House of Commons Hansard Debates for 21 Jun 1993

Column 85

NATO framework, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) referred, is particulary valuable.

The roles of the Western European Union, the Franco-German force and the rapid reaction corps are worth examining and exploring further, but the western European contribution is likely to be more effective if the NATO framework is used, not least because of the importance of the United States connection, which needs to be handled with even more care now than it was in the past, because of the changing relationship between western Europe and the United States and the changing attitudes--in some ways worrying--in the United States towards western Europe.

Collaboration means that we should take yet another look at our European relationships. For example, we must encourage our German friends to overcome their constitutional inhibitions about using their own forces. We must ensure that we collaborate not only with them but with our French allies. I was particularly interested in a proposal by Dr. Christopher Coker in a recent edition of the "European Security Analyst" of April 1992. He said :

"The Europeans might develop a new formula for European security based not on burden-sharing, but the sharing of responsibilities. Such a concept of security would enable each country to measure its own contribution to a diverse mixture of international public goods such as defence expenditure, foreign aid, grants to multilateral institutions, even environmental protection. Such an accounting framework would permit countries to establish macro-political and macro-economic targets for European security."

That approach was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), and it bears close examination. I want also to refer to our reserve forces. As a former regular officer, I came to appreciate their value, which has greatly increased. I was glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence referred to their contribution in his speech on 17 June. He spoke about the "crucial contribution" that the reserve forces have to make. When he announced the changes, he pledged his

"personal commitment to the future of our reserve forces." [ Official Report, 17 June 1993 ; Vol. 226, c. 1008.]

I am sure that that is the answer.

In this new, difficult world in which we live, a case can be made for a general reserve force. The unpredictability of the tasks that lie ahead of us is a strong justification for retaining our reserve forces, which cost only just over 2 per cent. of the defence budget. At a very low cost, they provide a well motivated and well trained source of manpower.

Volunteer reservists could be used cost-effectively to bring regular units up to strength, prior to operational deployment, with little or no need to resort to plundering other regular units. Reservists are particularly strong in the infantry battalions. Infantry and armour are the forces that will, I believe, be needed increasingly in this strange new world in which we are learning to live.

I hope that, in my right hon. and learned Friend's review of the Territorial Army, which he has promised later in the year, he will take careful account of the great contribution that the TA infantry battalions in particular have made to this country, and of their potential role in this complex world of the future.

Service in the Territorial Army has an even greater spin-off. It ensures that many members of society become linked with the armed forces and therefore know what the

Column 86

armed forces are all about. It is many years since we dispensed with compulsory military service. Relatively few members of our society therefore understand the needs and the points of view of the armed forces. The reserve forces can make a significant contribution.

If I may dare to say so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this Chamber makes an important contribution to the reserve forces. Those who saw war service are few indeed. The Father of the House is the only exception who comes immediately to my mind. Hon. Members with Territorial Army and reserve forces service therefore bring another important element to our deliberations.

I return to the crucial issue of funding. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden, I believe that there can be no question of increasing the defence budget. We must, consequently, ensure that we use the funds that are available to the maximum possible effect. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State reminded us, in an article in The Sunday Times on 18 April, that in this current financial year

"we will still be spending £24.5 billion compared with £23.5 billion two years ago."

Those figures have to be set against the constant cuts in manpower and weaponry. That highlights yet again the need for good housekeeping, which must again be emphasised and brought to bear upon the Ministry of Defence and all its activities.

I know that the Ministry of Defence has heard this song for at least 30 years, but it cannot be sung too often. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend and his ministerial colleagues to go on probing and prodding to ensure that we get value for money for the expenditure of £24.5 billion.

7.58 pm

Mr. Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent) : Parliament is being asked to approve a £24 billion commitment to the so-called defence of the nation. However, the Government, who want us to accept this programme, are planning cuts in public services and in invalidity and many other benefits.

