House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Oct 1991

Mr. Churchill (Davyhulme) : It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas). May I say how much his colleagues on the Defence Select Committee miss him now that he is no longer with us?

This has been one of the most crucial debates on the defence estimates that I can recall in the 21 years that I have had the privilege to serve in this House. One must ask whether those on the Treasury Bench are listening to the House, to the Army and to the country. The Secretary of State has, understandably, made much of the transformation of the Soviet threat and the collapse of the Warsaw pact. We all rejoice that the nations of eastern Europe,

Column 212

after 50 years of occupation, first by the Nazis and then the Soviets, have rejoined the ranks of free nations. It is right that we should take full account of that when readjusting our defence dispositions.

Since the publication of "Options for Change" in July last year, we have had to fight an unforeseen middle east war and there has been a Stalinist coup in the Soviet Union that mercifully failed. Both of those events underline how impossible it is to foresee the future and how essential it is to be prepared for the unexpected.

I welcome the fact that President Bush moved swiftly on the issue of short- range and battlefield nuclear weapons. That gave President Gorbachev the excuse to call in the tens of thousands of such weapons that are lying about in depots throughout the Soviet Union. Let us hope it is not too late.

Two nightmare scenarios confront us in the Soviet Union today. First, there is the prospect of civil war in a country that has nuclear weapons and, secondly, there is the possibility of freelance sales of nuclear weapons by individual commanders or groups who may lay their hands on just a few artillery shells to the likes of Saddam Hussein and Gaddafi. Those dangers underscore the vital necessity of the United Kingdom maintaining its deterrent, which is safe in Conservative hands only.

Whatever concerns may exist about the "Options for Change", they are as nothing when compared to the cuts that a Labour Government would impose, with their commitment to slash defence expenditure, not by 5 per cent., but by 30 per cent. Tens of thousands of service personnel would be thrown out of work as well as tens of thousands of civilians employed in the defence industries. That is why I shall be supporting the Government in the Lobby tonight. Nevertheless, I do not want my right hon. Friend to be under any illusion but that I believe that the cuts go too far.

It is a tragic and bitter moment to see lined up for disbandment so many regiments of the British Army, with their proud traditions of service to the Crown and glorious battle honours won over centuries through gallantry and sacrifice. It is especially painful to see senior non-commissioned officers and others who have dedicated their lives to the service of their country being made compulsorily redundant. We have a special responsibility to ensure that they are properly treated--at least no worse than workers of British Steel who are made redundant.

Like most people, I accept that changes must be made, reductions implemented and hard decisions taken, including a 50 per cent. cut in our forces in Germany. But there is a deep-seated flaw in the premise on which "Options for Change" is based. It is the assumption that we had large enough armed forces in the first place. In fact, we have among the smallest armed forces in the world for the size of our population.

For every 1,000 of population, Switzerland has a mobilised armed strength of 96 ; Sweden, 84 ; Iraq, 52 ; the Soviet Union, 30 ; the United States, 20 ; Germany, 19 ; Italy, 16 ; France, 15 ; and the United Kingdom today, barely 11. Only Japan among the major nations has smaller armed forces for size of population than we have, yet the Government are determined to make cuts of 25 per cent. in the Army. After "Options", in the event of a major crisis requiring the full mobilisation of all our armed forces, out of every 1,000 Britons, 990 of us would be without a weapon and without a war role. Is that prudent and wise? My right hon.

Column 213

Friend has called his proposals "Options for Change". If that is the case, where are the options? No options have been put before the Army or the House. All I see is a blueprint for cuts. I see no options whatever. Nor do the Government show any inclination to change.

For a nation that aspires to be the world's greatest policeman, second only to the United States, cutting our Army from 55 to 38 battalions will inevitably impose greater strain on the remaining infantry battalions. I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's remarks, especially in respect of Northern Ireland tours, which will come round ever faster and deprive the Army of the capability and flexibility it needs to meet a crisis.

Much of the overstretch could be avoided if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) rightly suggested, six infantry battalions were added back, at a cost of a mere £75 million, the price of three Tornados. We would probably save that cost in lesser attrition by the fact that we have a smaller air force, remembering that many planes will be in mothballs on the ground instead of flying at low level. In other words, the resources are probably already contained within the defence budget.

