House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 Oct 1995

Dr. Clark: Chancellor Kohl has nothing to do with the British Labour party. He is more closely linked with the Conservative party, I may say. The leader of the Labour party said in the House on 1 March--I shall speak slowly for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman--that the possibility of a European army was not on. He said:

"We do not--

the leader of the Labour party said this--

"We do not favour a European army".--[ Official Report , 1 March 1995; Vol. 255, c. 1059.]

Is that clear? I hope that it is.

Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Clark: Perhaps I could continue.

Column 57

Not only were the armed forces and the general public offended or sickened; what really got home to most people was the attempt by the Secretary of State to claim patriotism for the Conservative party. The right hon. Gentleman needs a history lesson before he tries to wrap that around us. We in the Labour party are conscious of patriotism. We accept that no one party has a monopoly on patriotism. But does not the Defence Secretary recall those dark days of 1940, when our backs were up against the wall, and we had the war Cabinet of Attlee and Greenwood from the Labour party, with Halifax and Chamberlain from the Conservative party, and, of course, Winston Churchill as the Prime Minister? In May 1940, in a critical situation, the proposition came before the Cabinet of whether to sue for peace with Hitler. Two Cabinet members in favour--

Mr. Mackinlay: Rab Butler. [Laughter.]

Dr. Clark: I could do without the comments of my hon. Friend. With Chamberlain and Halifax from the Conservative party, by three votes--those of Churchill and the two Labour Members--to two, it was decided that this nation would not bow to the yoke of fascism. We do not need any lessons on patriotism from this Government. We have never used such information before, but if they ask for it, we will use it.

I return to the main point that I am trying to make. I hope that I have got it across to the Defence Secretary. It is simply: we in the Labour party accept that men and women of all political persuasions, of all political parties, gave up their lives so that we--the right hon. Gentleman and myself and every other hon. Member in the House--may live free from the shadows of fascism and the Nazis. Ever since then, this House has been united in protecting that freedom. Successive Defence Secretaries from all parties have argued for it, because we have been determined that those shadows should never darken Britain again.

Partly to try to ensure that such events did not happen again, over 50 years ago we formed the Atlantic alliance. The Secretary of State will be slightly embarrassed because the headquarters of that organisation is based in Brussels. That organisation brought the peoples of North America and Europe together, and upon that stability our freedom has been built. We had the same aims of security, stability, unity and freedom. It is a sad day when Britain, which has for so long been a major player in NATO, has a Secretary of State who does not seem to appreciate that point.

Mr. Key: The interesting ramble that we have sat through has merely served to point out--the hon. Gentleman quoted his leader in affirmation of the point--that the leader of the Labour party agrees with the Secretary of State for Defence. That seems to be the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. When he says that nobody is interested in or believes in what the Secretary of State for Defence said, I wonder whether he has spoken to any one of his constituents over the weekend. My constituents have not being telling me how upset they were with the Secretary of State--absolutely the reverse.

Dr. Clark: Well, we will see when the election comes what the hon. Gentleman's constituents are actually thinking. We have talked about history, but let us talk about current affairs and the leader of the Labour party. We have made it quite clear that we are not in favour of

Column 58

a European army, nor will we give up Britain's right of veto on defence and security issues. I hope that that is clear. May I read out the document which was passed at our conference? I shall read it very slowly and I shall say it only once. It said:

"Labour does not support the establishment of a European army or proposals to give the European Union a military competence." Is that clear? I do not think that it can be made clearer to anyone who has anything between their ears.

Mr. Portillo: But if the situation is so very clear, why did Pauline Green, the leader of the socialists in Europe, Labour Member of the European Parliament for London North, table a motion, which was voted for by Labour Members of the European Parliament, calling for the application of qualified majority voting to foreign and security policy? Why did all Labour Members of the European Parliament vote for a merger of foreign and security policy and justice and home affairs into the main structure of the European Community, where of course the European Court and the European Parliament would have influence? If that is the policy of the leader of the socialists in Europe, why is it so very different from the policy of the leader of the Labour party?

Dr. Clark: The right hon. Gentleman knows that his own party, the European People's party, supports the social chapter, yet he does not accept it.

I stand by what I said. The party conference and the Labour Front-Bench team have said quite clearly that we do not support the establishment of a European army or proposals to give the EU a military competence. I hope that that is clear. I wish that the Secretary of State would stop tilting at windmills that do not exist. He is simply becoming the Don Quixote of British politics by so doing.

