| Home Page |
Column 309
House of Commons
Tuesday 23 November 1993
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]
Oral Answers to Questions
DEFENCE
Export Orders
1. Mrs. Browning : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will announce the latest defence export orders won by British defence companies this year.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken) : The most recent major export order was the sale of Warrior armourevehicles by GKN to Kuwait. With this and other major orders, it is now clear that this year's defence export performance will exceed even last year's record-breaking figure of £5.2 billion.
Mrs. Browning : I welcome my hon. Friend's reply. He will be aware of the importance of the defence industry to the west country. Will the Government give whatever support they can to Westland Helicopters, which was recently disappointed by the loss of the order for the EH101 helicopter from the new Liberal Government in Canada? It is an important industry, so will my hon. Friend do all that he can to sell these helicopters, both abroad and at home?
Mr. Aitken : I am well aware from the persuasive advocacy of my hon. Friend and many other Members on both sides of the House that Westland is extremely well regarded, and rightly so. As for future orders, at home we are making some progress internally on this matter, but all that I can say to my hon. Friend is watch this space.
Mr. David Clark : Bearing in mind the fact that any contract gained by fraud is itself fraudulent, and following the conviction of Gordon Foxley, will the Minister terminate the contract of the three foreign companies named in that court case--Fratelli, Raufoss and Junghans--and award the work to the royal ordnance factories, which would have won the original order if it had not been for fraud in his Department?
Mr. Aitken : I share the hon. Gentleman's sense of concern and outrage about the events to which he referred. They are deplorable. They happened some years ago--Mr. Foxley having retired in 1984--but there are still some current issues. We will not be placing new contracts with the firms concerned until all the facts have been fully investigated in the light of the current appeal. We are reviewing what scope there is to recover the money paid by those firms to Mr. Foxley and are urgently examining the
Column 310
legal position on that and a number of other related matters. We are at one with the Opposition that it is a deplorable matter and we will take steps to remedy it as far as we can.Mr. Burns : Does my hon. Friend accept that areas such as Chelmsford are heavily reliant on defence orders and have an excellent record of exporting first-class products and services? Does he agree that there would be substantial job losses if we were to adopt the policy of a 50 per cent. cut in the defence budget between now and the end of the century, as advocated by the Liberal Democrats? [Interruption.]
Mr. Aitken : My hon. Friend has hit the bull's eye, judging by the indignation coming from the Opposition Front Bench. He is right to stress the importance of the defence industry to many towns, including Chelmsford, which he so ably represents. I concur with his view that the policy of massive defence cuts advocated by both Opposition parties would result in severe job losses throughout the realm.
Independent Nuclear Deterrent
2. Mr. Menzies Campbell : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the independent nuclear deterrent.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind) : The Government remain committed to maintaining the minimum independent nuclear capability required for our security needs.
Mr. Menzies Campbell : The right hon. and learned Gentleman's announcement last week--taken together with the decision to cancel the tactical air-to-surface missile, which he announced in the defence estimates debate--marks a welcome change in the Government's policy. Will he go further, without prejudicing the security of the United Kingdom--if the policy is truly one of minimum nuclear deterrence--and say why it is necessary to deploy Trident with more warheads than are deployed with Polaris, which it is to replace? Trident has nearly twice the range of Polaris and is accurate to within 250m and, unlike Polaris, its warheads are capable of being independently targeted.
Mr. Rifkind : The hon. and learned Gentleman has forgotten two important factors. First, the total explosive yield that will be carried by Trident will be approximately the same as that carried by Polaris ; secondly, I have said that Trident will have a sub-strategic as well as a strategic role. The comparison that the hon. and learned Gentleman has made is therefore even less valid than it would be otherwise.
Mr. Quentin Davies : Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the fact that non-proliferation is, sadly, breaking down in the world- -and the fact that there are likely to be another six nuclear powers by the end of the century--make it even more vital for us to maintain our independent nuclear capability? Is not it about time that Opposition Members woke up to those facts?
Mr. Rifkind : It is indeed important for non-proliferation to be encouraged by every available means. We shall soon be entering detailed negotiations on the continuation of the non-proliferation treaty.
