| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 238
State for Defence for the next two or three years, so if there is any review it will be carried out by--[ Hon. Members :-- "Bill Walker."]Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North) : I believe that the hon. Gentleman is one of the more articulate members of the Opposition Front-Bench team and what he says frequently makes sense. Can he now tell us what is the Labour party's position on defence, because we have waited for all of two days to find out and I am still waiting?
Dr. Reid : Let me be absolutely straight. It has been said before, "We do not have the advice which is available in Government from professional advisers ; we do not know what the world situation will be when we come to office ; and before acting we should want to consult our allies."
That is not my quote ; it is from "The Right Approach" published by the Conservative Central Office prior to the election in 1979. We intend to go further than the Conservatives. We are going public and we have told everyone in the House that we will have a full defence review within the first year of a Labour Government. If hon. Members require further elucidation they should refer to the expansive section of our policy that was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) last night. [Interruption.] I note that the Secretary of State is attempting to interrupt with the courage derived from the collective ministerial enclave around him.
Although I may criticise the Secretary of State, it must be said that he has received little help from his Ministers. Last night we had a marvellous statement from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement which covered interesting defence matters such as the environment and the citizens charter. At one stage I thought that local government finance would be mentioned, but the only news we got last night was that we are to charter a boat from the Norwegians. That exciting new concept of rent-a-navy was slipped in at the end of the debate.
The much-vaunted speech today from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement was supposed to give us all the announcements heralded by the Secretary of State. However, as far as I understand it, his speech amounted to an order for a project design for Fearless and Intrepid at some stage in the near future with some further announcement to be made next March.
The Minister of State, for the Armed Forces, who is to speak after me, is to speak about matters affecting personnel. I do not intend to pre-empt his remarks and I trust that the trailer of his speech, which suggests that he will deal with the great problem of housing for the armed services, is correct. I would welcome some move on that. In July, when I questioned the right hon. Gentleman about it, no action had been taken and therefore I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will make a statement of substance tonight.
The Minister, whether on the issue of housing, compensation or post- traumatic stress disorder--eventually the Minister was good enough to see me and to take action on that--makes a rod for his own back by having to be dragged, reluctantly, to deal with such issues. At the end of the day he does deals with them but he does himself a disservice by appearing reluctant to do so. That creates
Column 239
the type of confusion and bitterness that arose at various times during the calls for compensation for those unfortunate soldiers who lost their legs.The Secretary of State has given us the slogan "smaller but better". I understand that in the civil service--I have heard this third hand only because the civil service and the Ministry of Defence do not leak--that slogan is better known as "smaller now, better at some stage in the indefinite future". In "Options for Change" the Government managed to combine change without options, conclusions without military analysis, restructuring without review and an end without a strategy--all in the same package. In the process the Government have managed to combine in opposition to them the opposition parties, the defence industry, the British armed forces, the public and their Back Benchers, not to mention the Select Committee.
It would take a politician of tremendous ingenuity starting off from a position of strength to manage to fight on five fronts in the same political war. The Secretary of State, however, has managed to do that. He has built the broadest front in opposition to him of anyone in Parliament. Perhaps that is because, as the Select Committee pointed out, the Government just do not have a strategy. The nearest that they came to it was last night in three paragraphs of the Secretary of State's speech. That speech came 18 months after the Government started the process of restructuring and six months after they finished that process.
What sort of Government is it who first make the changes and only then analyse the reasons for the changes? That is not strategic thinking ; it is ex-post-facto rationalisation. If we are talking about strategy, the basis from which we should have been operating all this time, the threat from the east, which has traditionally been defined in terms of intention and capability, has all but disappeared. Admittedly that threat may not have disappeared on the flanks and there is a problem about the dispersal of the control of nuclear weapons, but the conventional threat from the east has all but disappeared.
In its place, the very process of Soviet imperial disintegration which has reduced the traditional threat has given rise to new risks and problems. They include ethnic tensions, nationalisms, border disputes, the resurgence of historic antagonisms, forced and voluntary migration and terrorism--and that is only in eastern and central Europe.
