional standards.

Column 563

A criticism by two officers was mentioned by the hon. Member for Rhondda ; I do not know how an army with such a background could achieve the reputation that our Army has achieved, not only in this country but worldwide. The nation has every right to be proud of its bearing, and greatful for what it has done. We simply cannot afford to destroy the best of what we have built. Events may require a smaller Army, but it must nevertheless be capable of sustaining its skills.

Let me seek two specific assurances from the Government. The first concerns the best use of a demographically shrinking and increasingly valuable commodity--manpower and womanpower. The second concerns the need to prevent short-term financial measures from causing irreparable damage to defence research and development. Such programmes increasingly underpin the fighting capabilities of our armed forces. Their morale must not be harmed ; they should have well-defined roles, and be capable of rapid expansion from a firm and stable base should conditions for preserving the peace deteriorate. If all that is to be done, as economically as possible, our smaller Regular Army will depend more than ever on a rapid reinforcement capability, provided by a well trained and well equipped Territorial Army. I hope that the Ministers have considered the concept of integrating regular and TA units. They may also have considered providing more support units for the Regular Army from the TA. Such measures may help us to avoid having to disband overstretched regiments, with all the attendant pain, anguish and damage to Army traditions that we experienced in the 1960s and 1970s.

We must, of course, look to the Government to provide the necessary financial incentives for the TA and the reserve forces, but I believe that a trade-off will be possible. There will be a greater proportion of troops in the front-line combat formations in a smaller Regular Army, ready at short notice to carry out peacekeeping roles and to cope with emergencies before they escalate. A reduction in the Army's presence in Europe could lead to a recognition that we can play a stabilising and peacekeeping role in some areas outside Europe, along with our European allies. Unlike other hon. Members, I am thinking less of eastern Europe than of places perhaps more significant to our national interests : I have in mind the threats posed from the Gulf, the middle east and north Africa. Thinking along such lines could lead to important changes in the equipment and roles of our armed forces.

As I have said, my second point concerns research and development. The days when British forces kept the peace, or skirmished with lightly armed but intrepid fuzzy-wuzzies, are, of course, long past. Not so long ago--between the two world wars--we allowed not only the manpower of our army, but the quality and modernity of its equipment, to decline. The dismal result has been that, too often in our history, our men have had to fight using the weapons, tactics and ideas of a previous war.

Today--leaving aside the strength and quality of the Soviet armed forces, which will clearly remain prodigious for some time--quite minor powers are extremely well equipped, possessing superior, sophisticated conventional electronic equipment, chemical warfare weapons and ballistic missiles. In the not too distant future, we shall witness the application of artificial intelligence systems on the battlefield.

Column 564

No doubt the Treasury has already fixed its jaundiced eye on the £450 million spent on research by the Ministry of Defence. We should accept that modern armies may not always have the gold- plated equipment that they so often desire, but R and D is the seedcorn : if I may change my metaphor, it cannot be switched on and off. Its future demands the most careful planning, not only for our Army's sake but for the sake of our defence-based industries. I hope that I shall not be accused of taking advantage of my connection with MEL, a defence subsidiary of Philips.

In today's more technical world, a smaller army will depend more than ever on the right scientific and technical back-up and will require its skills to be tested continually by the fruits of research. If Ministers must deny the Army the production orders that it seeks, I ask them to stand firm on the need for development--at least up to prototype stage--and for the technical demonstration tests that can do so much to decide whether a piece of equipment should be ordered.

If the Government adopt such measures, should technical innovation threaten the balance and efficiency of our forces or a new threat loom on the horizon, we shall be able to retain in the United Kingdom--or in conjunction with our NATO allies--a sound base on which to expand and meet the new conditions. I wish my right hon. Friends every success in their endeavour.

6.57 pm

Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East) : In the past year, single- service debates have given us the opportunity to consider some rather wider issues--as was eloquently demonstrated in the tour d'horizon with which the Minister favoured the House. The theme of his remarks was change, and the need for its acceptance--a prospect that perhaps bears more accurately on the Army than on the other two services.