Column 311
My hon. Friend is right to point out that, sadly, we remain in a nuclear world which contains major nuclear powers. There will be thousands of strategic nuclear warheads for the foreseeable future. In those circumstances, the arguments that were used to explain the existence of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent in past years remain equally valid now.Mr. Frank Cook : The Secretary of State said that non-proliferation is a move to be supported and encouraged throughout the world. If that is so, can he explain why we continue to manufacture new warheads when we already have stockpiles?
Mr. Rifkind : The hon. Gentleman must be aware that the warheads required for the Trident system are not the same as those that were required for Polaris. That factor should convince him, as it has convinced everyone else.
Mr. Donald Anderson : In what way is the decision to base the sub- strategic nuclear capability on Trident related to the decision, announced last week, to increase the number of warheads? What would be the additional cost of the decision relating to the sub-strategic nuclear capability?
Mr. Rifkind : First, let me welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new responsibilities.
One of the attractions of using the Trident system for sub-strategic nuclear purposes is the fact that it will involve very little extra cost. Trident clearly has a capacity that we can use in both sub-strategic and strategic roles. Our decision was based on a careful and cool assessment of our overall needs.
Infantry Regiments
3. Mr. Fabricant : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to amalgamate or disband any midlands infantry regiments.
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jeremy Hanley) : We have no plans to amalgamate or disband any infantry battalions beyond those already announced.
Mr. Fabricant : I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. He will know that the Staffordshire Regiment was only recently reprieved from amalgamation with the Cheshires. Can he give an unequivocable assurance to the people of Lichfield and Staffordshire as a whole that there are no plans to amalgamate or disband that important regiment, now or in the future?
Mr. Hanley : I can give both an unequivocable and an unequivocal reply. As my hon. Friend said, the amalgamation of the Staffordshire Regiment with the Cheshire Regiment was cancelled in February, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State decided to revise his plans for the future size of the Army because of extra commitments in Northern Ireland and for the United Nations.
Armed Services
4. Rev. Martin Smyth : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the capacity of the armed services to meet their current commitments, including UN peace keeping and peace making roles.
Column 312
Mr. Rifkind : The Government's plans for force restructuring recognised that new peacetime commitments, including United Nations operations, could arise in the changed strategic setting. Britain's armed forces are currently engaged in a number of commitments, which they are fulfilling in a very satisfactory manner.
Rev. Martin Smyth : I welcome the Secretary of State's answer. Will he tell us what evidence was used to decide on the instructions to troops to remove their protective headgear and patrol in berets, in the face of continuing sniping in Northern Ireland? Does he believe that he would be able to redeploy troops in the light of the GOC's 60-point de-escalation plan?
Mr. Rifkind : The matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers were considered very carefully by the General Officer Commanding, Northern Ireland. He was clearly anxious to bring about a gradual return to normalcy, wherever possible and wherever sensible. If in his judgment it is appropriate to move in that direction, I am sure that we shall all welcome it ; no doubt he will examine these matters in a very careful and considered fashion.
Mr. Wilkinson : Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the crucial ingredient for effective support of United Nations operations on the part of the United Kingdom around the world is a modern air transport force and is he conscious of the bravery of the Royal Air Force crews who fly airlifts into Sarajevo in winter weather? Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure us that the Royal Air Force will obtain at an early date the C130J version of the Hercules, which offers greater economy, payload and range and has the important benefit of substantial British industrial participation?
Mr. Rifkind : My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to the remarkable and courageous work of the RAF pilots and their crews landing in Sarajevo under some of the most difficult circumstances to arise for many years. We are actively considering the future of the transport fleet and the points to which my hon. Friend has rightly referred.
Mr. Jim Marshall : In the light of the Belgian Government's decision to join the Euro-corps and the likely possibility of a similar Spanish decision, does the Secretary of State have any intention of changing his view that Britain should not be an active member of the Euro-corps?
Mr. Rifkind : Many of our criticisms of the original proposals were shared by a number of other NATO countries and were made as a result of valuable negotiations that took place between the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe and the French and German Governments, which made it clear that the Franco-German corps would be able to assist NATO in any operations that may be required. We have no intention of joining the Franco-German corps. We have an important commitment to the rapid reaction corps, which is central to NATO's strategy and we see the useful contribution that the Franco- German corps may make to NATO's overall requirements.