I know that the Secretary of State will claim that he was being patriotic. He was not. He was being xenophobic and nationalistic. I am minded of Richard Aldington's comment. He said:

"Patriotism is a lively sense of collective responsibility. Nationalism is a silly cock, crowing on its own dunghill." That is something which the Secretary of State may well take on board.

One thing is clear, in spite of the Secretary of State's views, his professed patriotism does not extend to procurement decisions facing Britain. He is all words and little action in that respect because in recent years the Conservative party has shown that it prefers to buy foreign equipment wherever possible. It has bought planes from the United States, ammunition from Israel, fuses from Italy, bribes and all. That has been this Government's record when it comes to supporting the British defence industry.

I sometimes wonder what the Government have got against the British defence industry. For example, why have they got such an obsession against Land Rover?

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (Colchester, North) rose --

Dr. Clark: I shall give way in a moment. Why did the Government go against the bid for light vehicle replacements from Land Rover in preference to the Reynolds Broughton RB44? The Australians went for the British Land Rover and it has been very successful. What did we buy? We bought Reynolds Broughton. Will the Secretary of State confirm that all 846 of those vehicles are unroadworthy? They have had to be taken off the road.

Column 59

Not one of them can be used, yet they were chosen in preference to the British Land Rover. Will he also tell us how many Austrian vehicles he has had to buy to replace and make good those 846 vehicles which he had to take off the road? That is the sort of behaviour that we get from the Government when it comes to procurement from British defence companies.

Mr. Jenkin: If the hon. Gentleman is going to make a speech on behalf of the British defence industry, is not it incumbent on him to distance himself from the comments of the party's newest recruit, who seems to be part of the old Labour party, determined to wage a vendetta against the defence industry by preventing it from exporting legitimately? Would the hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that the Labour party would not wish to restrict sales of arms overseas, which are a great export earner and provide significant employment in my constituency?

Dr. Clark: We have made it clear that, so long as one accepts article 51 of the United Nations charter, every country has the right to self-defence, so they obviously have the right to acquire weapons for that purpose. We have said that, but equally we are not in favour of selling arms to repressive regimes and we are not in the business of selling arms that might be used against other countries or, indeed, against our soldiers. If the Government and their Conservative predecessors had been more transparent, we would not have had the Scott inquiry or the difficulties that resulted.

The point that we are trying to make is that we need a strong British defence industry if we are to match our national and international commitments. I happen to believe that, if I ask a British man or woman to go out and serve in a United Nations force on behalf of Britain, those people have the right to the best equipment. I happen to believe that in many cases, that best equipment is British. It is sad that the Government have no strategy for the defence industry and, indeed, actively threaten our ability to protect British forces.

The United Kingdom defence industry is facing a period of unprecedented change. The Government have done nothing to try to help it to manage that change. The social price is enormous: 350,000 defence redundancies in recent years. They were all unplanned. There was no attempt to manage the change. Thousands of people with high-tech skills which we as a country can ill afford to lose have simply been thrown aside. The Government's complacency shows in how little esteem they hold the defence sector and the communities that are dependent on it.

It is because we believe that it is in Britain's national and economic interest to have a defence industrial base and because the Tories have inflicted such damage on it that we have launched our own strategy for a secure future for the defence industry. Opposition Members believe, unlike the Government, that the British defence industry is a strategic part not only of our defence effort but of our manufacturing capability. We will work with the defence industry to identify technologies in which we lead the world and to ensure that they realise their potential.

I sometimes fear that we have missed so many opportunities. The liquid crystal display unit on all lap-top computers and calculators was invented here in Britain by the Defence Research Agency, which is publicly owned.

Column 60

Yet there was no one to realise its potential. Billions of pounds and thousands of jobs have been lost to Britain because of that failure. That is why we will establish a defence diversification agency funded from within the existing defence budget which will make a significant contribution to realising those opportunities. We believe that there is a future for British industry.

Mr. Henry Bellingham (Norfolk, North-West): I am interested in what the hon. Gentleman has just said. He said that he was working with the defence industries. Is he aware that not one single defence manufacturer supports the idea of a defence diversification agency?

