House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 Oct 1995

Mr. Soames: I have absolutely no intention of apologising to the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). I have to tell the hon. Member for Leeds, Central that he has confused peacemaking with peace enforcing--a mere detail, but one that he might wish to consider.

I must point out that I have already paid a handsome tribute to the hon. Member for East Lothian. He surely cannot want me to do so every five minutes. I said that he had done well in Bosnia. I am not prepared to enter into an argument across the House about who said what about whom because I am aware that he was stuck in a difficult position in Bosnia. However, that does not alter the fact that he did very well. If I was him, I would stop banging on about it.

Mr. Fatchett: I gave the Minister an opportunity to make a gracious apology. He failed to do so and the House will have noted that.

The key point about the Bosnian experience and, indeed, many of the other experiences to which the Minister referred, is that they have occurred under the auspices of either NATO or the UN. There has been co-operation, there has been dual command and there have been joint operations. In his speech yesterday, the Secretary of State referred 11 times to the need for international co-operation; 11 times he spoke about the benefit of international institutions and countries working together to meet the need of common security.

Anyone who had the opportunity to listen to the right hon. Gentleman's speech at the Conservative party conference in Blackpool last week must have wondered what happened during the week since then. Yesterday, it was a speech was written by civil servants but delivered by the right hon. Gentleman. Last week, it was a speech written by an immature young person and then delivered to a Conservative party conference. The right hon. Gentleman made crude appeals to nationalism and jingoism to improve his personal political standing in the Conservative party.

We are aware of the argument that is taking place. Indeed, we saw it earlier. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the man who really did challenge for the leadership, the man who dared--not the man who quoted the SAS, but the man who dared to challenge the leadership--came here this afternoon to represent one wing of the Conservative party and to try to claim the ground from the Secretary of State on the question of who is the real champion of the right in the Tory party. Is not it the truth that Opposition Members

Column 183

have a greater regard for our armed forces and our national security? We will not allow internal party arguments or internal party ambitions to deflect us from important national issues. The debate and division in the Tory party was out in the open last night. The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) made an important speech which is worth quoting. In referring to the Secretary of State's Blackpool speech, he said:

"I . . . feel that that was not the time for him . . . to make some of the comments that he made . . . The fact remains that the people whom he criticised are our allies within NATO and the Western European Union."-- [ Official Report , 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 109.]

It is not just the hon. Member for Wyre who has criticised the Defence Secretary. Criticism has also come from Lord Gilmour, someone who should not be dismissed lightly by Conservative Members. In the past, he has spoken on defence issues from the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Conservative party. What did he say about the Defence Secretary's Blackpool speech in last Friday's Evening Standard ? He said:

"No prominent member of a mainstream political party in any other western European country could have made Portillo's speech. Even the Italian neo- Fascists might have shrunk from it."

The point is that the Secretary of State debased his office in his speech last week.

Mr. Bill Walker: Has the hon. Gentleman ever heard German Ministers speaking? If he has, he may wish to withdraw what he has said. He should listen to what I have to say, which will be very anti-German with regard to the Eurofighter 2000. I do not think that that is anti-European; I think that it is defending British interests.

Mr. Fatchett: The point that I made is valid. The Secretary of State's speech, with its cheap jingoism, was very damaging to this country.

Mr. Soames: When are we going to hear about defence?

Mr. Fatchett: The opportunity to hear about defence was at the Tory party conference last week, but the Secretary of State did not utter one word about defence--it was a bid for the leadership of a faction within the Conservative party.

Why is the Secretary of State's Blackpool speech relevant? When the Minister talks about our armed forces, he should realise why it is relevant. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Wyre said that he had received many letters and he quoted one from an ex-service man. I shall quote it again. He wrote:

"As a former regular officer with a son about to depart for Bosnia early next year either wearing a UN beret or as part of a NATO formation, I found his"--

the Secretary of State's--

"remarks about `soldiers willing to die for Britain but not for Brussels' particularly offensive."---[ Official Report , 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 109.]

Those are telling and important words. It was not just that parent, an ex- soldier, who found the Secretary of State's remarks offensive; many people throughout the country and many serving troops found them offensive.