Mr. Elletson : Since the Bosnian Muslims now appear to be so grateful for Britain's role in the peacekeeping force in former Yugoslavia that they are threatening to sue us for genocide, since the Croats are now blocking the delivery of essential supplies to the Coldstream Guards and since the
Column 313
Serbs appear to be the only people in former Yugoslavia who want us to deliver humanitarian aid, is not it time that we stopped wasting taxpayers' money in Bosnia and brought the troops home by Christmas?Mr. Rifkind : My hon. Friend is certainly correct to imply that the humanitarian operation of providing food, medical aid and shelter can proceed only it it receives the co-operation of those for whom it is intended. I deplore, as I am sure does the House, some of reported remarks of representatives of the Bosnian Government. Clearly, it would be intolerable for forces to continue to provide humanitarian aid if those whom it was meant to benefit were proving so obstructive to troops doing that valuable work.
National Parks
5. Ms Quin : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy towards military activity in national parks.
Mr. Hanley : Use of national parks remains vital to our defence. They provide essential facilities that cannot be dispensed with and could not easily be replicated elsewhere.
Ms Quin : Is not it the case that only about 3 per cent. of national parks are in use for military activities at any one time, yet for the Northumberland national park the figure is 20 per cent? Does the Minister agree that that percentage should not be increased because if it were the character of the park would be greatly damaged?
Mr. Hanley : The hon. Lady is absolutely right that over 97 per cent. of national parks are not used by the Ministry of Defence. The 3 per cent. that we use is used efficiently and in an environmentally conscious manner. It is important that our troops are properly trained. About two thirds of the land that we use is used for live firing from time to time. I am conscious of the hon. Lady's interest, especially in the Otterburn range, and I can assure her that we will not increase our acquisition of national park land or use it more than is absolutely necessary.
Mr. Jenkin : Will my hon. Friend confirm that we are increasingly short of space in which to exercise our troops? May I especially draw his attention to the plight of the 24 Air Mobile Brigade, whose headquarters is based in my constituency, and whose airborne attack capability requires a large area in which to exercise? There is nowhere, not even Salisbury plain, where they can effectively exercise.
Mr. Hanley : I agree with my hon. Friend. The problem arises not just because of the shortage of land in Britain that is available for the training of our troops, but because the drawdown in Germany has resulted in the loss of valuable training grounds there. That has put additional pressure on the use of land within the United Kingdom. We continually look for appropriate sites for training because it is vital that our forces are properly trained to fulfil the roles for which almost the whole world is grateful.
Dr. Marek : Is the Minister aware that it is commonly perceived that military low flying is heavily concentrated in certain parts of the country? Are not some of the heaviest concentrations in our national parks? If that is the case, will the Minister publish information about how much military
Column 314
low flying, in excess of the average, occurs in national parks? If that is not the case, will he publish information to show that?Mr. Hanley : It is clearly more suitable that low flying occurs over areas of low population. During the six months that I have been in my post, I have answered almost 100 questions about low flying tabled by two of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are careful to take into account the disturbance caused by low flying. However, it is natural that areas of low population are used the most. The information on where low flying occurs is published on a map that I recently placed in the Library.
Trident
6. Mr. Hendry : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect he expects from the reduction in the Trident submarine firepower ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Rifkind : The announcement of a revised ceiling of 96 warheads per Trident submarine is based on our current assessment of our minimum deterrent needs.
Mr. Hendry : I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Can he confirm that when Trident is fully deployed, the total nuclear firepower held by the United Kingdom will be 25 per cent. lower than it was in 1990? Does not that show that the Government continue to have a coherent nuclear defence policy? Is not that in sharp contrast to the Labour party, whose spokesman--the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark)--has told the world at large, or at least that portion of it which reads the New Statesman, that even if a Labour Government kept Trident they would not use it?
Mr. Rifkind : It is certainly correct that the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has a curious understanding of the meaning of deterrent. He said clearly and unequivocally that a Labour Government would never use a deterrent, but would keep it simply so that it would be available.
My hon. Friend is correct to say that there has been a 25 per cent. reduction in nuclear firepower compared with 1990. In addition to the measures that we have proposed for Trident, there has been a 50 per cent. reduction in the number of Tornados carrying sub-strategic weapons. We have also abolished the nuclear artillery facility as well as nuclear tactical weapons carried on surface ships. The United Kingdom has made a substantial contribution to the reduction of nuclear weapons throughout the world.