The changes in Europe will undoubtedly result in a reduction in the British Army of the Rhine ; undoubtedly, the purpose for much of our Army procurement and deployment will be overtaken by the substantial political and, subsequently, military changes that have occurred in Europe, especially in the past 12 months. If we are to have more mobile and flexible forces--forces that are leaner and meaner--the great debate about tanks versus helicopters will have to reach some conclusion.

Perhaps that conclusion will be provoked by the arrival of September, when we shall reach an important staging post in the determination of which tank is to be favoured. Perhaps, however, a more fundamental and radical question should be whether we should consider replacing the tank at all. That is one of the important issues that are undoubtedly being considered in connection with the options for change, to which I shall return shortly.

The much publicised desire of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to get £1 billion out of the defence budget is the wrong way to approach the changing landscape presented by defence issues. Would not the proper way be to assess the nature of the threat, determine the means necessary to meet it and then to budget to provide those means? Whether it is the Chief Secretary trying to get £1 billion off the defence budget or the annual conference of the Labour party voting to take £5 billion off it, each is as flawed as the other.

Column 565

Approaching the issue from a budgetary viewpoint may result in precisely the sort of defects to which the hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) eloquently referred. It was notable that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) placed great stress on the criticism of the options for change. That criticism would have had more force had it contained some recanting of the decision taken by the annual conference of the Labour party last September. If the nature of the threat has changed, and if the threat is reduced--which is generally accepted--there appears to be a more widespread acceptance in the House that there is no guarantee that there will be an immediate financial dividend. If there is to be a meaner and leaner force, we shall be looking for better equipment and conditions. If we are endeavouring to meet the demands of the demographic trough, with the forces trying to attract people of the right calibre, good conditions--not just of housing, but of holidays and pay--will be important factors. The forces will have to be better trained, which will be relatively more expensive than it is now. Those who claim that there is an immediate peace dividend and that money can be swapped from one column to another--that it can be spent on health, education or other areas thought to be more socially desirable--fail to address the considerable financial consequences that will undoubtedly follow the necessary restructuring of the forces.

I cannot understand why the Government will not embark upon a full-scale defence review, especially as NATO is about to embark upon such a review, in which the issues of flexible response and forward defence will be up for debate. During the next month or so, consideration will be given to whether to adopt a policy of no first use for nuclear weapons. Those would be fundamental changes in NATO's doctrine. Why, then, are the Government so reluctant to embark upon a parallel examination of the United Kingdom position through a full-scale defence review?

I do not doubt that, in the foreseeable future, the need for NATO will remain. I understand the aspirations of those who wish for a different architecture for the security of Europe to be created through the conference on security and co-operation in Europe. However, we must remember that that organisation, as currently constituted, has certain inherent defects. For example, it operates only if there is unanimity. It includes such great military powers as San Marino. In its present form, it is not qualified for the sort of tasks that many people wish it to undertake. Unless and until it becomes so qualified, NATO will have to remain, although not necessarily in its present form, with its present priorities and subject to its present doctrines. It is essential that NATO maintains a unanimity of purpose. It is essential that, as far as possible, we ensure that the 16 countries of NATO stay together in a unanimity of purpose on how security can best be maintained.

During the past two or three days, Mr. Gorbachev has been at pains to argue that we should not use the language of winners and losers in relation to NATO and the Warsaw treaty organisations. One could say, "He would, wouldn't he?" His organisation has collapsed ; it is NATO that has been sustained. It is hardly surprising that he would like to devaluate NATO and to suggest that its

Column 566

purpose has been achieved. There is no sensible option for the long-term security of Europe other than that a united Germany should remain in NATO.

There may be scope for imaginative protocols and arrangements that deal with the necessary steps to allay the apprehension and concern of the Soviet Union. In that, we may balance the question of how much we should give to ensure that Mr. Gorbachev does not come under unreasonable pressure. There are all sorts of sophisticated judgments to be made, but central to them and the basis on which they can properly be made is the general acceptance that a unified Germany within NATO will provide a keystone to the future security of Europe.