Other hon. Members have spoken for the Cheshire and Staffordshire regiments, and I share their concern, but in view of my family's special link with airborne forces, I make a special plea for the Parachute Regiment. My grandfather, in June 1940, called the airborne forces into being. I deplore the fact that the Territorial Army parachute battalions are to be cut by more than half.

The paras are well known for their rigorous selection procedures and excellent qualities, common to the regular and TA battalions. Military parachuting provides one of the greatest peacetime tests for a soldier and every country regards its paras as an elite force. The United Kingdom led the way with its Red Devils--and the Falklands war demonstrated that they do not need parachutes to prove their worth. The parachute battalions bring special qualities to ordinary infantry tasks, so they should be the last to be cut. That is recognised in the unique decision to retain three regular parachute battalions, a fact which makes even less comprehensible the proposal to halve the TA parachute battalions. On the face of it, the proposal is that one battalion shall be lost--the 15th Scottish parachute battalion--which makes it look like a cut of a third. But because the remaining battalions will be reduced to a standard small size, it in fact represents a cut of more than half.

Rethinking the number of infantry battalions in the Army would be seen as a sign, not of weakness but of wisdom, maturity and strength. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider the matter. 7.35 pm

Mr. John Cartwright (Woolwich) : I begin with a brief reference to my constituency. Woolwich has been a military town since Henry VIII established his dockyard there in 1515. Woolwich Arsenal was set up in 1671 and Woolwich then became the cradle of the Royal Artillery, being closely involved with it since its formation in 1716. Sadly, that military tradition is steadily being eroded. The royal ordnance factory closed in 1967, followed by a number of transfers and shutdowns of a variety of military

Column 214

units. We now know that the Royal Arsenal will close after 1993 and we have doubts about the future of the Royal Artillery in Woolwich, with suggestions that they may move to Larkhill.

I understand the case for reducing the number of artillery regiments from 22 to 16. The awesome firepower of the multiple launch rocket system needs far fewer soldiers for its operation. I also appreciate the need to concentrate training on the most cost-effective sites. But the idea that the Royal Artillery might be forced to leave its birthplace at Woolwich is greeted with absolute horror by many of my constituents. To them, Woolwich without the gunners would be like Blackpool without the tower. It would also mark the end of 500 years of history. When hard decisions must be taken, I hope that there is some small scope for recognising the benefits of tradition and historic loyalties.

I shall concentrate on the wider issues of European defence. It is inevitable in the current situation that we should be debating the future role and reorganisation of NATO. The alliance was established to counter the threat of Soviet communist expansionism. That threat no longer exists in the form which we have grown used to over 40 years. The Warsaw pact has collapsed and the Soviet Union is breaking up.

As hon. Members have pointed out, that does not remove risks and uncertainties. The reverse is the case. The collapse of the Soviet empire is creating new instabilities in east and central Europe. The problems of ethnic and cultural differences and all the ancient enmities are reasserting themselves. NATO in its present form is clearly not geared to deal with that sort of problem. We have the example of Yugoslavia, where the NATO alliance is forced to sit and watch as the tragedy unfolds. So it is clear that we must revamp NATO to meet the much less certain and more difficult threats to peace and stability that we shall see in Europe in the years to come. It would be extremely foolish to risk destroying a tried and trusted institution which has worked well for 40 years in a rush of enthusiasm for some common European defence system.

Of course, we want an effective European pillar within NATO and of course we want closer and more effective co-operation between European Community members in the sphere of defence. But that must not involve trying to squeeze out the United States and Canada from the European scene. It is not just the physical presence of United States troops and weapons that is important to Europe ; it is the habit of collective decision-making between Europe and North America. Joint exercising, the development of collective infrastructure and the standardisation of doctrine and strategy have made NATO effective. I believe we desperately need to maintain those very real assets.