It is in the context of that redefined threat or risk that we need a redefinition of security, the point made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East. There must be a much wider definition of security than defence proper. The increased complexity of the problem requires an increased complexity of response. Security must now include political contact and dialogue, economic aid and military hardware.
As for defence proper, being the pure military element of that security, the nature of the task confronting us--intervention, peace-keeping and mobility included--rather than diminishing the case for infantry, enhances it out of all proportion. Had there been a strategic review analysing the threat before we began restructuring the British armed forces, the infantry battalions would have been in a much better position, bolstered not by ideology or history or even by local support, but by the nature of the threat and the roles that we wished the armed forces to carry out.
Column 240
Mr. George Walden (Buckingham) : I am impressed by the vigour that the hon. Gentleman is showing in the defence of this country now that the main threat to the country has passed. [H on. Members-- : "Cheap".] It was necessary for me to make that extremely important point. Outside the middle east, can the hon. Gentleman be more precise about from where in his perception the threat to Britain will come in the reasonably near future?
Dr. Reid : The people I represent and the communities in my part of the world are the very people who for centuries have given their lives in the defence of Britain. If anyone has strategically sold out this country, from the Philbys, Blunts and Burgesses, they have been people from the hon. Gentleman's background rather than from my background.
In answering his substantive question, may I say that I referred to eastern and central Europe and anarchic disintegration. Later I shall refer to some of the more global issues with which he may be concerned. First, I wish to deal with regimental restructuring. I have explained why I think the infantry battalions would have come off better. How can I respect a speech from a Secretary of State who says that the big lesson of the Gulf war is that logistics are important? If the Romans had known that, they could have conquered an empire. I am glad at least to see that the Secretary of State, 2000 years after Caesar, has independently reached the same conclusion. How can I take him seriously?
Several Hon. Members rose --
Dr. Reid : We are very tight for time and I am anxious to make progress.
Perhaps the prime example of the incompetence of the Government has been in terms of regimental restructuring. We urged them not to proceed without a review. I asked the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to publish the criteria. Nobody will be popular if regiments are being closed down, but at least the decision can be seen to be open and based on military criteria. It would have been defensible. But the Minister refused to do that, so no wonder he was inundated with angry lobbyists yesterday, for people do now know the basis on which some regiments are being executed and others reprieved. No wonder they suspect that decisions are being based on Treasury or local political considerations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) today outlined the Government's abysmal incompetence in relation to the whole question of procurement. Anyone who has read successive Select Committee reports will know that the Government's procurement policy can probably be summed up in three words : oversight, overdue or overbudget. That has been the Select Committee story for the past few years.
It seems that the British armed forces have been supplied with a dearth of almost everything except excuses. I find this incredible. I see that the Secretary of State is protesting. I am sure that it is not entirely his fault that we have a new class of submarine whose missile doors cannot be opened without flooding, and Tornados that have to go around with cement in their nose cones because they have no radar ; I am sure that it is not entirely his fault that the budget has been exceeded by £21,000 million. He must, however, take some of the responsibility. All we have had are excuses. I am expecting a statement from the right hon. Gentleman any day now, telling us that cavalry supplies
Column 241
have been cut to one spur apiece on the ground that, if the men can get one side of the horse going, the other side will probably follow. That is the kind of logic that we have had from the right hon. Gentleman.Is it not ironic that the Secretary of State is prepared to applaud the United States for assisting its industry to diversify? The right hon. Gentleman is not only doing that, however ; he is playing an active role. Last night, he boasted from the Dispatch Box about the role that we are playing in helping the Russians to diversify. When it comes to the British industry, however, that can diversify on its own. No wonder the British industrial leaders involved in defence have not received so much as a postcard until this week. We learnt from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement tonight that he has now sent them a letter, but until then they had been given no assistance whatever.
Diversification is important not merely to jobs. If we want to control the arms export trade from Britain, it is no good simply passing pious resolutions in Europe. We shall have to ensure that the arms production and export sales processes are also tackled by means of diversification.