Dr. Clark: I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman has obviously not read the evidence from GEC to the Trade and Industry Select Committee. It came out openly in favour of a defence diversification agency. The hon. Gentleman nods his head. He can go and look in the records. It is clearly stated in the evidence to that Select Committee. Other companies have told us that they support the idea.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): My hon. Friend has been generous in giving way. Would he like to remind the Government party that it is not the Labour party which has dissipated all the industrial base of the Royal Ordnance factories and, for the first time since King Charles, left us without state ordnance?

Dr. Clark: I am grateful for that intervention. I know how much my hon. Friend fights for her constituents who work at the Radway Green plant and how much she has fought not only for her constituents but for Britain. It is much appreciated. I know that it is a matter of regret that so many jobs have been lost at that plant.

Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside): I know that GEC has said what the hon. Gentleman has reported that it has said to the Select Committee, but has the Labour party studied what has happened in the United States of America? It has thrown $300 million at the funding of a diversification agency and got nothing in return.

Dr. Clark: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands. The American experience was to establish a defence diversification commission. It was not to be a permanent body. It was a commission to determine how the rundown of not only the defence industry but defence bases should be managed. I must say that the USA has managed the change much more successfully than we have in Britain. I happen to believe that we can learn a great deal from the work of Secretary Gottbaum and the people in the department.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, South): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Clark: No, I am not prepared to give way. I have given way on so many occasions that I am not prepared to give way again. I have set out Labour's ideas for the defence industry. I should now like to raise an issue which has come to prominence in recent weeks; it is the Secretary of State's decision to examine the possibility of leasing or purchasing F16s from the United States to replace our Tornado F3s. In parenthesis, I am conscious that we lost about 18 of our F3s at St. Athan when the privatised

Column 61

company wrecked them. I am also conscious that in turn we are to lease 24 to the Italians. Nevertheless, we understand that the Secretary of State is considering that particular option. It appears that the plan was considered some time ago, but was rejected on the ground that it could lead to the demise of the British aerospace industry. However, its author seems to have resurrected the plan, which appears to have found fallow ground with the new Secretary of State. That should not be surprising, given the fact that Mr. David Hart produced the report and Mr. David Hart is the Secretary of State's independent adviser. He has made no secret of that.

It would appear that the decision is not the only procurement decision in which Mr. Hart has taken an interest. For example, in 1993, in an article in The Spectator magazine, he expressed his views clearly. It made uneasy reading for the UK defence industry because it argued that British defence firms should become little more than metal bashers for United States companies. In the same article he unfavourably compared the men and women of the Royal Air Force with those of the Israeli air force. So it is little wonder that the armed forces are seething about the influence of the so- called independent adviser--Rasputin, as I gather he is called within the Department.

Does the House think that Mr. Hart's remarks rest easily with the patriotism and commitment which the Secretary of State enounces so much? The point that I want to get out of the Secretary of State is simply this. A number of people are deeply concerned that Mr. Hart has access to confidential information from British defence companies. I wrote to the Secretary of State just a month ago on this very issue, as he knows. He has replied to me only today. It is a helpful reply as far as it goes. I asked what security clearance Mr. Hart had. The Secretary of State wrote:

"Mr. Hart has been subject to the checks necessary to permit him from time to time to have access to classified information. Mr. Hart fully understands the need to safeguard all information given to him in his Departmental role and that this should not be used for any other purpose. Mr. Hart provides independent advice to me in only a small number of areas where the Department is in negotiations which may lead to a procurement contract. If he were to have a financial interest in one or more of the firms in negotiation for such a contract, I would expect him to declare it and would reach a view on his involvement in the light of this declaration."

Dr. John Reid (Motherwell, North): Very cosy.

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend says, "Very cosy." I find that the letter has been written with circumspection. It does not contain the guarantee that I and the House would want on the matter. Has the gentleman signed the Official Secrets Act? Is he bound by it? Does the Secretary of State guarantee that this man uses information only for the purposes of the Department? We have a right to ask that question and to have the answer to it. [Hon. Members:-- "Answer."] I presume that the appointment of independent advisers such as Mr. Hart is justified on account of their business experience and business skills, but I am afraid that, on examining the Government's record, one finds that they do not appear to have been very successful.

Let us consider the record. Let us take, not our figures, but those of the National Audit Office. In May this year, the National Audit Office major projects report analysed 25 of the Ministry of Defence's largest projects.