Much of the successful co-operation that we saw in the Gulf war stemmed from the fact that individual national forces were used to working together in the NATO framework and were operating well-understood NATO systems and procedures. There is obviously a powerful case for closer defence co- operation within Europe. The Gulf war underlined the importance of sophisticated high-tech weapons and communications systems ; but, as the armed forces become smaller, the short production runs required to meet purely individual national needs will not be viable on a single-nation basis. Joint procurement,

Column 215

collaboration and standardisation--all the things about which we have been talking for the past 30 years--will be not merely desirable, but essential.

We should be working towards greater role specialisation between European partners ; working towards joint targeting, joint training and the creating of effective multinational forces. All that makes absolute practical sense. What concerns me, however, is the idea that a common defence and security policy in Europe can be imposed by a system of majority voting.

Sir Leon Brittan said something quite interesting about that in the summer edition of the RUSI Journal. He said :

"There must be no forcing of tactics. When it comes to matters of defence and security there can be no imposition of policy on unwilling partners."

That seems to me to make complete sense.

I had understood that the Government were adopting an equally clear and robust position. However, this week we have seen what I regard as disturbing press reports suggesting that Britain may now agree to "operational" security decisions being subject to majority voting in the European Community. In my view, such a concession would leave the Government on a very slippery slope from which there is no way back. Once majority voting has been conceded on the so-called "low-level" security issues, we shall inevitably find ourselves being pushed further and further towards an arrangement whereby major defence issues are decided by majority voting.

I believe that that will undermine the Government's welcome attempt to establish the Western European Union as a bridge between the European Community and NATO. I think that the Government are absolutely right to try to ensure that any European defence policy is compatible with NATO strategy ; but that, I believe, will be much more difficult to achieve if we accept the idea that European security issues can be dictated by majority voting.

Like other speakers, I welcome the proposals by both the United States and the Soviet Union to reduce nuclear arsenals, and to step down the thermo- nuclear ladder. I am particularly glad to note the proposed scrapping of the land-based short-range nuclear systems, which I have always regarded as the most dangerous and the least militarily usable.

Nuclear weapons, however, are unlikely to disappear from the world ; indeed, the problems of nuclear proliferation are much more likely to grow than to disappear. We have the Iraqi example ; and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) gave us a chilling warning of the risks of Soviet nuclear capability being spread about and, perhaps, falling into extremely unstable hands. I believe that, in such circumstances, the Government are entirely right to stick to the full four-boat Trident programme and to ensure that, in an uncertain world, Britain retains an effective and credible strategic deterrent.

Sub-strategic nuclear systems are just as important, however. Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) referred to the growth of ballistic missile capabilities in a number of nations in the middle east which could be used to deliver weapons of mass destruction--nuclear, chemical and germ weapons.

I do not accept that the threat of strategic nuclear weapons against such a potential enemy is credible. I think that we need much smaller, much more flexible systems to deal with the growing problem. That is why I believe that

Column 216

the Government are right to pursue the development of an air-launched sub-strategic nuclear system to replace the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb. Now that the United States has decided not to continue with the SRAM-T programme involving short-range attack missiles, the case for Anglo-French co-operation on the ASLP programme grows stronger. The Government have been examining the issue for some time. I understand that the decision to be made is both complex and important, but I hope that we shall see some positive action before much longer.

For as far ahead as any of us can now see, our security in Britain will depend on a mixture of conventional and nuclear weapons. Those weapons must be modern ; they must be effective ; and, above all, they must be credible.

7.44 pm

Mr. Richard Alexander (Newark) : A great deal of our debate rightly has been taken up with the proposed amalgamations of regiments, but I think that we should consider other aspects as well--especially the effect of the proposals on the lives of individual service men and women.

This year I was fortunate enough to spend a good deal of my parliamentary time with the Royal Air Force under the auspices of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. Let me begin by paying tribute to the dedication, professionalism and sheer skill of all whom I met--members of every rank. Their worth and courage were proved in the Gulf, and they were particularly exposed there, for all to see. All who did see recognised the great saving of life at the end of the Gulf war which was achieved as a result of the heroism and courage of the Royal Air Force.

I believe, however, that we should now take more notice of the uncertainty that the proposals mean to individual men and women. During the summer, I was astonished to learn that very few service men and women had had an opportunity to read the White Paper, and that it had not been explained to any of them. All that they knew was that squadrons were to be disbanded--as listed on page 84 of the White Paper.