Mr. Flynn : Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman list the circumstances in which Britain is likely to use its nuclear weapons?
Mr. Rifkind : The circumstances are precisely the same as those that existed when we first acquired nuclear weapons. If this country were faced with an attack by a nuclear power or by a country that had nuclear weapons and was threatening to overwhelm us, the United Kingdom, either by itself or as part of NATO, would be determined to use the power at our disposal to protect our citizens and our territory.
Column 315
Yugoslavia
7. Mr. Viggers : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom troops are currently engaged in support of United Nations operations in the former Yugoslavia.
Mr. Hanley : On 15 November, there were 2,267 British troops in Bosnia. In addition to those on the ground, Royal Navy ships and RAF squadrons are providing support to United Nations operations, including the humanitarian airlift into Sarajevo.
Mr. Viggers : Although the whole House admires the courage and skill that our troops bring to their role in Bosnia, does my hon. Friend agree that they are effectively tasked with mission impossible because they are spectators in a civil war? Has my hon. Friend noted the recent comments by Lord Owen that intervention can, in some circumstances, make the position worse? Will my hon. Friend undertake actively to keep open the option of withdrawal?
Mr. Hanley : One of the things about a mission impossible is that so often we look with admiration at those who are able to achieve what others might think is a mission impossible. Our forces have been achieving the impossible for the last few months. They have been delivering aid and keeping alive hundreds of thousands who would otherwise now be dead. I believe that what they are doing is not only in the highest order of humanitarian tasks but something of which we should be proud. They will continue to do that task until either they have an unacceptable risk put on them or there is peace. That will be a different situation.
Dr. David Clark : Does the Minister recall receiving a letter a couple of months ago from the Secretary-General of NATO asking how many troops Britain could contribute towards a United Nations peacekeeping operation in Bosnia following a permanent ceasefire signed by all three sides? Why has he not bothered to reply to that letter?
Mr. Hanley : We have not yet got a peace. I hope that soon there will be one. In the meantime, we are preparing what our reaction would be if there were peace. Therefore, the time will come when those figures will be announced.
Mr. Cormack : Does my hon. Friend accept that no one would not wish to pay tribute to the British troops for what they are doing? Will he remind the House that, while those troops have been there, more than 100,000 of the 200,000 killed have died in Bosnia? Will he further remind the House that the thrust of the blame should still be directed at Serbia? Will he do what he can to ensure that the mandate of our troops is increased so that they can help to make Sarajevo a truly safe city?
Mr. Hanley : I do not believe that it is desirable to try to apportion blame in an area where horrendous acts are carried out by all sides. It is a most distressing set of circumstances that has brought us to the present position. As part of the United Nations Protection Force, British troops are carrying out a role that is greatly desirable in the interests of those who cannot fight for themselves.
As to Sarajevo, we continue to work with the other nations which provide troops for UNPROFOR to try to ensure that humanitarian aid is distributed. If it is difficult to distribute that aid, it is merely because of those who try
Column 316
to be unpleasant, not only to innocent people, but to the people who are trying to provide that humanitarian aid. We will use whatever force is necessary, but it must be kept to a minimum.Nuclear Weapons
8. Mr. Gapes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration his Department is giving to the implications for (a) the United Kingdom and (b) NATO of the declaration of a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons by the United States of America ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Rifkind : A declaration of no first use plays no part in the United Kingdom's or NATO's nuclear deterrent policy. We are giving no consideration to a revision of that position.
Mr. Gapes : That is an amazing answer. Is not the Secretary of State aware that last year the United States Secretary of Defence, Les Aspin, wrote a book calling for a move from deterrence to denuking and at the same time called for a policy of no first use, and that the United States has introduced a comprehensive review of its defence strategy, including its nuclear strategy? That will have huge implications for NATO and this country, yet our Government complacently are doing nothing. When will the Secretary of State consider that issue seriously?
Mr. Rifkind : I have had several meetings with Mr. Aspin since he became Secretary of Defence. There is no question but that the United States continues to support current NATO strategy with regard to no first use. The hon. Gentleman appears to be totally unaware that, in their recently published new military doctrine, the Russian Government, for the first time, have stopped applying a policy of no first use. Their policy is now the same as that of NATO.