The tragedy of this litany of lost opportunities is not just that they are bad for the morale of the Conservative party. I have done what I could-- over the interruptions from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement-- to raise the Conservatives' morale, and to show them the lighter side of what their Ministers are doing. However, the position is also disastrous for the morale and future of the British armed forces and the British nation. The result of this ministerial incompetence is twofold : overstretch at home and lack of effectiveness abroad.
That overstretch has always been there. We know now that Operation Granby was mounted only through the superhuman effort of our service men and women, not only during but before the Gulf war. Every second tank in Germany was used to provide spares for the other tanks that went with the armoured division. Only under the present Government could our troops be asked to behave like demented Kwik-Fit fitters on the eve of a battle in the desert, running about shifting parts from one tank to another.
The Secretary of State's cuts will make the position even worse. As neither his Back Benchers nor I can convince him about the overstretch, let me recommend a book to him--not a library or a bibliography, but a single book. If he finds that too taxing, the Ministers can take a chapter each. The book, by Paul Kennedy, is called "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers". It explains the terrible cost of retaining an imperial defence mentality when resources no longer merit it, and cannot be provided for it. Overstretch breaks the social contracts with our recruits. As for arms control and nuclear de-escalation, while the Americans are dealing with the Russians to reduce the strategic deterrent, the British Government are increasing that deterrent. The Americans are cancelling SRAM-T, but, although NATO has put it on the back burner, the Secretary of State is convinced that we must go ahead with the tactical air-to-surface missile. The Secretary of State is doing nothing about substantial arms control and de-escalation. He is swimming against the tide of history.
Active, leading participation in all these areas has been abrogated by the Secretary of State for Defence. He lacks confidence. He is more at home with the comforting
Column 242
certainties of the old cold war. The Secretary of State displayed his lack of confidence and understanding last night when he gave the reason for the failure of the Soviet coup as incompetence. Incompetent it was, but anyone who thinks that the Soviet coup failed just because of incompetence, or just because Boris Yeltsin got on to a tank, does not understand the strength of democracy. Six years of democratic change in the Soviet Union had given a precious gift to the Soviet people and even to sections of the Soviet military. The Secretary of State is muttering away. Let me give him another example of why I believe he lacks confidence in democracy. He makes great attacks, as do his colleagues, on the position of the Labour party. I remember the Secretary of State's comments on the morning of the Soviet coup--not when it had failed. So surprised was the interviewer at his equivocation--let us remember that this was before the coup had failed, and I quote from the transcript, although the Secretary of State probably wants to forget this-- that the interviewer said :"We weren't surely intending to do business with a hard-line, eight man emergency committee who are clamping down as they are today." The Secretary of State replied--this is illuminating when one considers his resolution--
"Well I've met Marshal Yazov. I think anybody who'd been to the Soviet Union realised people who were there had their concerns about the speed of the reforms and the tensions and difficulties that they were causing within the Soviet Union."
How understanding of the Secretary of State. How kind of him to see the other chap's point of view, even if the other chap was a dogmatic, reactionary Stalinist who had just engineered an unconstitutional coup d'etat. How resolute in his equivocation. How principled in his prevarication that morning before the coup failed. The Secretary of State should remember that interview before he criticises anyone on these Benches for lack of resolution.
The Secretary of State should also remember the legacy that he leaves the Ministry of Defence--a lack of vision in the absence of strategy, a complete mismatch between commitments and resources, a procurement regime that is marked by budget overruns and delays, a lowering of morale at home and an abrogation of responsibility abroad. Last night the Secretary of State took his first faltering steps to recoup his losses and to define a strategy. He started three years too late. He has only six months to go.
For years people have known that the health service of Britain is not safe in the Government's hands. It has taken the crass ingenuity of this Secretary of State and his Ministers to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the same is also true of the defence of this country. For that, if for nothing else, the Secretary of State will be remembered and for that he will be neither forgotten nor forgiven.