The issues that we are discussing should be the subject of a more open debate, as they are in the United States. Indeed, the defence periodicals from America tell us much about the Government's policies to which we do not have access in this country. There is a much publicised memorandum from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. I think that many of the assumptions in that memorandum are deeply flawed and I should like to offer my assistance to the Secretary of State and his Ministers. I believe that common sense would be sufficient to persuade the Minister that there are flaws in his memorandum. As a precursor to the annual debate on the defence estimates, I suggest that that much-publicised memorandum be placed in the Library, where we can all see it. It could then form the basis of an intelligent exchange of views so that we can all share in the thinking of Defence Ministers.

We are discussing extremely important issues that change their character almost daily. Many of the decisions that will be made in the United Kingdom during the next six to 12 months will have far-reaching consequences. That being so, they should be made against the background of an informed, constructive and, if necessary, noisy debate about where the best interests of the United Kingdom lie. In the resolution of these issues, there is little doubt that the British Army will continue to play an important role. I join others in paying tribute to its achievements, not least in Northern Ireland.

7.8 pm

Mr. Michael Mates (Hampshire, East) : Because it is such a rare event, I must be careful not to be too enthusiastic in agreeing with one part of what was said by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). I very much agree with what he said about the unfairness of the community charge on service men in general and on Ghurkas in particular. The Ghurkas are my constituents and my objections are well known and well publicised. I do not say that simply to criticise the Government. I hope that I am being constructive, because I know that it was not the wish of the Ministry of Defence. Unfortunately, the argument with the Department of the Environment and the Treasury was lost and, rightly, Defence Ministers must now live with that collective decision. However, as there is now a review of the community charge, I very much hope that, as a result of the debate and because of what I and my hon. Friends have said both publicly and privately, this matter will be put before it.

Unlike some of the other measures which seem to be needed for the community charge, this costs nothing and it will put right an injustice which has been strongly felt within the armed services, whose personnel are unique in

Column 567

that they cannot choose where to live and, as a result of the circumstances in which they find their posting, are forced to pay the community charge. We should go back to an average share, which is what they paid under the old rating system, and which would be seen to be fair. Of course they must contribute, but a soldier may have a £500 fine attached to his posting which he cannot choose and that is seen as genuinely unfair. I hope that the Ministry will put that matter into the melting pot of discussions that are taking place at the moment.

Since we last had a service debate, the Select Committee has lost one of its members. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) has left as result of his resigning the Labour Whip. Much as I deeply resent the personal attacks that he has made on me behind my back and to the press in articles which are patently untrue and which are the subject of a complaint to the Press Council, it would be churlish of me not to record his valuable service during six years on the Committee, where his experience and expertise and the diligence with which he carried out his duties have been much appreciated by all his colleagues on both sides of the Committee. We are sorry to see him go.

We welcome in the hon. Member's place the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). I hope that he will be happy serving with us. He maintains the 75 per cent. of Scots on the Opposition side of the Committee, for reasons which are best known to the Labour party, and which I would not try to analyse. I think that the sole English Labour Member had hoped for a little reinforcement, but I have no doubt that he will be happy with what he has got. I must make brief remarks about the sixth report of the Committee on the fiscal security of military installations in the United Kingdom. Much has been said of the terrorist threat and I do not need to go over the background, but it was in the light of the enhanced threat and, most particularly, following the explosion at the Royal Marines school of music at Deal on 22 September 1989 in which 11 bandsmen were killed, that the Committee decided to follow up the report which the previous Committee had made in 1984. That report had concentrated on the future security arrangements for the royal ordnance factories and on the threat to the security of nuclear bases arising from protesters at that time which, thankfully, has now passed.

We devoted 20 paragraphs of our report to the security arrangements at royal ordnance factories, now under private ownership. We are not wholly satisfied with what we found. We doubt whether the Ministry of Defence was acting quite straightforwardly in 1988 in permitting MOD police to be replaced at Blackburn and Birtley by commercial security guards. We do not criticise the replacement of MOD police at Westcott and Bishopton by the new Royal Ordnance plc guard force, but we are anxious that the Ministry of Defence should take steps to remove the impression that the level of security has been lowered and that the Department should continue to take a close and informed interest in royal ordnance security arrangements.