It is not good enough just to criticise the Government. There is an obligation on each and every one of us to put forward an alternative. That alternative should, I believe, be based mainly on cuts in defence expenditure. If we made those cuts, we could begin to protect our public services. If we refuse to take that road, we shall have to ask ourselves how we intend to fund those public services, which are so important to each of us. We could, for example, raise VAT and income tax. I would oppose increases in VAT, but would support increases in income tax for higher earners. I suspect, however, that my party will not fight the next election on a platform of tax increases.

We could begin to fund public services by increases in economic growth. I suspect that there will not be growth in the next few years, partly because of the Government's incompetence in managing the economy and, linked to that, because of the recession in western Europe. I suspect that we shall not see economic growth, or the increased tax take that results from it, to fund public services. If we are unable or unwilling to finance public services using those methods, we must cut not programmes to help areas and people who are in greatest need but our defence programme. Why do not Labour Front-Bench spokesmen have the courage to propose that? Why cannot we link defence expenditure to that of other European countries?

Column 87

Labour Front-Bench spokesmen continually tell us that we cannot oppose the Maastricht treaty because it is Labour policy to support it. If, all of a sudden, Labour policy, decided at our conference, is now of paramount importance in the minds of our Front-Bench spokesmen, I ask them to apply the same reasoning to this argument. Successive Labour conferences have decided that we should link our defence expenditure to that of other European countries.

The 1992 NATO review shows that the average defence expenditure of European countries is 2.7 per cent. of GDP, whereas in the United Kingdom it is approximately 4 per cent. If we were to spend the same proportion of GDP as our European partners, we would save about £8, 000 million. Imagine what we could begin to do with that money. Imagine the houses that we could build and the improvements that we could make in education and health services and invalidity and other state benefits, which are so important to our people. We would then begin to meet the demands and aspirations of the people whom we purport to represent. If we fail and continue to spend vast sums of money on weapons of war, the losers will be those same people whom we were elected to represent. As someone once said :

"You cannot eat missiles and you cannot educate people with aircraft carriers."

It saddens me to say that Labour Members--or at least some Labour Members-- will not have the courage to support that demand. Neither will we have the courage to support the abandonment of Trident. According to the former Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the annual running cost of Trident is about £190 million, although some people would estimate it to be far higher.

What is the purpose of such expenditure? It is supposed to be partly for refits. In the past few months, we have heard a lot of politics about the refit of Trident. Squabbles have broken out between Devonport and Rosyth yards over which is to be awarded what some people regard as a very lucrative contract. I understand Members representing those areas arguing that the contract should be placed with their own work force, but that is not the answer. We should demand the establishment of real jobs, with long- term stability and security, not shadow jobs. We should back conversion of the military nuclear industry. We should use its skills to clean up the terrible legacy of radioactive waste that has already been created by the Polaris nuclear programme, rather than adding to the problem. Indeed, if a future Labour Government were to implement present party policy, as set out in our last manifesto--to strengthen the non-proliferation treaty and to negotiate with the other four recognised nuclear powers for a reduction in the stocks of nuclear weapons--Trident would not have to be refitted. It would have to be cancelled or negotiated away. It is a short-sighted strategy to continue military employment on a programme that the nation is committed to abandoning as a result of our nuclear disarmament commitments under the non-proliferation treaty.

The former Minister told the House on 18 May that he was somewhat alarmed that my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) had talked

Column 88

"about negotiating away our deterrent." [ Official Report, 18 May 1993 ; Vol. 225, c.147.]

That is what the non-proliferation treaty requires of us--to enter into negotiations in good faith, to end the nuclear arms race at an early date and to pursue nuclear disarmament. The political pressure that was exerted on, for example, North Korea when it announced in March that it was going to opt out of the non-proliferation treaty--a decision which it postponed a couple of weeks ago--shows that the elite club of nuclear weapons nations, including the United Kingdom, wants to persist with the hypocrisy of, "Do as we tell you, not as we do ourselves."

Some nuclear doubters want a compromise on keeping nuclear weapons by calling for a commitment of no first use by the United Kingdom, but that obviously implies that we shall support their second use. Whom do we intend to blow up with our Trident missiles or Polaris submarines? Perhaps children or teachers in school, patients or medical staff in hospital, the infirm, the old, pregnant mothers or politicians who represent countries in eastern Europe, all of which we now supposedly support. All those innocent people would be devastated even if one single nuclear weapon were dropped on a nuclear or military target.