Of course, the Minister of State tried to defend his boss. Some of us had the advantage of watching the news last week and seeing a clip of the hon. Gentleman's face when his boss was speaking. It was that picture from the

Column 184

defence debate that I will take away from the Conservative party conference. I will be fair to the Minister: the look on his face was one of utter disgust. His reaction to his boss's speech was similar-- Mr. Soames rose --

Mr. Fatchett: Let me finish this point. His reaction to his boss's speech was similar to the reaction that he would have if a bad meal were placed in front of him. He did not like it. He did not like the smell of it. He did not like the feel of it. He did not like the texture of it. Of course, he is ambitious enough to clap at the right points. What he did not do, but what the Prime Minister did, was to lead the clapping for what was one of the most disgraceful jingoistic speeches that we have had at a party political conference.

Mr. Soames: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would tell the House when he intends to give up this childish and idiotic rant. He has been speaking for 15 minutes. He has not said one word about anything to do with defence, or the future of defence, or any of the big issues facing this country, and has done nothing other than indulge in a really pathetic and hopeless attack on my right hon. Friend. Will he please let us--and as he thinks the wider country--know what the Labour party is going to do? Will he share with us his vision about the defence of the realm and how he proposes to bring forward the many reforms which we understand that the Labour party has in mind? Or does he not have any visions? Is that the humbug that he is hiding behind?

Mr. Fatchett: We seem to have hit a raw nerve. It is quite clearly the case that the hon. Gentleman would like to join me in condemning his boss's speech, but finds it difficult to do so--and I can understand the reasons for that.

Let me cite one final quotation about the Secretary of State's speech. It was probably the most important of all. I have been unfair to the Secretary of State for Defence. There were people at the conference who applauded the speech and one former Cabinet Minister praised it. Sadly, he has left the Chamber, but he made an intervention earlier. The right hon. Member for Wokingham praised the speech and I shall use his words. He referred to the Secretary of State's speech in the following terms:

"They were lighthearted remarks, rabble-rousing remarks, which worked on the day."

That is praise indeed from the real leader of the right of the Tory party. It is interesting that the only praise that could be given to a Defence Secretary's contribution to an annual party conference is that it worked on the day and it was rabble-rousing.

What is important, what yesterday's debate showed and what the Secretary of State's speech showed is a great difference between the reality of the defence agenda and that speech in Blackpool. In speech after speech yesterday one crucial point was made: for the past 50 years or more, Britain's defence has been best served in partnership with others on the basis of common security.

It is against that background that Britain and other countries will take decisions about the future of NATO, its role and its membership, about our relations with Russia, and about the future of the Western European Union. Taking decisions in that way is not about

Column 185

abandoning Britain's interests. Nobody wants to do that. On the contrary, it is about furthering British interests and security in partnership with others.

If I could offer some advice to the Secretary of State for Defence, it would be this: his contributions to the debates about the future of Europe and our defence and common security will be much better received if he relates to the important agenda implicit in yesterday's debate--the debates about the common security of Europe, the future of NATO, and the WEU-- rather than, as he did at Blackpool, spend time trying to knock down futile, false propositions. That is simply a waste of time.

There is an important debate; there is an important agenda. What was clear yesterday from everyone who spoke in the debate was that we need to define Britain's defence interests very obviously in co-operation and collaboration with others. The fact that we are having a false debate about any other proposition amazes me and it is a total waste of time. We should not be going in that direction. When the Minister pretends, as the Secretary of State tried to do again yesterday, that Labour would somehow give up our sovereignty on defence, it is no more than a cheap party- political pretence which bears no reality to what the party has said and bears no reality to the way in which political decisions are made.

Mr. Soames: As the hon. Gentleman is talking about co-operation--he is finally beginning to get into a little of the substance--would he tell the House which of the candidate countries for NATO he favours in the next stage of NATO enlargement?

Mr. Fatchett: We have always made it clear--

Mr. Soames: Which countries?

Mr. Fatchett: Oh come on. If the Minister would listen to the answer he might be able to make a more sensible contribution. [Interruption.] The crucial decision should not be made with an atlas and a catalogue at this stage, but by looking at the criteria and the way in which that decision will be taken. The criteria concern common security, our ability to contribute to that common security, our ability to preserve and safeguard democracy in the countries which may become NATO members, the ability of those countries to contribute in military terms and their ability to make that contribution economically. Those are all clear criteria which the Labour party has set out. It would be against--

Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth): Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Fatchett: I shall in a minute. Again, it will be on the criteria that we shall make a judgment about future NATO membership. I realise that the Minister knows too much and that he does not have to listen--we recognise that from his speech--but if he did listen, he would find out that we have clearly set out our criteria and we are very keen to ensure that the debate is about democracy, economic expansion and human rights in eastern European countries. That debate must be sensitive to the requirements of Russia and the needs of the people of the

Column 186

eastern European countries. We have made that argument many times. If the Minister wants to reduce that to a list, it shows that he has very little grasp of his office.