Column 62

Twenty-three of those projects had forecast cost increases of £645 million. Ninety per cent. of the projects had failed to reach their original in-service date, with an average slippage of three years. That is the business efficiency of the Government--and we could go on and on.

One example is the official services residences, to which the House drew attention. Curtains alone in one house cost £33,000. We know that the service man was scapegoated and sacked, but the budget holder of that specific project was not even disciplined. We might consider other matters, such as the £4 million spent on the other 11 residences.

We might take as an example the collapse of the Government's privatisation of married housing stock. That privatisation fell apart, but only after the Government wasted £5 million on management consultants. Or we might consider the privatisation of the royal dockyards in Devonport and Rosyth and the fiasco there. Only two bidders emerged to tender--the two companies that were already operating the sites--and that after £6.7 million of our money had been spent on management consultants. It is not business men who are running this country; it is management consultants.

I hope, before I leave the subject of the two dockyards, that the Secretary of State or his Ministers will reinforce the commitment today to a two- dockyard solution. I urge the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to confirm later that past promises made about pensions, redundancy entitlements, conditions of employment and work load in the event of the sales going ahead will be honoured. I also wonder when those contracts will be signed.

We expect more from the Government. However, if we consider the Secretary of State's Blackpool outburst--using his words, stripping "away all the waffle and fudge"--

he represents the real agenda of the modern Conservative party. It is a highly dangerous agenda. Whereas Conservative and Labour Defence Ministers since the war have tried to achieve security, the present Government only add insecurity.

The Secretary of State mentioned another defence review. Well, I wish that there had been a defence review; there simply has not been one. We are about the only country in the modern world that has not had a full defence review since the end of the cold war. We Opposition Members are committed to having one, because we believe that, if one is trying to plot and measure what is needed from our defence forces, one needs to have a review that is based on defence inputs, not on Treasury inputs.

In 1993, the Ministry of Defence established the defence costs studies. The Secretary of State is quite clever. I noticed what he said today. Interestingly, he has changed the terminology--he is back to "Front Line First" again. It used to be called defence costs studies. That is the official title--not defence needs studies, but defence costs studies. He knows, better than anyone else does, because he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the time, that that was a Treasury-induced defence project. The tragedy is that we have no long-term planning for our military.

The former Defence Secretary, Sir John Nott, provided a damning indictment of the existing system's failure to undertake long-term planning when he described the Ministry of Defence as being

Column 63

"like a huge super-tanker, well captained, well engineered, well crewed, its systems continuously updated but with no- one ever asking where the hell it is going."

Where the hell is it going?

Now that the cold war is over, it is crucial that that MOD supertanker has a new captain and a redefined sense of direction. That is why we need a strategic defence review, and that is why the new Labour Government will establish such a review. We shall do so because it is necessary if we are to protect the long-term national security of Britain.

We find that the only opposition comes from Conservative Members. The military say that they are on our side; the experts are on our side; almost everyone is, because they understand the logic of the case. The only people who disagree are, of course, members of the Conservative party.

I shall now discuss the Government's failure in another respect--the lack of an international outlook. I ask them, when will they bring forward for ratification the chemical weapons convention? I make the promise that I have made in the past: let them bring it forward and consult with us. They will have a fair wind from the Opposition. It need not take a long time to do that.

Similarly, why do the Government persist in opposing a ban on the trade in anti-personnel mines? The Secretary of State knows that the international conference broke down last week and he knows the damage and injury that those mines cause. Why will he not support a ban in the trade of those anti -personnel mines?

Now I shall discuss the biggest piece of hypocrisy of all, concerning nuclear testing. As the House knows, we have a long-standing commitment to end all nuclear testing and we have pledged to take a positive attitude towards negotiation of a truly comprehensive test ban treaty. We argue that because we know that nuclear testing is unnecessary. The work can be done by laser testing and in laboratories, and it is for that reason that President Clinton took his brave stand recently.

Unfortunately for Britain's interest and international security as a whole, Ministers have not been enthusiastic about that. Indeed, they have been obstructive and negative and came round to the opinion to support a comprehensive test ban only when President Clinton told them that they could not test in the United States.