What is the purpose of our expensive status symbols? Nuclear weapons were not deployed in the Falklands or in the Gulf and I have not heard any rumours that they will be deployed in Yugoslavia or Somalia. We should heed the advice that was given at the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki--advice which people hoped would be heard the world over. They said, "Step back and learn from us." That is what we should be doing. I have no confidence that the Government will respond positively to that advice, but surely we must expect Labour Front-Bench spokesmen to do so.

Mr. Wolfson : The hon. Gentleman argues that we should not continue to keep a nuclear deterrent because it has not been deployed in recent conflicts, but what about its possible deployment by others if we did not have that deterrent?

Mr. Smith : If nuclear weapons are a deterrent, by definition, they must deter. They can deter only if the other side knows that we are willing to use them. Once they have been used, civilisation as we know it will come to an end. I cannot see the sense of those nuclear weapons, which is why I began by talking about nuclear weapons and their so-called defence of the nation state and the United Kingdom. I am interested in defence, not annihilation.

That is why we must set our sights a lot higher. I shall conclude with the words of one of the greatest peace campaigners of this century, Bertrand Russell :

"Humankind could then look forward to a future, immeasurably longer than the past, inspired by a new breadth of vision and a continuing hope perpetually fed by a continuing achievement."

He was talking about the possibilities open to us if we should, once and for all, get rid of nuclear weapons. That is the challenge and opportunity facing us. If we refuse to accept that challenge, future generations should not, and will not, forgive us.

8.8 pm

Mr. Rupert Allason (Torbay) : We are at a crossroads. Since "Options for Change" was published, the world has changed dramatically. "Options for Change" was meant to

Column 89

reflect the concerns of the Government and to show that the Government had grasped what could be interpreted as the peace dividend. I believe that one essential aspect of "Options for Change" has been overlooked in the past 18 months, and that is that there must be a balance between commitment and resources. There must also be an honest and public recognition of exactly what that commitment is.

Many people in the armed forces believe that there is a hidden agenda. They are dismayed not so much by "Options for Change" but by what has happened since. It is worrying that, depending on what criteria one uses, there are between 24 and 28 conflicts in the world. My proposition is that, far from being a safer place, the world is now more unpredictable, and global insecurity is a reality. I wish to make two specific points in that connection. The first is nuclear proliferation.

Algeria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan are indulging in nuclear research at a dramatic rate. We are well aware that within the old eastern bloc there is not only one nuclear power but four. In the era of the old super-power confrontation we knew what the Soviet negotiating position was likely to be on any particular issue. Whether we liked the Soviets or not, we knew that they would negotiate and that, when they signed the treaty, they would, by and large, deliver. That is no longer the case. We are no longer aware even of who the personalities are in the four eastern bloc nuclear states ; nor do we know the extent of the control that they exercise over the nuclear weapons on their territory or how much support individual leaders have in those countries.

I have mentioned the countries that we know are indulging in nuclear research at a dramatic rate. I emphasise their importance because we are talking about nuclear physicists in the old eastern bloc who have spent their lives developing nuclear weapons. Today, they cannot feed their families or buy bread on their income. Accordingly, they are very susceptible to offers of lucrative contracts from Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya and Algeria. None of those states recommend themselves as paragons of stability or democracy, but what of the other countries that we know for certain have nuclear weapons? Israel has about 24 or 26 individual weapons. South Africa has about three devices but has agreed to dismantle them. We are talking about a proliferation not only of nuclear weapons but of nuclear expertise and, significantly, of the raw material that is required to put them together. Surely it is a dangerous recipe : the technology and the raw materials are available across eastern Europe--there have been several arrests recently in which important technology has been seized--and various powers are willing to employ the people who have that technology.