I ask my right hon. Friend to arrange for any service man or woman who is to be made redundant as a result of the proposals to be given at least six months' notice. I speak for members of the Royal Air Force ; I have no knowledge of the other services, although I suspect that their experience is the same. Defence Ministers must surely be aware of the turbulence experienced by RAF families who do not know what is to happen to them.

That applies particularly to squadrons in Germany that are to be disbanded. Many come from homes in the south of England, where property prices are now way above the level that any aircraftman, corporal or sergeant would expect ever to attain. They are given a disturbance allowance of, I believe, £800, and are allowed a couple of weeks in which to return to Britain and try to find accommodation. They are also given a single pass each ; and that is it.

I am glad that the Secretary of State is in the Chamber : perhaps he can correct me if I am wrong. I freely confess that I am simply repeating what I have been told. I should like to think that I will be corrected ; that the redundancy package is significantly more generous, and that those men and women are allowed to come back to Britain two or three times, on passes for themselves and their spouses, to

Column 217

arrange temporary accommodation, look for new homes, consult lawyers and arrange banking facilities--particularly, of course, when they have found a house that they like. If such a scheme exists, however, it is not widely known in the services. Ministers should ask themselves whether they are doing enough for the men and women who will be subject to the proposals in the White Paper.

I am glad to learn of proposals to allow people in such circumstances to take advantage of surplus married-quarters accommodation. There is a good deal of it around the country, and I feel that we should assist not only those who are due to be made redundant, but those who continue to serve. There is continuing anxiety that the gratuity at the end of their time as service men or service women will not be sufficient to get them into the housing market. We must make them feel valued, not undervalued.

The statements on pages 55 and 56 of the defence White Paper, which is all that is involved in explaining what will happen to service personnel, are not enough. Again I stand to be corrected. It may be that the defence White Paper is not the place to expand on the problems faced by service personnel. If it is not the right place--and I accept that it may not be-- there ought to be another way in which this can be explained to them. I should have liked the conditions of service to be looked at more clearly and given greater prominence. I am most anxious that we should use our service men and women as effectively and productively as we possibly can. When I go round Royal Air Force stations I wonder whether it is necessary for all aircraftmen and aircraftwomen and all corporals and sergeants to have nothing but guard duty to do on their stations for one week out of eight. We train them at enormous expense to the taxpayer, yet they have to carry out this unskilled and boring duty, round and round the camp. Furthermore, with the reductions in personnel numbers, those duties, which amount to one week in eight at present, are likely to be significantly increased as the defence White Paper is implemented.

When one considers the highly skilled duties for which these men and women have been trained and that they are carrying out, it really is "Dad's Army" stuff for them to have to spend so much of their time patrolling the perimeter of their RAF stations. In these times, it is also a dangerous occupation for which they have not been properly trained. That task should be undertaken by an expanded regimental or Royal Air Force police. No civilian business in this country would ask its middle managers to spend one week out of eight as night watchmen in its establishment. Our Royal Air Force personnel require a better deal than that. Our RAF stations require a professional guard manned by a professional trained force for that purpose within the RAF police.

I have concentrated on the Royal Air Force, since that is what I learnt about during my time with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I hope that my remarks do not encourage my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to say, "All that they do is to come back and whine about a service that they studied." I have a great deal of affection for the Royal Air Force. I hope that my remarks will be

Column 218

regarded as constructive as well as slightly critical. All that I am saying is that the White Paper ought to have addressed many of the concerns to which I have referred.

We must make our service men and women feel that they are valued and needed and that their concerns, as well as those of their families, will be looked after. They have no one else to speak for them. Many of them told me about their problems, so I asked them, "Have you talked to your MP about them?" Most of them have no contact or very little contact with their Member of Parliament. After a few years away from this country they do not know who their Member of Parliament is. They have no trade union. No one is asking that they should, but someone ought to speak for service personnel in the way that the police--a similarly disciplined service--have a staff federation. Perhaps we ought to consider a staff federation to look after the individual needs of service men and service women. If we do not react positively to these concerns, we shall continue to fail to recruit enough men and women to the services. The Royal Air Force needs 9,500 a year. According to the latest figures, only 4,500 are coming in, even in these times of high unemployment. My message, therefore, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is : make sure that we look after our service personnel and ensure that future defence White Papers concentrate a little more on the service's greatest resource.