Only a few years ago, the then Defence Minister in the other place condemned President Clinton's moratorium on nuclear testing, calling it unfortunate and misguided. That is not the way to approach international negotiations. It is not the way to achieve the objects of SDE95, when the Government are committed to working towards a nuclear free world. That is not the way to achieve it. We wonder why the Government have had to be brought kicking to the table. We believe that the Government should drop their obstruction on the issue of nuclear testing.

As the Secretary of State knows, recently the issue has been strongly brought home to us by the French Government's decision to conduct testing. They have completed two nuclear tests in the south Pacific. Almost universally, the international community has rightly condemned the French test in the south Pacific. What response did we hear from the Government? A muted,

"This is a matter for the French Government".

Column 64

We, almost alone in the world, refuse to condemn the French testing programme. Britain's silence is a betrayal of our position in the international community and especially a betrayal of our friends in the Commonwealth in the south Pacific. Britain's shameful silence is nothing but an insult on top of the injury already done. It must be the first time that the Secretary of State has refused to take the opportunity to condemn one of our European allies. It is obvious that the Government will not take an international approach to our security.

The security of Britain can no longer be achieved by pillboxes situated at key points round our coasts, prepared to repel invaders. National security may need to be underpinned by military hardware, but it requires a wider perspective. Security can be achieved in the modern world only by international co-operation with our allies and the development of confidence-building measures with others. With the end of the cold war, that needs vision. It is obvious today that the present Government lack the will and the vision, and that only a new Labour Government are fit and able to handle our security through into the new millennium.

6.19 pm

Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside): I was with the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clarke) 100 per cent. when he began his speech. I had hoped that, as he applauded all that our forces were doing overseas in the defence of freedom, today's debate about the defence of the realm would prove constructive and would rise above party politics. I had hoped to prove that in that regard hon Members on both sides of the House agree more than we disagree. But, alas, it was not to be.

The hon. Gentleman criticised my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for too much patriotism and too much party politics. That is nothing new at a Tory party conference. I would hardly criticise my right hon. Friend for that. It seems to me to be rather better to wave the Union Jack at one's party conference than to sing the "Red Flag".

It is significant that the hon. Gentleman spent very little time speaking to his amendment. That is hardly surprising when it bears only six signatures in support. I think that the House and the world at large will be much more interested in the other amendment on the Order Paper standing in the name of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), which has 37 signatures. It proves that the true heart of the Labour party is alive and well.

Today's parliamentary proceedings will not be remembered for the defence debate--they will certainly not be remembered for the speech by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for South Shields--nor do I think that they will be remembered for the statement on prisons. It is much more likely that we will remember today as the day that we paid tribute to an exceptional politician and statesman, Lord Home. I remember moving a vote of thanks to Lord Home after he had spoken in my constituency. On that occasion, I said that it is often said of great men that

"some men are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them".

I said that Lord Home must be the only man who embodied all three and I think that the tributes paid to him today prove that.

Column 65

I think that we should hear cries of, "Author, author!" in this debate. Where are they? The defence estimates statement for 1995 was published bearing the signature of my right hon. and learned Friend, the present Foreign Secretary, the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind). The Defence Select Committee's response to that statement was prepared when my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) was Chairman. Both my right hon. and learned Friend and my hon. Friend have now moved to new responsibilities, and may I be the first to pay tribute to the work of my right hon. and learned Friend as Secretary of State for Defence.

This year's defence statement is robust and readable and it allowed the Select Committee plenty of time to comment upon it before the summer recess. My right hon. and learned Friend has already demonstrated his skills as Foreign Secretary and I am sure that he will be a most worthy successor to the distinguished line of statesmen who have held that very important office.

I have almost always spoken in previous defence debates, but today is the first time that I speak as Defence Select Committee Chairman. I thank my colleagues on the Committee for electing me to succeed my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster. I think that he will be a very difficult act to follow. As a direct descendant of Nelson, I rate him 100 guns-plus in his role as Committee Chairman. I certainly enjoyed the farewell party that we held in his honour, but I was glad that my name was not Hardy. We wish him well in his role as Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

The Defence Select Committee will sadly also be saying au revoir to our Clerk, Mr. David Natzler, who has kept us very well informed--and generally very amused--for six years. We welcome Andrew Kennon as his successor.