Mr. John Marshall : Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the essence of the nuclear deterrent is that any potential aggressor must remain uncertain as to our intentions and whether we would use it? Would not it be quite wrong for him to be tied down by Opposition Members, who still do not realise that peace has been kept through the deterrent rather than through their hot air?
Mr. Rifkind : My hon. Friend is correct. The simple reality is that a no first use declaration would take us out of the realms of war prevention and into the realms of war limitation. That is not a policy which should appeal to Opposition Members any more than it should to anyone who wishes to serve the cause of peace.
Mr. Cohen : Will the Secretary of State give an absolute commitment that Britain will never use nuclear weapons or even threaten to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state?
Mr. Rifkind : We have already given such assurances with regard to any non-nuclear state unless it is in alliance with a nuclear state and is party to aggression by such an alliance.
Column 317
Eurofighter
9. Mr. Mark Robinson : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he next plans to meet the Spanish Defence Minister to discuss the progress of the Eurofighter 2000.
Mr. Aitken : My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has no immediate plans to meet the Spanish Defence Minister to discuss the progress of the Eurofighter 2000.
Mr. Robinson : As my hon. Friend will be aware of the employment implications of Eurofighter 2000, particularly for subcontractors such as Normalair Garrett in the west country, will he undertake to do all in his power, with our partners in that important project, to ensure that it moves forward and to remove some of the uncertainty that surrounds it?
Mr. Aitken : My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the employment implications of this important project. Normalair Garrett, that excellent company in my hon. Friend's constituency, is one of 300 companies in the United Kingdom that have won contracts for the development of the Eurofighter project, thus securing some 9,000 jobs. In the production phase, that work would expand and secure some 30,000 jobs. I share my hon. Friend's wish that, if value-for-money contracts can be placed and all other things are correct, we should be able to move to that production phase.
Mr. Martlew : The Labour party has always supported Eurofighter 2000, even when it was known as the European fighter aircraft, but it is concerned about the current drift in the project. The aircraft should have flown two years ago, but it has not yet done so, and I understand that it is considerably over budget, perhaps by up to 25 per cent. As Britain's future defence depends on that aircraft--as do our aircraft industry and 40,000 jobs--when will the Government get to grips with the project and stop the drift, and when will the aircraft fly?
Mr. Aitken : The hon. Gentleman's rhetoric about drift is unfair and misplaced. Of course, I share his and everyone else's concern about the delay in the aircraft's first flight. The industry's leaders told the German State Secretary and me last week that the first flight was now scheduled for April next year. However, the delays are understandable, not only because this is a highly complex project operating at the limits of new technology but because a certain amount of double checking has been necessary as a result of problems with the flight control software, which caused a Gripen aircraft to crash earlier this year. We must be doubly sure that no such flaws or snags occur in the project. There is no sign that they will, but it is understandable that the industry should be doubly cautious. That is the only reason for the delay, so the hon. Gentleman's criticisms are unjustified.
Mr. Hawkins : As my hon. Friend will be aware that many of my constituents are employed building the Eurofighter 2000, will he say whether he has recently had discussions with other of our European partners' Defence Ministers on their commitment to, and the progress of, this crucial project, which shows every sign of producing an aircraft that is even more effective than the Tornado and which will earn even more in export pounds in the future?
Column 318
Mr. Aitken : Yes. I met my opposite number, State Secretary Scho"nbohm, in Munich last week, and there was complete unity between the British and German Governments on the various pressures that we are placing on industry at this time and the questions that we were asking it. We are all determined to give the project a fair wind, not least because we are aware of its enormous positive implications for aerospace technology and employment in Britain and throughout Europe.
Commitments (Review)
10. Mr. Simon Hughes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to initiate a full-scale review of the United Kingdom's defence commitments ; and if he will make a statement.
12. Mr. Olner : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his North Atlantic Treaty Organisation counterparts concerning a British defence review.
Mr. Rifkind : Ithe less, will the Secretary of State review that part of Britain's security that would be affected if we were to go ahead with the nuclear waste reprocessing plant at Sellafield in the light of a recent Pentagon report that said that, if we were to go ahead, it would put other countries within days of acquiring the nuclear bomb? Will the Secretary of State consider whether a British decision to go ahead is compatible with the statement in the Queen's Speech that we are against nuclear proliferation and increasing the risks of it occurring?