7.54 pm

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish) : I have great sympathy for those who are being forced out of the armed forces and for the people who have defence jobs that they are likely to lose. Between 1945 and 1950 we were able to assimilate back into good jobs far more people from the defence industries and the armed forces and we did so without a great deal of hardship being suffered. If it was possible then and we fail this time, it will mean that the Government have failed to tackle the problem. Far more effort should be devoted to tackling the problems faced by people coming out of the services and by those who work in our defence industries. Alternative employment must be found for them.

"Options for Change" has been a total disaster. It did not even start out as a review. The claim was made that it was not a proper review. Insufficient time was spent on looking at the problems faced by this country. Far too much time was spent on looking at how cuts could be made in certain areas instead of looking at the overall threat. Far more emphasis should have been placed on that threat. One of the most amazing developments in recent weeks was President Bush's announcement of unilateral cuts. I have supported the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament for over 30 years. The point has continually been made to me that if unilateral cuts are made, other countries will not follow that example. I feel that I have been very much justified by the fact that, after one person made a proposal for unilateral cuts, reciprocal cuts have been made. That broke the log jam and was extremely important in getting disarmament moving. The response from the Soviet Union and NATO appears to have been generous, but the British Government's response has been minimal. I welcome the fact that nuclear depth charges are to be taken off the ships. However, we have not gone very much further than that. The British Government should go further.

Column 219

The Secretary of State should look closely at the Polaris submarines. We envisage very little threat from the Soviet Union during the next three or four years. We could unilaterally put forward proposals either to abandon the Polaris programme altogether or at least to say that we no longer have to try to keep up the pretence of having one ship on patrol at all times. It has been clear for the past nine months that, due to the state of those boats, they have not been carrying out the original intention to patrol close to the Arctic circle. On occasion, they have been seen passing boats in the Clyde. It is wrong that the people who serve on those boats and those who repair them should be put at risk when there is no genuine threat. It would have been well worth while to take a unilateral step over the Polaris submarines.

I understand the Government's problems. If they admit that Polaris is pretty well useless, it is difficult for them to go on justifying the introduction of the Trident programme. However, there is now a strong argument that the Government should slow down the Trident programme, on the basis that, at least in the short term, we cannot envisage a use for that weapons system.

The crucial problem now is not that a super-power threatens us, but that a number of powers, such as Iraq, may pose a threat to this country. The threat from those countries is not one with which Trident is ideally designed to deal. We should adopt a different approach. We should aim at getting an effective non-proliferation treaty in place. The present non- proliferation treaty is an absolute farce. Iraq is a signatory. It gaily signed the treaty, but took not the slightest bit of notice of it. The problem with that treaty is that it contains virtually no enforcement powers.

With that treaty running out in 1995, we should be working for an effective non-proliferation treaty that will stop any other country from becoming a nuclear power and ensure that there is an adequate inspection system. That should not mean that, as at present, we can inspect just what is going on in Iraq because there are other countries about which, if they ever obtained nuclear weapons, I would be very unhappy. The idea of deterrence works on the basis that countries behave in a rational way. I fear that there are one or two countries that would not behave in such a way. Therefore, I make a strong plea that we should put all our energy into obtaining an effective non-proliferation treaty.

If we are to have credibility in the rest of the world in suggesting such a treaty, we must ensure that we are reducing our nuclear reliance, not increasing it. I do not understand why we cannot move towards a comprehensive test ban treaty. In military terms we cannot justify carrying out an annual British test. It may be underground, but it still produces radioactive material. We should be prepared to ban it as one of the steps towards pushing for a non-proliferation treaty.