A number of other recent Defence Select Committee reports and Government replies that are relevant to today's debate are listed on the Order Paper. I mention in particular reports about the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, the Defence Medical Services, the Ministry of Defence estate, the defence use of civilian transport assets and personnel, and the reconnaissance, intelligence, surveillance and target acquisition project. We are also conducting a joint investigation with the Select Committee for Trade and Industry into our defence industrial base, and it will report quite soon. It is important to remember that today's debate may be the last opportunity for hon. Members to discuss defence matters before the 1996 intergovernmental conference. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State say today that it is now "steady as she goes", and I hope that we will enjoy a period of stability as the option decisions work their way through the system.

Mr. Mackinlay: I take the hon. Gentleman's point that this is probably the last opportunity that we will have to discuss defence issues before the intergovernmental conference commences. Therefore, is it not a pity that the Defence Committee's report entitled "The Future of NATO: the 1994 Summit and its Consequences" and the proposed extension of NATO do not appear technically

Column 66

on the Order Paper today, despite the fact that the extension of NATO is referred to in the defence estimates White Paper?

Mr. Colvin: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. However, there is nothing to stop hon. Members referring to that report, copies of which are available from the Vote Office. I certainly intend to refer to it later in my speech.

I cannot believe that the Opposition are serious about wanting to plunge our armed forces into another full-scale review. That is why I shall certainly not support the Opposition amendment as it appears on the Order Paper. It will take time--probably two years--for our armed forces to weather the turbulence of the current redundancies and to settle down to the new streamlined structures. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Pentlands said when he gave evidence to the Committee:

"The big decisions have been taken. The Government now intends to inject a period of stability into defence planning--and funding". I trust that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will note the word "funding" and let us hope that the White Paper lives up to its title: "Stable Forces in a Strong Britain".

Despite what my right hon. Friend has said, our Committee is still very concerned about the degree of overstretch in our armed forces. The Army's 24-month target for intervals between operational tours is barely achieved as an average, let alone a minimum; Her Majesty's ships regularly fail to meet the Royal Navy's harmony targets; and the First Sea Lord has expressed concern about the difficulty of regeneration. That has an effect on recruitment, which has been discussed previously.

The Committee is particularly concerned about how the Army and the Royal Air Force will recruit more people in the near future. We believe that there is currently a shortfall of more than 2,000 in Army recruitment against a target of 11,200, and I know that there is press speculation that the figure is more like 5,000 short. I hope that my hon Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will inform us of the true position in his wind-up speech this evening. We have also noted reports of front-line undermanning, and we will be watching those matters closely. I endorse wholeheartedly what has been said already about our forces which are currently deployed on the front line in former Yugoslavia. They are performing a very difficult task with courage, skill and humour. They are undoubtedly the best troops in theatre. As to recruitment, the Committee is relieved to note that the Ministry of Defence's excessive reliance on job centres as proposed in the defence costs study has now been modified significantly.

I do not wish to steal hon. Members' thunder on equipment issues when they may have closer constituency interests than I represent. However, I want to mention four matters. First, I refer to the EH101 medium support helicopter. We stated in our report on the White Paper our concern, following MOD information conveyed to us, that the helicopter might not meet its "genuinely necessary minimum requirements". I am now quite satisfied that it does, and so too is the Royal Air Force. I am sure that the helicopters will give sterling service to the RAF and to the Army. I am pleased that in May, just a week after our Committee met the Italian Defence Minister, Italy at last ordered the aircraft.

Column 67

Secondly, we have long expressed impatience over the slow rate of replacement of the old Royal Fleet Auxiliary tankers. I was delighted, therefore, to see in the Department's 13 December "Contract Bulletin", which is obligatory bedside reading for the Chairman of the Select Committee, that the MOD intended to issue an invitation to tender for the design and build in the United Kingdom of two large auxiliary oilers, presumably to replace the old O class vessels. Perhaps we could be told whether those two are to be followed by others and how the future shape of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary is envisaged.

I hear what my right hon. Friend said about the joint rapid deployment force, which is a welcome and an essential military development in today's uncertain world. How will the force travel to its destinations without delay? We cannot always rely on thumbing a lift from our American allies. The "Defence Estimates" say on page 30 that in order to reduce deployment times the Government are "taking measures to improve the readiness of specialist shipping."