I deal now with North Korea, another state which one would hardly describe as a paragon of democracy or anything else and which has opted out of nuclear inspection. That is surely a very worrying scenario. What is our response to the threat? I call it a threat because if certain countries acquire nuclear weapons--we know how very close Saddam Hussein came to acquiring nuclear technology and at least one weapon--we will become vulnerable to nuclear blackmail. Although I am a strong advocate of the retention of the nuclear deterrent, I am not entirely convinced that the threat of a nuclear strike by a Trident submarine from 6,000 miles away will have an enormous impact on a despot operating from an Islamic country, perhaps in the

Column 90

north of Africa. I believe that with Trident we may be lumbered with an expensive system which we are obliged to retain. It would be sheer folly for us to rely solely on Trident.

Islamic fundamentalism is the second topic that I should like to cover. Islamic fundamentalism will continue to be a source of instability across the globe. It is easy to forget that the largest Islamic country is also a country that has the second highest rate of population growth. Its name does not immediately spring to mind, but we should bear it in mind that, about 20 years ago, it realised that it was running out of space, exercised aggression and took over a neighbouring country. Not one country did a damned thing to stop the Indonesian invasion of East Timor. It is the country to which we last week decided to sell £500 million worth of jet aircraft trainers. I am all in favour of defence sales, but anyone visiting Australia will know that the security and intelligence authorities there are always extremely nervous about their neighbour to the north. There is a volatile combination of an Islamic country with an enormous population growth rate and no more room. I therefore believe that Islamic fundamentalism, whether it be in the Mediterranean or in the middle or far east, is likely to be a source of instability in the future.

The Government's first responsibility is not the provision of child benefit to multimillionairesses such as Soraya Khashoggi or the provision of universal benefits to higher rate tax payers. The Government's first responsibility is surely defence. There will not be any money to dish out to meet all the demands on the social security and other budgets if we are not able to defend ourselves. I say "ourselves", but I am not an old Blimp suggesting that the Warsaw pact poses a credible threat to the south coast of England. We have important commitments throughout the world. Several parallels have been drawn, and Germany and France have been identified as having similar defence budgets to ours. However, their commitments are nothing like ours. They do not have the anxiety that we should surely have about Hong Kong. We have a continuing commitment to NATO and, of course, we have a seat on the United Nations Security Council. That means a commitment to United Nations forces around the world. Bearing in mind dependent territories and our responsibility to the nine remaining colonies, we should not necessarily be considering cutting our budget but deciding what our commitment is and then deciding the appropriate defence strategy to match it. Surely it is dotty to assume that we will always be joined by multinational forces whenever there is a conflict in the globe. The truth is that no one assisted us in the Falklands conflict, and we could not have expected any other European country to do so. In fact, Spain and Italy were utterly opposed to our action and everyone else was ambivalent. We cannot rely on Europe.

Similarly, it is odd that, within a few days of the announcement that we were to reduce our commitment to Belize, there should be political instability on a grand scale in Guatemala--the one country that directly threatens Belize. The proposition that we can reduce our commitment to Belize because the Guatemalans have been quiescent for a while is sheer folly.

The first responsibility of the Government is unquestionably defence. I believe that we should approve the defence estimates this evening, but only if there is a

Column 91

commitment from the Government to explain to the British public what our defence commitment is around the globe and what that commitment is perceived to be in the future. I think that that anxiety is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I am afraid that I do not have much faith in the ability of the Foreign Office to protect British interests. It is up to this sovereign Parliament to protect British interests, because I do not believe that anyone else will.

Parallels have been drawn this evening between this age and 1935 and other dark eras. One lesson that can be learned from history is that no one ever learns anything from history. There are no parallels with 1935, or indeed with any other time. We are now aware that there never was a credible threat from the eastern bloc. That threat appeared to be potent, but analysis of the opened archives in the former Soviet Union make it clear that the Soviets were never a threat to anyone but themselves, countries in the eastern bloc that could not defend themselves and, of course, Afghanistan. That does not change the fact that the armed forces that remain in the former eastern bloc have enormous strength.

I would therefore urge the House--whether or not the Government are prepared to do so--to demand a strategic review of all our commitments around the world. I am afraid that I do not trust the civil servants to do that job for us.