Why do we have to talk about a new weapons system--the tactical air-to- surface missile--when everybody else is prepared to scale things down? We have a problem and it was referred to during Defence questions today. The system that we were most likely to consider was derived from the United States, which has cancelled it. The Secretary of State said that that is not a problem as there are several other systems that we can consider. As I understand it, whichever system we look at will have to be placed on the Tornado, many of which will be based in Germany. I wonder whether Ministers have asked the German Government or the German people whether they

Column 220

are happy to have a new nuclear weapons system on their soil. It is crazy for Britain to be going down that route now. We should be saying that we want a non-proliferation treaty and the way to get that is to look at de-escalating nuclear arms, not increasing them. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said that, in the review of military requirements, there does not appear to have been any consideration of our requirements for defence land. Most people are aware that, for obvious reasons, during the second world war the military took over large tracts of the British countryside. It was clear by the 1960s that the military had more land than was necessary and the Nugent inquiry into defence land was set up. It made substantial recommendations for the military to release a great deal of land. Since that time we have substantially reduced personnel requirements and it seems logical that we should be considering releasing land. It is a pity that we still hold for military purposes land around Lulworth cove and parts of the Pembroke coast, which are areas of outstanding natural beauty that people should be able to enjoy in peace and quiet. I know that in recent years it has been possible to walk on some of the ranges when they are not in use, but that is not the same as restoring the land to agricultural use. I plead with the Government to carry out an effective review of defence land.

This is a disappointing defence review exercise. The Government should turn their emphasis towards the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world. That would be a far better way of protecting this country than continuing with Polaris and going on to rely on Trident as a deterrent system when it may be difficult to deter some of those who are likely to obtain nuclear weapons in the future. We need an effective worldwide non- proliferation treaty with proper inspection so that we are not held to ransom in the future by any country with nuclear weapons.

8.4 pm

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) : The message to the Government from Conservative Members is, "Please think again". The defence estimates are unacceptable and virtually every speech from Conservative Members, with one or two exceptions, has been highly critical of the Government and the estimates. The speeches from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), from my hon. Friends the Members for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and the splendid speech from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy) have been outstanding contributions to the debate.

I represent a constituency in Cheshire where the county regiment is to be merged with the Staffordshire regiment. My regiment, the 14th/20th King's Hussars, in which I had the honour to serve in the 1950s, is to be amalgamated with the Royal Hussars. Therefore, I am sure that the Treasury Bench is aware of my concern and my opposition to the decisions. I believe fervently that the reductions in our armed forces proposed in "Options for Change" fall disproportionately and unfairly on the Army. From my research during the early discussions it was clear that one of the criteria for disbanding or amalgamating a regiment would be its record on recruitment and retention. The Cheshire regiment, the Staffordshire regiment and the 14th/20th King's Hussars have exceptional records on

Column 221

recruitment and the retention of officers, non-commissioned officers and other ranks. The Government's decisions have not taken appropriate account of that success.

The Army has been cut regularly for some 20 years and has increasingly been experiencing overstretch, which has been mentioned many times during this long debate. The interval between unaccompanied operational tours is supposed to be 24 months. Currently, from my research it falls between 12 and 15 months and surely that is overstretch.

I want to refer to the infantry and what is proposed for the Cheshire and Staffordshire regiments. The Cheshire regiment has such a good recruitment record that it provides recruits for other regiments. The proposed amalgamation of the Cheshire regiment with the Staffordshire regiment came as a complete surprise to both regiments and neither was consulted. What about consultation? Neither regiment wants the amalgamation. In my view, those two regiments are being sacrificed for others with poor records on recruitment and retention.

The two regiments are different in style, character and interests. The amalgamation would be like merging Liverpool football club with Stoke City football club, which would be thoroughly undesirable and unrequired. The proposed amalgamation makes no sense geographically or demographically. The Staffordshire regiment is a midlands regiment and the Cheshire regiment is from the north-west. The area from Merseyside to Birmingham with a population of 11 million will be left with only three regiments. That compares with Lancashire and Cumbria with a population of just 1.8 million which will retain two regiments. What a waste of the best recruiting area in the country. It is worth noting that in their proposals and the explanations for them the Government say that we can cope with the reduction from 55 battalions to 38. I doubt that because, in my view, no commitments have changed except that for the central region and already with 55 battalions we are suffering severe overstretch. If the options plan is driven through, it will produce an Army which will be too small to meet its commitments and will suffer from more overstretch than it suffers from today, which will not be ready for its primary role because most of the units of the rapid reaction corps will be away on other tasks and duties, which will not be capable of manning all its equipment because unit establishments will be too small, which will have no reserves for the unexpected because almost all available units will be somewhere on the roulement cycle and which will no longer be a credible deterrent, even as part of NATO, because divisions and brigades will always have men away on other tasks and will never be able to train at full strength. It will be smaller and less adequate because of outdated equipment, insufficient manpower and overstretch.