9.37 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton) : What an incredible and brilliant speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid). Without any doubt he is the cleverest man on the Opposition Front Bench when it comes to speaking on defence, but whether that is very difficult I do not know. I have the gravest doubts about whether we heard anything about the Labour party's defence policy. We were promised a full review if Labour were to win the
Column 243
election. That is all we have heard. We know that the Labour party will cut defence, but we do not know by how much. It is incredible to me that the Labour party is still so reluctant to spell out where its policy will lead and what it is going to do.Mr. McWilliam : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I thought that this debate was about the motion before the House--a Government motion accepting the defence White Paper. This is not the opportunity to debate the Opposition's defence policy, which we should welcome.
Mr. Donald Thompson (Calder Valley) : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : Allow me to reply. We are debating the Opposition amendment.
Mr. Hamilton : Many points have been made during the debate and I shall have to write to most hon. Members on both sides of the House. I should like to run through some remarks on resettlement, housing and the reorganisation of districts. I shall then move on to the rationale behind "Options for Change" and deal in particular with the Army and the infantry. I shall say something about Scots regiments. Therefore, I intend to address the main issues that have been raised during the debate.
It was good to hear again from the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). He is well informed on most issues involving foreign affairs and there was plenty of gravitas in his speech. I can hardly believe that it was the same right hon. Gentleman who, a few months ago, forecast that the Gulf war would end in a bloodbath, that the outcome was uncertain and that the war would go on indefinitely. It is interesting that the only thing that is going on indefinitely as a result of the Gulf war is the United Nations sanctions on which the Opposition were placing all their trust in terms of getting Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.
I should like to deal with some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) and the measures that we are taking to ease the burden of change on individual service men. We already provide resettlement services to around 14,000 service men and women each year. During the restructuring that will increase, but with careful planning the system will cope with it. Those made redundant will receive a special capital payment as well as the normal gratuity and pension. Thus a staff sergeant with 14 years' service would receive total payments of about £33,000 without commuting his pension. A major with 20 years' service would receive some £73,000. Those leaving the services will get briefings on careers, job search training and 28 days' pre-release resettlement training or attachment to a civilian firm to gain skills relevant in the civilian market.
The resettlement process aims to ensure that individuals are better placed to compete in the job market. They will, however, be able to have assistance from the tri-service resettlement organisation employment unit and also from the Regular Forces Employment Association or the Officers Association, as well as the Department of Employment.
Yesterday the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) raised the question of housing, as did the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and
Column 244
Waterside (Mr. Colvin). No discussion of the reductions in the armed forces would be complete without dealing with housing. Personnel leaving the services over the next few years, some under special arrangements for the redundancy programme, will include some who are not home-owners. Lump sum payments and terminal benefits should make it easier to enter the civilian housing market. However, we expect that most of those who opt to take redundancy terms will have already made their own provision for housing.None the less, as the White Paper--"Britain's Army for the 90s"--said, the Ministry of Defence will be considerate in its treatment of those who will lose their entitlement to married quarters as a result of redundancy.
We have also said that, where possible, we will make available to housing associations some surplus service property to give temporary help, in the short term, to service personnel in severe housing need while they make more permanent arrangements. I hope that it will be possible to make substantive announcements on this item in the near future.
The proportion of home owners in the services is lower than the national average. My right hon. Friend said that he intended to make changes in the housing opportunities open to service personnel. He therefore set up a task force under my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces with representatives from the voluntary housing movement as well as from the Royal British Legion, the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen's Families
Association--SSAFA--and the Federation of Army Wives. In addition to looking at the immediate problems faced by service personnel, the task force is also working on a new range of home ownership opportunities such as part ownership.
The intention behind that work is to enable service personnel, during their careers, to enter the housing market and get used to the costs and responsibilities that home ownership always carries with it.
I am particularly pleased to be able to announce that the Ministry of Defence has accepted an offer made by a leading financial institution whereby full-time members of the armed forces will be eligible to apply for mortgages at reduced rates. The preferential rate will apply for the full term of the mortgage whether or not the borrower remains in the armed forces. As part of the rationalisation of the Army's support area, we continue to study the reorganisation of the United Kingdom land forces district structure.
Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian) : Does the Minister accept that a substantial number of the people who are leaving the forces are likely to want to obtain rented housing? Will he say anything about extra provision so that local authorities can met the need for additional rented housing?
Mr. Hamilton : If the hon. Gentleman reads my speech tomorrow, he will find that I have already referred to surplus married quarters being offered to housing trusts.
As part of the rationalisation of the Army's support area, we continue to study the reorganisation of the United Kingdom land forces district structure with a view to reducing from 10 the number of Army districts in the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend announced the first stage of this reorganisation--the formation of the Wales and western district--on 23 July. The second stage
Column 245
will be the formation of a new eastern district to replace the existing eastern and north-east districts. The new eastern district, to be formed in April 1992, will have its district headquarters at York. There will be no change to London district. Work on the final stage of the district structual reorganisation is continuing. I should like to pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck), who made enormous efforts to get the headquarters of the division located in Colchester. I am sorry that he will find this rather disappointing news.Sir Antony Buck (Colchester, North) : I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's kind comments. Is he aware that he has not answered any of the cogent points that I like to think I made in a letter to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State a little while ago? The Secretary of State made encouraging noises and, for the reasons that I set out in the letter dated 16 July, it is a big mistake for Colchester to lose the area headquarters. Those reasons were then acknowledged as being cogent ; why are they not now?
Mr. Hamilton : I fully acknowledge my hon. Friend's concern, but much serious thought was given to this and I know that the infrastructure provided at York was reckoned to be an overwhelming consideration.
I should like to deal with the specific concerns that are felt by several hon. Members about Britain's Army for the 1990s. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said much about this yesterday, but I hope that the House will bear with me if I cover some of the ground again. I know that it is a matter of widespread concern. Perhaps I might first remind the House of the genesis of our plans. I do not need to set out again the detail of the extraordinary political and strategic changes, which were so graphically described by my right hon. Friend yesterday. There are already some 1 million fewer soldiers facing us from the one-time Warsaw pact countries in eastern Europe. Some 250,000 Soviet troops have also withdrawn from those countries and the total forces available to the Soviet Union are declining rapidly.
It was against the background of dramatic changes in eastern Europe and the Soviet Union that we first set out "Options for Change" last July. The changes were not expected to take place overnight. Rather, they were a programme of proposals phased over several years and able to respond to the developing changes in the international scene. I should like to deal in particular with the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston -super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) that "Options for Change" was Treasury led and financially driven. That is not so. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence decided that we needed to consider how our defences should be adapted to changing international circumstances and, with the agreement of the Prime Minister, initiated the "Options for Change" exercise. The starting point was not a target for particular financial savings but an analysis of how the world, particularly Europe, had changed and was changing. This work was conducted under the direction of Defence Ministers and carried out by a team of their military and civilian advisers responsible for policy and programme issues. It was not externally imposed, driven or directed. The work had to take account
Column 246
of resource questions. How could it not, given the other demands on our resources for priorities such as health care, education and social services?In recognising alternatives, we had to address their cost or strike a balance between numbers of troops, equipment and support. Our aim as Defence Ministers has been to produce a structure that makes a reasonable demand on public expenditure, is affordable and is therefore sustainable. We have also been keen to ensure that our future manpower requirements make a reasonable claim on a falling number of young people in the population as a whole. That is how people expect a responsible Government to act.
Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley) : Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hamilton : I am afraid that I must continue, or I shall not be able to complete what I want to say.
The Government's approach to our forward defence budget in last year's public expenditure survey reflected the work on "Options for Change" and not the other way round. The reductions foreseen are modest both in themselves and in comparison with those envisaged by some of our allies. I know that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House sincerely take the view that the world remains so unstable that it is too early to reduce our forces. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained yesterday, the collapse of the Soviet Union has proceeded far more rapidly than we could have envisaged last year. There are still risks, as the bungled August coup illustrated, but the world has changed fundamentally and, with it, threats to our security. That is not just the view of the Government. Let us look briefly at the plans of our major allies. President Bush has announced planned manpower cuts of half a million troops, or about 25 per cent., and United States ground and air forces in Europe are likely to halve by 1995. German forces are something of a special case, as they also have to absorb the one-time Warsaw pact troops of the NVA. As a result, their total strength will be reduced by more than 40 per cent. by the middle of the decade. The number of French forces will be reduced by about 17 per cent., Italian forces by about 27 per cent. and Spanish forces by about 37 per cent. Our plans envisage a cut of about 20 per cent.