8.24 pm

Ms Ann Coffey (Stockport) : I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate. My interest concerns the Minister's recent announcement that Kentigern house in Glasgow is the favoured option for the new integrated army personnel centre.

The Minister will appreciate that I am not happy about that decision. Europa house--the rejected building--is in Stockport, and my constituents were bitterly disappointed by the Minister's announcement.

On 13 January 1993, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces initiated a consultation process on the proposal to establish an integrated army personnel centre in Glasgow. That consultation followed a study by Brigadier Roberts, which concluded that the purchase of a commercial property in Glasgow at a cost of £20 million would offer the most cost -effective location.

On 4 March, the Minister announced in the House that an alternative proposal was being looked at relating to a building in Stockport, Europa house, at a significantly lower purchase price of £4 million. He said that a number of other representations also offered alternative solutions to the original selection of Glasgow and, in the light of those, the original parameters of Brigadier Roberts' study and the options available to meet the requirements were to be reviewed. That new review was able to take into account the Department's new space guidelines, which had not been finalised when Brigadier Roberts undertook his study and recommended Glasgow, in November 1992.

The result of the review was the announcement on 13 May that Kentigern house had been chosen for the new army personnel centre. Brigadier Roberts had of course looked at Kentigern house in his original study but had concluded that it was not the most cost-effective option as it involved building an extension to house the anticipated

Column 92

extra staff. The new guidelines meant that the review could now consider more "flexibly" the use of accommodation in Kentigern house.

The space guidelines have not yet been accepted by the Council of Civil Service Unions, as I am sure the Minister is aware ; they are still the subject of negotiation. It would presumably be very difficult if they were rejected, as the option of Kentigern house is based on their acceptance.

The introduction of the army personnel centre accommodation study that recommended Kentigern house after looking at all the options states that the formal statement of requirements reflects the recommendations of the Roberts study and that the building specification mirrors closely that which was the basis for the Roberts study search. I draw the Minister's attention to appendix C, which states that all the office accommodation is to be available under one roof. There is a probable requirement to house 1,967 staff full time, with a further 150 in designated support areas. It is proposed to house 1,910 in Kentigern house and the remaining 207 in Wellesley house. Kentigern house is one roof. Wellesley house is one roof. One plus one roof equals two roofs. That does not meet the requirement laid out in appendix C.

I also draw the Minister's attention to appendix A, which deals with car parking requirements and states that there must be one space per 300 sq m of gross office space, with a quota of 3 per cent. of civilian staff for disabled civilian staff, as well as 15 spaces for visitors. Kentigern house has 96 car parking spaces. It is estimated that, of the 1,910 staff to be housed in Kentigern house, 237 will be Army personnel. That leaves 1,673 civilian staff. The 3 per cent. requirement will be 53 spaces. Add to that 15 spaces for visitors and we have a total of 68 spaces, leaving 28 car parking spaces for the 1,957 staff. That is ludicrous. It will not meet the requirement of one space per 300 sq m. In fact, I understand that the 1,000 staff already based in Kentigern house hold a raffle once a month for car parking spaces.

I refer next to the costings and to the comparisons between Kentigern and Europa house. For Kentigern, it is stated that the cost of refurbishment of the building and upgrading services will be £5.79 million and will take 22.5 months--that is very precise--to complete. However, the study states :

"Feasibility of this option is dependent on whether the whole potential Glasgow requirement--Army personnel centre and non-Army personnel centre-- can be housed cost effectively in the city." The Roberts study stated that 75 officers' and 55 soldiers' married quarters would need to be built at a cost of £8 million for the Glasgow option. In the Stockport area--not only in Stockport itself, but in Chester and Ashton-under-Lyne--there is a minimum of 102 quarters, many of which are empty. The cost of Kentigern is £8 million plus £5.79 million for the building--a total of £13.79 million. Add to that the fact that the high cost of Glasgow housing, referred to in the Defence Council Instructions Civilian 75/92, suggests that in relocating staff in Glasgow additional housing costs allowances will have to be higher than anywhere else.