It about time they did that. When I went to the Marchwood military port in my constituency to see off the dispatch of equipment supporting the 24 Air Mobile Brigade to Bosnia, it was travelling in American military vessels. Do we not need more LSLs, landing ships--logistics, such as Sir Tristan and Sir Galahad, costing about the same as an Apache helicopter? Surely they could provide the specialist shipping that we require.

Thirdly, we have again expressed our disappointment at the slow progress within NATO towards a solution of the identification friend or foe issue. We found it appalling that NATO forces still cannot operate together without significant risk of fratricide. We have been pursuing the matter for several years--since the tragic case of fratricide in the Gulf war. The MOD told us that in May that the United Kingdom hoped to make a formal decision on air IFF by the end of the year. I should like to know whether that is still on course. Fourthly, there is RISTA--reconnaissance intelligence and target acquisition. Considerable publicity has been given to the problems of the Phoenix drone system that we set out in our report. We can only hope that, after years of scandalous delay and mismanagement, it is eventually delivered to the Army. If it is not, we expect the Ministry of Defence to seek some compensation for the waste. We are also disturbed to discover how long it has taken for the long-outstanding requirement for a ground surveillance system to begin to be met. The United States deployed its new J-STARS aircraft during the Gulf war and there has been considerable pressure on the United Kingdom and our NATO allies to buy into that system. Is it being fully evaluated, and what is the United Kingdom's position? I have already touched on personnel and, as usual, our report devotes a chapter to it. I have nothing to say on the Bett report as that document is out for consultation, nor on the sad saga of official service residences.

Our principal concern is services housing. We set out in paragraphs 8 to 10 the rather curious tale of how the idea of a housing trust foundered on arcane points of Government accounting. It seems that the plan is for the married quarters estate to be sold and leased or rented back. There is considerable anxiety throughout the

Column 68

services as to how it will work in practice to ensure that families have suitable housing to move into when necessary at rents comparable to those currently charged.

The Committee spent considerable time and effort examining the far reaching implications of the defence costs study. We have reservation about defence medical services and the Royal Naval stores capacity, but generally the defence costs studies have been a success and nearly on target at £720 million of savings for 1996-97 and £1 billion per annum savings from the end of the decade onward. I am glad to see that around 90 per cent. of the savings already made will be added back to the armed forces converting waste into weapons rather than being plundered by the Treasury.

We were glad to be told that the new tri-service command and staff course will have 327 instead of only 240 students, with 98 from overseas instead of 60. I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm those numbers.

Our report on the Ministry of Defence estate called for a more rapid assessment and disposal of surplus properties and land holdings; and I hope that the new Defence Estate Organisation under its chief executive, Mr. Hurst, will bring that about. I also trust that our call for greater use to be made of private land for training is indeed being heeded as well as our conclusion that the use of publicly funded set-aside land for public purposes such as military training should be encouraged.

On disposals, I welcome the MOD's acceptance of the need for a flexible approach to timing, but I am anxious that the phrase in paragraph 31 of the Ministry of Defence reply to our report that the MOD is not funded to aid economic regeneration.

Defence land, as we stated in our report, is public land. We noted that simply seeking the highest price might well not be in the broader public interest. I hope that Mr. Hurst is empowered to permit sales in the public interest but may not raise the maximum cash return.

Finally, on the subject of the intergovernmental conference, may I draw the attention of the House to the memorandum on the United Kingdom Government's approach to the treatment of European defence issues at the IGC next year. It states that NATO should remain responsible for the defence of NATO territory under article 5 of the treaty of Washington and that the WEU should concentrate on strengthening the European pillar of the North Atlantic Alliance through the so-called Petersburg missions and I certainly support that policy.

Although there are initiatives to strengthen the WEU, the organisation should not duplicate NATO. Instead, WEU-led operations should be backed by existing NATO structures and resources under the proposed combined joint task force concept. In its report on the future of NATO, our Committee recommends that no country should be admitted to membership of the WEU until it is a full member of NATO and properly integrated into the NATO military structure. It is also significant that our Committee has WEU next on its list for inquiry. I have no doubt about my right hon. Friend's robust views on national sovereignty over our defences, but the position of him and other Ministers at the IGC would be greatly reinforced by the backing of the House which I have no doubt they would get if we were given the opportunity to debate the matter specifically.

My right hon. Friend has got off to a good if rumbustious start. Nevertheless, no one doubts where he stands on European defence policy and I agree with him

Next Section

Home Page