It is my strongly held opinion that, because of the volatile and unpredictable world situation, the Government should announce "Options for Change" as a target, aim or objective for the future. In central and eastern Europe we are witnessing an upsurge of nationalism. Despite constructive efforts to prevent it, there is a grave danger of a return to pre-1945 power

Column 222

politics, and that has been mentioned by more than one hon. Member in the debate. The United Nations needs time to evolve to cope with the new world situation that it now faces. More time is needed to see how world power blocs develop and how the European Community will evolve in political and defence terms.

We are only too well aware that more resources are needed to cope with Northern Ireland. Our own resources are at a low strength, but the unexpected is always possible. We must restructure NATO, create and train the new rapid response corps and restructure our home base.

Sadly, I see the changes that the Government have proposed as a Treasury- driven exercise, perhaps a savings exercise, with little relevance to the situation that I see emerging in the world. If we proceed with the options plan, it will soon be clear that the British Army is no longer credible to meet its commitments or to deter anyone seriously because it lacks capability. The position and influence of the United Kingdom in the world, sadly, will therefore be weakened. The dangers that I have mentioned can be avoided if the Government genuinely seek the views of the House, but to date they have not done so. We need to say that the first step towards achieving our objective is to reduce the Army to 130,000 by 1997. In the current situation, that is not insignificant. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastleigh and my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme suggested that we should increase the estimate by six battalions. I fully support that request because if that were done we could meet our responsibilities and deal with any unexpected event. Any further cuts would be damaging and irresponsible.

All my research and contacts show that the Army is not against change, but it deserves a proper and detailed defence review, which has been requested by hon. Members on both sides of the House and almost all the political parties represented here. I believe that this detailed defence review, and any changes that are made, should be based on accepted and clear criteria that are understood and acceptable to all those involved. Above all, surely, it makes no sense to amalgamate regiments such as the Cheshires and the Staffordshires, which would waste recruitment opportunities. I speak with considerable conviction and commitment when I say that there is every good reason and sense to leave highly successful regiments untouched.

I wish to associate myself entirely with the petition that the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) presented last night on behalf of the people of Cheshire, which urged the Government to leave the Cheshire Regiment untouched. Perhaps it is not too late for the Government genuinely to consult the House on such an important matter and to state tonight that they are prepared sensibly to consider the representations that have been made and, if necessary, to amend the decisions that they have taken.

8.15 pm

Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton) : When the Secretary of State announced more than a year ago that he would introduce "Options for Change", he said that the Army was going to be smaller but better. We now realise the truth- -smaller and nothing else.

The problem is that there is no conception in the White Paper of how British forces are likely to be deployed in the

Column 223

future. I speak as a member of the Select Committee on Defence. When the Secretary of State appeared before the Select Committee in July, he was asked, "Whom are we defending and against what?" He had no answer.

Most of the thinking in the White Paper is based on the threat from the Soviet Union. There is still a fixation with the Soviet Union. If there were still a serious risk of war, the White Paper could be criticised for cutting things too fast and too soon, but we all know that total war is fanciful and will not happen.

The problem is the new world disorder. How will we shape our defence requirements to meet the emerging pattern of disorder in the communist states of eastern Europe and elsewhere? The problem is illustrated by the need for safe havens in Iraq and the civil war in Yugoslavia, yet the Secretary of State for Defence and his Ministers have not mentioned that. The idea of being dragged into any messy internal conflict appals the military and ourselves, but when considering a coherent and rational defence policy for the future we cannot rule out the possibility, however remote, of western troops being part of a peacekeeping force. That, however, has not been addressed. The review will be complete only when forces have been restructured to reflect the present international situation. That omission is at the heart of the White Paper.