One of the factors in favour of Kentigern was that the first tranche of staff from London could be moved to Glasgow by May 1995, whereas Europa house would be completed in November 1995. However, existing staff have to be moved out to allow refurbishment of the building--some 500 staff for 15 months, at an estimated cost of *F

Column 93

£0.8 million, which I suggest is a gross underestimate. The cost has now increased from £13.79 million plus£0.8 million to £14.59 million. We must add to that the cost of car parking, as I assume that the Ministry of Defence will be meeting its own requirements as set out in its document.

It is estimated that it would cost £15.98 million for the complete refurbishment of Europa house. It has 510 car parking spaces and it is under one roof. Included in that figure is the purchase price of £4 million. Nuclear Electric owns the building. It is a nationalised industry, so the purchase price is a transfer between the budget of one Government Department and another--meaningless in terms of the overall Government budget. If we subtract£4 million from the £15.98 million, we arrive at the figure of £11.98 million. Some additional housing costs may be added to that. On my calculations, Europa house is the cheaper option. There are other details to consider, such as the cost of redundancies, which would also favour the Stockport location.

Kentigern house does not meet Ministry of Defence requirements on two counts--roofs and car parking. I suggest that the costings are highly dubious and that they have been massaged to make Kentigern house, overwhelmingly, the only possible option. The Kentigern house option was thrown out by Brigadier Roberts in his original study as being too expensive. Since his study and the new study, the specifications have not changed--with the exception of new space guidelines which have allowed a review of Kentigern house. Those new guidelines, which have not as yet been accepted by staff and would apparently create a high degree of staff cramming, make the difference in the building being acceptable. It is incredible that an option thrown out initially as being too expensive is now enthused over as the favoured option.

In the words of the Prime Minister last week, this tale of the search for a site for an integrated army personnel centre "beggars belief". Thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money has been wasted on fairly useless consultants. My constituents believe that those figures bear no relation to reality and that it is a political fix so gross as to be worthy of an episode of "Yes, Minister".

I urge the Minister to reconsider Europa house in the name of justice and fairness to my constituents and the constituents of my colleagues in the north-west. If that does not touch his heart, will he reconsider the matter because his alternative proposal will cost the taxpayer more? That surely cannot be acceptable to the Government--and even if it is acceptable to the Government, it is certainly not acceptable to the people.

8.33 pm

Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset) : I am glad to follow the hon. Lady. I am going to enrol her in my new organisation called "MOD office-blockers anonymous". That is certainly a scandal waiting to happen. I am sorry to say that I already have an MOD building in mind, which will become vacant and could accommodate all the people she has been talking about--but that is a constituency interest of mine. I very much appreciate the armed forces of our country and the many civilians who support them--including the many in my constituency. I have just returned from Nigeria, where I was an international observer, watching the military regime transferring, one hopes, to a civilian

Column 94

regime. That made me realise that the standards that our armed forces set, as world leaders, are ones to which we must pay tribute. We must also try to understand those people and maintain their morale in these difficult times.

I am glad to see the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), taking note. I am sure that he has been warned by his colleagues of the terrible people of South Dorset, who are constantly accused of trying to make his life difficult. That is not true. I could go through a list of some 20 or 30 changes that have happened at Portland and at Bovington. I have looked at those changes and I have found my hon. Friend to be working well in that area. I believe that the Ministry occasionally gets things right.

I can assure my hon. Friend that the concerns that I discuss with him are real concerns and that they reflect not a belief that we should increase our MOD budget, but a belief that we must make savings and cut out waste. I am sure that hon. Members from all parties share that view.

I was somewhat confused when I looked at the amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition and others. They were obviously flushed out by the official Labour party line as expressed in the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and others, and had to table their own amendment.

It is preposterous that the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition refers to conventional forces being included in "further international disarmament negotiations". That suggests that simply talking to the former Soviet Union about further cuts in its armed forces, as has happened in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, would automatically trigger our ability to cut our armed forces even further. We heard about the Labour party's hidden agenda from the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith). It would mean an additional £8 billion being taken from the defence budget after the cuts that we have already made in it. That chop-logic must be exposed for what it is.