Dr. Godman : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mates : The 10-minute rule is in operation, but I shall give way.

Column 568

Dr. Godman : In paragraph 75 of the report, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues talk about the need to monitor the quality of the police force at Bishopton. How would that monitoring take place?

Mr. Mates : I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman at length now. I am sorry to be restricted in my remarks. However, my hon. Friend the Minister has heard what he said, and it is his job to do exactly that. If I may go on to answer some of the other recommendations that we have made, I hope that that will help the hon. Gentleman. That interest also applies to the other five royal ordnance factories, where both the Ministry and the police forces involved seek the continuation of an MOD police presence alongside a company guard force. Royal Ordnance has restricted the extra costs--around £1.2 million a year--which that would involve, but British Aerospace was well aware of the special position of MOD police at royal ordnance factories when it purchased the company. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to reassure us that a proper solution has now been found to the question of security arrangements at royal ordnance factories and that the company has accepted the expert advice of the Ministry of Defence and local police officers. However, our major concern is with the growing use by the Ministry of Defence of commercial security companies. So far as we were able to publish them, the facts are set out in the report. About 56 sites are commercially guarded, at an annual cost of about £5 million. That is not a major financial commitment, and the vast majority of MOD and service sites are not commercially guarded. It is important to keep the matter in perspective. Commercial guarding is primarily used to release service personnel for other tasks. As we say in the report, "It is a fundamental part of the duties of service personnel to protect themselves and their bases."

That must not be overlooked.

However, such guarding duties mean that service personnel are not free to carry out other tasks for which they are trained. That makes the use of commercial security firms attractive. There are alternatives to replacing or supplementing service men with commercial security firms. Ministry of Defence police, who have full police powers and training, are already stretched and are expensive. The Royal Air Force has its own police force, over 3,000 strong. But the main policy choice lies between an expanded MOD civilian guard force and the wider use of contractors.

From our examination of the experience which the services and the MOD have had with commercial security companies and of the screening by such companies of potential employees, we cannot accept that further contracts should be awarded for commercial security guarding. As for existing contracts, many are apparently being satisfactorily performed, and the service directors of security showed no desire to lose the services of the companies concerned.

We would like tougher enforcement by the MOD of contractual sanctions against those companies which have not come up to scratch. At the moment, it seems that unsatisfactory levels of performance are tolerated for far too long because termination would leave a site unguarded. We recommend a searching review during the next few years of the security implications of using

Column 569

commercial guards at every site where they are used and that consideration be given in every case to the possibility of replacement by an MOD guard force.

At the moment, the Ministry of Defence is getting what it pays for, no more and no less. In some cases it is a second-rate service and so a potentially dangerous one. Either it must spend more on getting a better service or provide it itself through direct employment of a guard force. As a politician and a former soldier, all my instincts point to the latter as the more sensible course of action. I had hoped to make a few remarks on my own account about the wider scene as it affects the Army, but this is the first time that I have been caught by the 10-minute rule while having to speak on behalf of my Committee, to which I thought my first duty lay. Therefore, I shall simply say one thing.

A robust debate is going on inside and outside the Ministry of Defence about the options for the future, and that is right. I know, perhaps more than most at the moment, that everything that one reads in the newspaper about oneself is not true, and I am sure that that also applies to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. He has always had robust views on defence, some of which I have agreed with and some of which I have not, but all of which I have always enjoyed debating with him.

I advise one word of caution to everybody everywhere, inside and outside the House, when we are discussing the future structure of our services : do not let us forget or put in jeopardy the most precious asset that those services have--the men and women who serve in them. It is in that regard that talk of numbers, of battalions, of ships, of specific reductions long before we have had a chance maturely to decide what the residual threat is, if any, and where it is likely to occur, is putting the cart before the horse.