I appreciate that there are particular concerns, as expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and for Devizes (Sir C. Morrison) and by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen), who considered these cuts too deep. Yesterday, the House heard how the reduced number of battalions relates to our revised commitments, and perhaps I might repeat the figures tonight. The reduction in Germany will reduce demands on the infantry by 10 battalions--three in Berlin and seven elsewhere. Four battalions will go from Hong Kong and five regular battalions committed to home defence can be replaced by Territorials. That means that our regular infantry commitments come down by 19 battalions, against 17 which will be amalgamated or reduced. In terms of manpower numbers, the figures are equally convincing. Our commitment in Europe will be reduced by about 35,000 troops. On top of that, we shall pull out of
Column 247
Hong Kong about 6,000 men and there will be substantial savings in Army support activities in the United Kingdom. Against that background, the planned cuts amount to only 40,000--so surpluses will be created.Mr. Churchill : Will my right hon. Friend comment on the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) that, for a mere £75 million a year, or the cost of three Tornados, we could put back six infantry battalions and get rid of all these ideas?
Mr. Hamilton : Yes, but that may not be the priority that the services collectively decide that they want. We must bear in mind that the savings which we propose came from the executive committee of the Army Board. It suggested how this could be done-- [Interruption.] I am not the executive committee of the Army Board. Ministers are not represented on that committee.
I should like to turn to Scotland. There is no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) and the hon. Members for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) are very worried. I accept that great strength of feeling in Scotland has been aroused by the proposed changes. No solution will please everyone, but it is plain wrong to suggest that Scotland is bearing a disproportionate share of the reductions. [ Hon. Members :-- "Rubbish."]
The fact is that the proportion of Scottish units in the Army overall will increase rather than decrease. Looking at the infantry, four of the other five divisions will be reduced by a greater percentage than the Scottish Division, which will continue to provide almost the same proportion of the arm overall, which is about 16 per cent. However, looking at the Royal Armoured Corps, the 4th Royal Tank Regiment will amalgamate--
Mr. Bill Walker rose--
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn rose --
Mr. Hamilton : But the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards--[ Hon. Members :-- "Give way."] I will give way in one minute. The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards will remain unaffected, thus increasing Scottish representation overall. Similarly, none of the three Scottish artillery regiments will be affected, so their proportion rises. In short, although Scotland may provide a very slightly smaller proportion of the infantry, that is more than offset by a significantly bigger share of armour and artillery.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : If my right hon. Friend wants fully maintained battalions--and all the Scottish ones that the Government propose to amalgamate are fully maintained--why does he want to get rid of the Scottish battalions as opposed to the battalions that are not fully maintained? Why does he consider that four Scottish infantry regiments, in a country that has always given a far greater proportion of the infantry to the defence of the realm, should be savaged again, including the Queen's Own Highlanders, who were amalgamated 30 years ago, whereas regiments that are under strength should be left alone, in the King's Division and in other places?
Mr. Hamilton : Many different considerations were given, some of which were geographical. I know that one consideration was the demographic change that will take
Column 248
place in Scotland, which means that the numbers from whom we can recruit will be reduced more markedly in Scotland than in other parts of the country.Mr. Bill Walker : I thank my right hon. Friend. He is aware that I have sat here for two days and not been called in the debate. Is he aware that, in Scotland, we recognise that only under a Conservative Government is our future defence secure? However, can he tell us what the timing affecting the four Scottish regiments for amalgamation is likely to be? I assure him that the campaign that we are conducting to save our regiments will continue.
Mr. Hamilton : I hear what my hon. Friend says. We are trying to deal with the question of timing as sensibly as we can. All I would say is that none of the Scottish regiments is involved in phase one, which ends in March 1993.