The other main plank of Labour's policy, about which Labour Members constantly talk, is defence industry diversification. They constantly say that we should tell companies that currently manufacture defence equipment how to convert themselves for civilian uses. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has read the detailed report produced last Session by the Select Committee on Employment entitled "Industrial Change : Retraining and Redeployment". Labour Members have certainly not read it.

We especially targeted the defence industry and studied what happened in the United States, especially in Texas which found that there were large cuts in its defence industries. We talked to all the defence companies that had studied diversification. Time and time again, the defence companies told us that they could not convert their companies into civilian companies manufacturing consumer goods. It was not possible or sensible.

If an area is affected by large defence reductions, we must do something to stimulate the economy generally. Such efforts must come from other Government Departments. Although the Ministry of Defence is very much appprised of our problems in Portland and in Weymouth, and of the cuts in defence expenditure and defence employment, we have not got the message fully through to all the other Departments.

Column 95

I am very concerned that after months of discussions about the KONVER programme, which was designed specifically by the European Parliament to get over the problems of individual blackspots caused by cuts in defence which were outside assisted area status, we still do not have agreement within the Government on how to spend the money that is available to us under KONVER. We need to target that money. We must talk to the Department of Transport about the roads infrastructure and to the Department of Environment, which needs to realise that local authorities will have to spend a lot more money on attracting people and will have to provide the sites necessary. The Department of Employment does seem to be aware that it needs to have a lot of retraining and to have many schemes in place. That is extremely important.

In these debates, we go into detail about many issues, not all of which are important in getting the armed forces right. We always spend an enormous amount of time talking about regiments. I am glad to say that there has been little of that today. I believe that we may well have taken a wrong turn in reinstating regiments rather than concentrating on how many more people we could have got into the new regimental structure. That would have been a better way in which to spend the money.

We must also be careful about the balance between high technology and low technology. Yes, we need weapons systems and we must ensure that they are battle-winning, high-technology systems. However, we should not try to reinvent the wheel in every defence manufacturing posture. We must achieve partnerships with the United States and our European allies to ensure that we do not have to build every high-tech system. We must look for economies and take difficult decisions and that occasionally means that a particular manufacturer in a group of constituencies will not receive a certain order. Low technology is also very important. We must have the infrantryman, the ordinary sailor, marine and RAF guy available to do what is necessary when we carry out the policing roles in which we are so often involved.

The EH101 is very important. The RAF and the Army have been very slow in getting that helicopter for medium lift. By keeping one type of helicopter, we will ensure that there are savings in spares and training. When my hon. Friend the Minister decides to order the EH101 for the other services, he should insist that there is a commonality in respect of that aircraft so that each service does not order a completely different type of EH101. If there is a commonality, there will be interoperability and spares savings.

I want to finish, as I began, by referring to the new organisation that I have just christened called "MOD office-blockers anonymous." As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is a fresh face at the Department, I urge him to consider the way in which brand new high-tech office blocks are the name of the game within the MOD.

I understand that my hon. Friend will be able to tap into a computer system. I am not sure whether that system is classified, but I am sure that my hon. Friend has clearance. That system will show him all the current schemes in train to build new office blocks all over the

Column 96

country. I do not know whether those office blocks will be able to move on wheels or attack the enemy if we are under attack, but they seem to be the flavour of the month.

My hon. Friend also has in his Department a complete list of the sites that his predecessors have been persuaded to close and sell for other uses which were never sold and for which we did not receive any money in the form of savings.

When my hon. Friend tries to make savings and when the Treasury is on his back looking for more money, he should ask himself where he can find £300 million for a new office block and to move people. He should also ask himself where he will find another £300 million for a new computer system which, I heard just the other day, will probably never come to fruition. An interim system is being installed and the Sea Systems Controllerate, which is to move to the north of Bristol, will cost an arm and a leg, and I do not believe that it will be efficient. If my hon. Friend the Minister starts with that and moves on to the other office blocks about which we have heard today, I believe that he will make his name quicker in the MOD than he made it in his previous Department.