I am not alleging that my hon. Friend's remarks in that regard were correctly quoted : I make no comment about that, because I do not know. However, it behoves all of us to conduct the debate in a rational way, and that means to look at what is the residual threat, what it is that we shall need, the sort of way in which we must approach the matter and what the new NATO will look like. Then and only then should we start talking about numbers, places and people. To allow our service men to continue to operate in that area of uncertainty is bad for their morale, and bad for us as responsible people conducting this debate, and it serves nobody's interests. 7.18 pm

Mr. Calum Macdonald (Western Isles) : I want to argue this evening in favour of a radical review of, and eventually a radical reduction in, the defence budget and in NATO's overall defence budget. Now that the era of east-west confrontation is drawing to a close, we have a golden opportunity to begin to realise what has been referred to as the peace dividend. I take on board the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) that it will be difficult to realise that dividend--which is why I go further than some of my hon. Friends might wish to go, and further than my party has gone in its latest policy document, "Looking to the Future".

Column 570

The inevitable consequence of the radical reduction in defence spending now in prospect, combined with the increasing costs of military technology and development, is that the days of national armies in Europe are fast drawing to a close. Political logic and hard economics point to a future in which multinational armies will be trained and deployed together, use the same equipment, follow the same procedures and doctrines, and serve together as a single collective defence force.

In Europe, the natural focus for such a multinational defence force is the European Community. The long-term consequence--and by the long term, I mean the end of this decade or the beginning of the next century--of the ending of the cold war in Europe will be the establishment of what will be to all intents and purposes a European Community army backed up, as it must be, by common Community defence and foreign policy.

I take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the officers and men of the various regiments of the Army and the Army Air Corps who played host to three parliamentary colleagues and myself over the past year, when we participated in the armed forces parliamentary scheme. The insight that I gained from that experience into the day-to-day workings and conditions of service men has proved invaluable. It certainly confirmed my admiration for the Army's high standards of professionalism and service. I pay tribute also to the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) for organising that scheme, and to the Minister and his officials at the Ministry of Defence, who helped the scheme along.

One strong impression that I gained from participating in that scheme was the huge impact of the poll tax on service men and the resentment that that is causing. Soldiers are experiencing the inequity and raw injustice of the poll tax in perhaps its starkest form. It is impossible to defend a situation in which a private soldier is expected to pay the same poll tax as a general. The Government will pay a high political price for that among many of their traditional supporters in the armed services.

Last month, I organised, together with the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), the first ever east-west conference of young elected politicians from almost all the countries of east, west and central Europe- -including members of the USSR Supreme Soviet and politicians from north America. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces kindly attended and addressed that conference.

It was a great delight to spend time in the company of those young parliamentarians from the new democracies of eastern and central Europe. No one could do so without realising that the basic assumptions that previously underpinned British defence policy--based on the cold war and on confrontation between east and west--have collapsed. The great need now is to build a new policy on new foundations, based on a radical and searching review of our future defence requirements.

Everyone recognises the need for that--except, apparently, the British Government. Articles appear daily on that subject, and no intelligent debate on the armed forces could possibly take place without at least the outline of a fundamental defence review being sketched out--yet we are forced to conduct tonight's debate in a vacuum because of the Government's continuing and bizarre refusal even to acknowledge the need for such a review.

It is ironic that no country of the west needs the peace dividend more than the United Kingdom, because of its

Column 571

traditionally high defence expenditure, yet no Government appears more reluctant to grasp that dividend than the present British Government. The strain on Britain's resources of sustaining a cold war military commitment over the past 40 years has been immense. In fact, it has been crippling. The cuckoo in the nest of our defence budgets has been our commitment to the central front. The cold war is over, the Warsaw pact is finished, and the USSR by itself no longer presents a realistic military threat to the west. Now is the time to begin to cast off our crippling burden of defence expenditure. The Government plead the case for caution, yet other countries are forging ahead. The forthcoming United States defence budget will incorporate substantial cuts, and West Germany has announced a prospective reduction in its armed forces of almost 20 per cent. Those Governments recognise that, although there are worries surrounding the chaotic collapse of the Soviet empire, those worries are more for the Soviet peoples themselves than a realistic military danger to us.