This has been the most extraordinary debate. We have heard almost nothing about Labour policies.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West) rose--
Mr. Hamilton : We have heard almost nothing about Labour policy. What we have had is countless Labour Members asking for certain units to be saved and for orders to be placed, although, at the same time, one has every reason to believe that they will vote for an amendment which says that defence expenditure should be cut more drastically than has been proposed by the Government.
The confusion does not end there. A number of Opposition Members are still sincere, paid-up members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. The hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) called yesterday for the Government to take the axe to our independent nuclear deterrent. Of course, he is not alone. The hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) are among members of CND on the Opposition Benches. They do not think that it is good enough to let their membership lapse. How do such hon. Members react to the so-called "changed policy" on nuclear weapons in the Labour party? They are remarkably calm about it. Perhaps it is because they know only too well that the only authentic Labour defence policy of any kind is that spelt out in the document "Meet the Challenge : Make the Change", which was passed by a two thirds majority at the 1989 Labour party conference. The document commits the future Labour Government to negotiate away Britain's deterrents in exchange for a minute percentage of the enormous Soviet arsenals. The document has never been repudiated by the Labour leadership, nor, to the best of my knowledge, has it been allowed to lapse.
Many of us came here today to the last debate on a Defence White Paper before the election to hear more of the Government's plans for defence in the 1990s, so clearly set out in our document "Britain's Defence for the 90s". We were also interested to know what policy the Opposition put forward for the defence of our country into the next century.
I am afraid that we have been disappointed. Following this debate, our understanding of Labour's defence policy will be no clearer than it was at the beginning. We see a party infested with unilateral disarmers pretending that it will keep our nuclear deterrent. Labour Members who call for new orders and plead for the Government to save this
Column 249
unit or that will shortly go through the Division Lobbies to vote for an amendment that calls for further cuts in defence expenditure. That is the official Labour party amendment, which you have selected, Mr. Speaker.A quick glance at the Order Paper shows that 16 members of the Labour party want to get rid of Britain's deterrent, kick the Americans out of Europe and reduce our defence expenditure to a third. Behind those 16 names there are many more, and we cannot in any way entrust the country's defence to the Labour party. Question put, That the amendment be made :--
The House divided : Ayes 238, Noes 345.
Division No. 226] [10 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Allen, Graham
Alton, David
Anderson, Donald
Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Armstrong, Hilary
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Ashton, Joe
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Barron, Kevin
Battle, John
Beckett, Margaret
Beith, A. J.
Bellotti, David
Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)
Benton, Joseph
Bermingham, Gerald
Blair, Tony
Blunkett, David
Boateng, Paul
Boyes, Roland
Bradley, Keith
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Caborn, Richard
Callaghan, Jim
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Canavan, Dennis
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Carr, Michael
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Clay, Bob
Clelland, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Cohen, Harry
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Corbett, Robin
Corbyn, Jeremy
Cousins, Jim
Cox, Tom
Crowther, Stan
Cryer, Bob
Cummings, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Cunningham, Dr John
Dalyell, Tam
Darling, Alistair
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Dewar, Donald
Dixon, Don
Dobson, Frank
Doran, Frank
Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Dunnachie, Jimmy
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Eadie, Alexander
Eastham, Ken
Edwards, Huw
Evans, John (St Helens N)
Fatchett, Derek
Faulds, Andrew
Fearn, Ronald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Fisher, Mark
Flannery, Martin
Flynn, Paul
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Foster, Derek
Foulkes, George
Fraser, John
Fyfe, Maria
Galbraith, Sam
Galloway, George
Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
George, Bruce
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Godman, Dr Norman A.
Golding, Mrs Llin
Gordon, Mildred
Gould, Bryan
Graham, Thomas
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Grocott, Bruce
Hain, Peter
Hardy, Peter
Harman, Ms Harriet
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Henderson, Doug
Hinchliffe, David
Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Home Robertson, John
Hood, Jimmy
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Howells, Geraint
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Hoyle, Doug
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
| Next Section
| Home Page |