Several hon. Members rose--

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the 38 minutes remaining for this debate, six hon. Members still hope to catch my eye. I hope that they will all be able to do that ; with a little co-operation, that will happen. 8.42 pm

Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South) : In the time available to me, I want to concentrate on paragraphs 133 and 134 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1992." I wish that we could have had this debate last year, and it is an absolute disgrace that we are debating today a document which is so out of date as world events have moved on so much. Unfortunately, that is the way things are organised at the moment.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) referred on Thursday to the need to achieve a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. He pointed out how the British Government's position is a threat to the continuation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, the review conference of which will be held in 1995.

The 1990 NPT review conference was a disaster and complete failure largely because of strong criticisms by several third world countries led by Mexico of the position adopted by the United States and British Governments because they were deemed to have not acted in good faith to secure real measures of nuclear disarmament as a result of their opposition to halting nuclear tests. The British Government's position today poses a long-term threat to the survival of the NPT. It also acts as a red light to disarmament and a green light to proliferators and those who wish to keep nuclear weapons in the republics that have emerged from the former Soviet Union. We have heard that our action to stop nuclear testing would have no effect on proliferation. I do not accept that. Action that we could take would have a serious effect if only we could have an internationally verified and enforced disarmament regime to stop nuclear testing.

If people say, "Well, you can do nothing about North Korea," they should consider what the United Nations and the international community have done in the past

Column 97

two years to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. That proves that if the international community and the UN Security Council have the political will and are prepared to carry it through, they can act forcibly to stop countries which defy those treaties and which are prepared surreptitiously and with the connivance of leading figures in this country and, unfortunately, in our Government from building up their nuclear weapons programmes.

The real debate about nuclear testing in this country is not being carried out here. It is being carried out in the United States. I want to refer to two press reports which have appeared in the past few days. On 12 June, The Daily Telegraph reported that : "British hopes of testing a redesigned nuclear warhead at a Nevada site suffered a setback yesterday when United States officials suggested President Clinton may drop his plan to resume underground testing.

They said Mr. Clinton intended to take the temperature' of Congress on the issue"

this week. The Times stated that Britain was banking on the United States to restart nuclear weapons tests because it wanted to test a new weapons system. It did not want to go ahead with it for the reason that we are given publicly, which is to ascertain the safety of the old WE177 warhead. Instead, it wanted to introduce a replacement for TASM--the tactical air-to -surface missile--or its successor which presumably will be deployed as a sub-strategic nuclear weapon system alongside the Trident system which, according to the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), has completed its testing programme.

I want to raise several fundamental questions. Why do we need such a sub- strategic nuclear weapon system? Why do we need to spend some £3,000 million? The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) referred to the spending of £300 million on an office block. Why do we need to spend £3,000 million on the development of future sub-strategic nuclear weapons which will operate at the same time as the Trident system? On whom will the systems be targeted?

What is the relevance of a sub-strategic nuclear weapon system when NATO's doctrines are moving away from that way of thinking and when we no longer have the mass tank formations of the Warsaw pact and the Soviet Union which were seen five, seven, 10 and 15 years ago as the justification for such theoretical systems, when it is inconceivable that this country would initiate the use of such nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states ? Indeed, our Government, by treaty and commitment, are pledged not to use nuclear weapons against countries which do not possess them and do not use them. According to remarks made by the Prime Minister last year, we are moving away from the idea of threatening the use of nuclear weapons in such circumstances.

What are the military benefits and the reasons for that? We have heard one justification which was, allegedly, the Islamic fundamentalist boom, but a few minutes later we were told that it had become clear that the alleged Soviet threat of the past never really existed. I wonder whether the alleged Islamic fundamentalist threat exists or whether it is a convenient device for those who wish to continue their nuclearphilia--their love of nuclear weapons--and develop nuclear weapons systems.

This country needs a fundamental rethink about the nuclear weapons system. We have to be prepared to say that we will make our own contribution, persuade our

Next Section

Home Page