As Jonathan Dean, the former United States ambassador to the MBFR talks recently argued, a 50 per cent. cut in NATO equipment and personnel over the next decade could realise defence budget savings of up to 30 per cent.- -about $100 billion across NATO as a whole at today's prices. It is surely madness to tie up that money in arms and weapons one day longer than necessary when there are other, more urgent priorities to be met-- particularly environmental priorities. We ought to begin now the long-term withdrawal of the British Army of the Rhine as such and of RAF Germany from the central region. If British soldiers remain on the European continent into the next century, they should so so as part of a genuine European multinational force supported primarily out of Community funds. In that way, we could ensure that the future burden would be equally shared instead of falling disproportionately upon British taxpayers, as it has in the past.

That returns me to the need for closer European Community co-operation on defence. Even with today's inflated defence budgets, it is increasingly uneconomic for the nation states of western Europe to fulfil their procurement needs independently. It makes more and more sense to collaborate and procure jointly. At a time when defence budget cuts of 30 to 50 per cent. are being contemplated, individual national procurement policies will become simply impossible. I realise that I am going further than my party's official policy and the views of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, I believe that we need to enter in the future into an intimate collaboration of Community nations in both the procurement of weapons and the actual deployment of forces--including a possible single Community army. That will inevitably entail the convergence of national defence and foreign policies in Europe into a single Community policy. Such developments are not only inevitable because of the new context created by the ending of the cold war, and by the hard economic constraints that will be the direct consequence of major defence cuts, but are to be welcomed.

7.27 pm

Sir Antony Buck (Colchester, North) : The hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) will forgive me if I do not follow him too much, save to comment that

Column 572

I disagree profoundly with the proposition that he put forward. I disagree with it almost as profoundly as I suspect and hope that members of the Labour Front Bench disagree with it. Unilateral cuts of the magnitude suggested by the hon. Member for Western Isles would be catastrophic for our own defence posture and for that of NATO. We have had success in MBFR, and the START talks have offered considerable possibilities all the way through because we maintain a sensible and strong defence posture. I was gladdened that that was substantially on the basis of cross-party agreement. I suspect that views of the type expressed by the hon. Member for Western Isles are being increasingly adopted by Labour, which will cause it to be regarded with great suspicion, and rightly so, by the electorate generally.

I commend the fact that we are having this single-service debate. I was profoundly sceptical about the reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence, with the abolition of single-service Ministers, because it seemed to be appropriate that there should be a Minister answerable in this place for each of the services. Those of us who did not like the reorganisation were reassured that there would be a single-service debate homing in on each of the three services--Navy, Army and Air Force--so that matters of relative detail could be aired on the Floor of the House from time to time, in the way that they ought to be aired.

I have the privilege of representing a substantial part of a garrison town- -Colchester--which I share with my right hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Wakeham). I am proud to represent that constituency, which contains such a strong military element. During the quarter of a century and more that I have had the pleasure to represent the area, I have received nothing but kindness from the military, which is exemplified by the fact that I was dined out by the military corrective training centre just before my recent marriage. I was given a party at the centre and they strongly advised that I stay under custody for the evening because they had every intention of getting me above the level of 80 mg per 100 ml. I think they only marginally succeeded, but it was an interesting place to spend a couple of nights before one's wedding.

Speaking more seriously, the military corrective training centre is a splendid organisation. One of the triumphs of the Government is that the centre has been rebuilt. When I first became the Member of Parliament for Colchester, the centre was in tin nissen huts. It was the last military establishment in such huts. For years I campaigned for it to be rebuilt, and at last we got it. The former Secretary of State, my right hon Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), opened the centre a couple of years ago and it was a splendid occasion. I pay tribute to the work that the centre does. Considerable lessons are to be learnt by civilian prisons from the way in which it is organised. The centre has of course the advantage that all the soldiers under sentence are young and that there is a high ratio of soldiers under sentence to staff. My hon. Friends who are worried about the organisation of prisons should make an in-depth visit to the military corrective training centre, because there is much to be learned there.

It is a great privilege to represent Colchester, North. I have also been privileged to visit armed forces in all parts of the globe, wherever they serve. Some years ago I visited the Falklands as I led the first parliamentary delegation to the islands after the confrontation with the Argentinians.

Next Section

Home Page