We know that after the changes there will be no Territorial Army parachute battalion north of Liverpool. Does that make sense? The Secretary of State is retaining all three regular battalions, but eliminating the Scottish battalion. That is at odds with his declaration of an enhanced role for the TA and of a smaller but better Army.

I have several reasons for making that point. I have received 200 petitions about the volunteer battalion from constituents. More pertinent, the former Lord Lieutenant of Dunbartonshire, a highly decorated man, Brigadier Alastair Pearson, wrote to me recently and told me that he raised that battalion in 1947 and was its first commanding officer for six and a half years. He is now its honorary colonel. He said that it would be a tragedy if the battalion were disbanded because he knows its value to the young men of Scotland and the country in general. It is illogical to eliminate that TA battalion and deny the Scottish people the opportunity to participate in it.

Those comments were reinforced by the managing director of one of the largest firms in my constituency, who wrote to the Secretary of State to explain his grievances. He said that, as a managing director, he had seen the 15th Parachute Battalion at work through its employer liaison activities--activities that had persuaded him to support the reserve forces. I suggest that the Secretary of State should reinstate that battalion. The managing director said that he was

"at a loss to understand the disproportionate cuts proposed for it."

So are many of my constituents.

Reference has been made to Polaris nuclear submarines. Last November, I was the first to allege that there were cracks in the submarines. The Ministry of Defence pooh-poohed my view and said that there was nothing wrong. Months have passed and many newspapers have taken up the issue. The Ministry of Defence has now admitted that there are cracks.

Within the past few weeks, the Thames Television programme "This Week" described the submarines as being in trouble. One of the members of the

Column 224

nuclear-powered warships safety committee, which vets such submarines, said, "We are not allowing those boats into foreign ports in case accidents occur." If those boats are denied entry into foreign ports because they are a possible danger, why are they tolerated here? Is not the possible danger in the United States or some European port the same as it is at home? Questions must be asked, particularly because of the authority of the statement made on "This Week".

The Secretary of State for Defence has not explained rationally why the number of nuclear submarines has been cut from 25 to 13--I do not suggest that there is a link with the matter which I just raised. What is the real reason for the cut? My colleagues and I on the Defence Select Committee are still puzzled.

A United States committee, chaired by Sidney Drell, reported on possible faults in Trident. Members of the Defence Select Committee went to America and were given a good briefing, although questions remain. When we returned to this country, the Ministry of Defence did not explain the Drell committee's comments and said that everything was being taken care of.

"Defense Week", a United States publication, of 29 July 1991, quotes Dr. Drell as saying that the Pentagon had still to convince him and his committee. He said :

"We said the data was not there to make a judgement."

Dr. Drell said that the matter was still open. The Defence Select Committee said that the Ministry of Defence had not explained about the cracks in the nuclear submarines and that it should be more forthcoming in public and in private. It should also explain the Drell committee's comments.

According to "Defense Week",

"The House fiscal 1992 defense authorization bill gave the Navy $15 million to undertake an analysis of all the Trident safety issues raised by the Drell report."

I ask the Minister to do the same and undertake to make a report available either to the Defence Select Committee or to the House. That is crucial.

Locally, I am concerned also about the magnetic treatment facility at Gareloch. The Ministry of Defence gave me notice that such a facility would be erected in the Clyde area, but now the proposal has been scrapped. Dumbarton district council has written to me. It is aggrieved at the Ministry's attitude. In replying to the council's inquiry, the Ministry said that compensation was paid to the contractor. The council told me that that compensation was believed to be some £15 million and that the Ministry described it as "pennies". That expenditure is a gross waste of public money. The project had been lauded by the Ministry. It was to be an environmentally sensitive project in the Clyde area. We now find that the project has been withdrawn after £15 million of public money has been spent. That is scandalous. Dumbarton district council and the general public require answers.

Further, Dumbarton district council asked me to raise some public safety issues. The council said :

"As the system now to be adopted by the MOD involved the passing of strong electrical charges through the hull of submarines, there was a danger of warheads being detonated accidently as has been highlighted in the recent Drell Report".

That was subjective comment by the district council. However, it is incumbent on the Ministry of Defence to undertake an inquiry so that we can debate its conclusions.

The district council also said :

Next Section

Home Page