Mr. Rifkind : The report to which the hon. Gentleman refers was not a Pentagon report, but a report by a private company that was presented to the Pentagon.
The hon. Gentleman also refers to the matter of plutonium processing by the thermal oxide reprocessing plant, if that were approved. It is our intention that any plutonium that is processed will be made available only to countries that are signatories to the non-proliferation treaty and meet the International Atomic Energy Agency's guidelines. I believe that the plutonium in question could not in practice be adapted to nuclear use without considerable expense and difficulty.
Mr. Olner : Surely the Secretary of State will recognise that it is gross negligence on the part of the Government--[ Hon. Members :-- "Reading."]--not to match the resources and capabilities of our armed forces--[ Hon. Members :-- "Reading."]--with their commitments? Perhaps if Conservative Members would listen instead of chanting, "Reading", they would understand that the defence of this nation is most important.
It is grossly incompetent of the Government not to recognise that a full defence review of the capabilities of our armed forces is needed. When will the Government recognise that America is now turning towards the Pacific rim as its sphere of influence, and that that will leave a gaping vacuum within the Atlantic area? When will the Secretary of State look at our commitments, introduce a defence review and do something for defence of this country?
Column 319
Mr. Rifkind : I have always understood that whenever the Labour party calls for a defence review it is because it does not have the faintest idea what defence policy it would like to propose. Whenever the Labour party is asked to state what it believes should be the ingredients of a Labour Government's defence policy, it simply parrots the phrase, "We must have a defence review." That proposal is simply an attempt to mask the nakedness of the party's own thought, and should therefore be treated with derision.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton : May I reduce the temperature in the House, Madam Speaker? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the military band is one of the successes of this country's armed services' tradition? Does he further accept that the cut in military bands by some 56 per cent. and in the number of bandsmen by 43 per cent. is causing concern? Will he review the decision, which has apparently been taken, to do away with regimental military bands? Do not those bands bring tremendous benefits, not only to individual regiments but to the morale of the people of this country?
Mr. Rifkind : I share with my hon. Friend the view that regimental bands can make an important contribution to the morale and the motivation of our armed forces. He will be aware that the background to the review that was announced some time ago was that the vast majority of such bands were greatly under strength because of their inability to recruit to their ranks. We have therefore proposed an alternative system of regimental bands which, while reducing the number of bands, will enable their links with regiments to be maintained in a credible and effective fashion.
Sir Nicholas Fairbairn : Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind the Opposition that, of the hundreds of millions of people who died in war in his and my lifetime, almost all were killed by conventional, and not nuclear, weapons?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend also please save the Gordon Highlanders--founded by my ancestors--from amalgamation?
Mr. Rifkind : My hon. and learned Friend is undoubtedly correct to emphasise and to remind the House that conventional weapons can cause many millions of deaths, as we have seen to our cost throughout the centuries.
With regard to the latter part of my hon. and learned Friend's question, I believe that the Gordon Highlanders is a fine regiment. I believe that it will continue to have a proud identiy when it merges with the Queen's Own Highlanders. The process of amalgamation can be taken forward in a way that will enable both regiments to preserve much of their identities, as has occurred with previous amalgamations in previous years.
Dr. Reid : The irony of the Secretary of State accusing anyone of lacking planning, forethought and strategy in defence will not be lost on the people who serve in the British armed forces. Does not the MOD now have three sets of statistics--one to deceive the public, one to deceive Parliament and one to deceive itself? When will the Secretary of State accept that he cannot keep increasing our forces' commitments while reducing their resources at the same time? Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman tells us that we have got it wrong, does he recall that we told him that
Column 320
he would cancel the tactical air-to-surface missile? He said no, but he has done so. Does he recall that we told him that he had too few regiments? He said no, but then reinstated them. We told him that he could do without nuclear testing. Although he said no, he has now admitted that we could. We told him to back a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty. He said no, but has now done so. We told him that we needed more infantry. He said no, but we now have them.Today we are telling him that he needs a defence review. Why does he not stop wasting everyone's time and accept that we and the British armed forces are right and that we need a full comprehensive defence review?
| Next Section
| Home Page |