Mr. Hardy: Since the Minister is interested in the list of countries, would my hon. Friend care to put to him the following question? Does the Minister fully endorse the view of Her Majesty's Government in welcoming into associate membership and involvement in the WEU a whole list of east European countries which sought that relationship to achieve security guarantees that neither this country nor any other European country can properly fulfil at the present time?

Mr. Fatchett: My hon. Friend raises a point with which I am sure the Minister will deal in his reply. My hon. Friend is also right about the article V guarantees. Indeed, we have made that point clearly in the criteria that we have set out.

In the discussion about co-operation and national interest, there is one area in which the Secretary of State could speak on behalf of the British people and British interests more clearly and define his contribution in that direction. I speak of the importance of the defence industries and those who work in them. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) spent a good deal of time on this issue yesterday and I shall certainly not delay the House by repeating those points. The key elements, however, which we all recognise and understand, are that the industries are important in their technology, skills and in the contribution that they make to Britain's industrial base.

We want to know from the Minister whether it is true that the Secretary of State prefers an option to buy off the shelf. If that is true, it means that, almost invariably, we will buy American to the cost of British industry. Is there no strategic view coming from the Ministry of the British defence industrial base interest? Will the Minister give us some indication tonight of whether there will be at some point a clear statement that the off-the-shelf approach is not the Government's approach and that they recognise their responsibility towards the defence industries?

We also know that there will be more European collaboration in procurement. How will we secure the UK interest in that? How will we manage those projects? Again, there have been no comments from Ministers and no clear policy statements, yet key British interests are involved.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement--he is new to his job and I congratulate him on his appointment--cannot have been helped by the Secretary of State's speech last week. In considering European collaboration projects, how will British industrial interest be secured against a background of other European countries feeling that they have been subjected to personal criticism by the Secretary of State for Defence? How are we to defend British jobs, companies, technology and skills? Those are the key issues to which the Minister must relate, yet there is no strategy on it at all. Yesterday, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State for the Armed Forces scoffed at Labour's idea for seeking ways in which we could diversify from military into civilian production. Is not it a shame that on yet another issue of such importance--Britain's industrial base--the Government have no ideas?

The notion that everything can be left to the marketplace is comfortable to state but it is irrelevant to the needs of the British people. We need a strategy. No

Column 187

one in the Labour party is saying that the conversion process will be easy, but, if we do not try to make that move and to preserve the skills, the technology and the scientific base, we shall lose important national assets that should not be wasted.

Our stance on diversification is ringing a chord not only with the companies involved but with the people who work in the industry. Again, we have the right agenda. The Minister said yesterday that there was a need to be forward looking, but he has not dealt with the important issue of Britain's industrial base.

The Minister of State spoke yesterday of the need to manage the Ministry of Defence's resources better. In his speech last week, the Secretary of State said that it was his task to convert waste into weapons. There is certainly a great deal of waste in the MOD which could be converted. A great deal of taxpayers' money could be saved by better management. Let us consider the waste permitted by the Government over the past few months.

The privatisation of the MOD housing scheme, which I believe was the brainchild of the Minister of State, cost the taxpayer £5 million in consultancy fees alone. That was money wasted. Some £6.7 million was spent on consultants at Devonport and Rosyth, but, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, there is still uncertainty at the bases and no decision has yet been taken about them. I hope that such matters will be cleared up in tonight's winding-up speech.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields yesterday quoted the National Audit Office report which shows that all major projects are delayed and overspent. The Government need to take seriously the notion of turning waste into weapons. They need to save on the waste which is costing taxpayers so much and which is a further indictment of the Government's record.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields also mentioned yesterday that there was much criticism of our European partners in virtually all the speeches at last week's Conservative party conference. However, when there is an opportunity legitimately to criticise our European partners the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are quiet. The nation recognises their silence on and tacit support for the French nuclear tests. I put it on record again that we condemn those tests. Our position is absolutely clear, and we speak for the people of this country and for the people of Europe and elsewhere.

In his winding-up speech yesterday, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces let slip a comment that worried one or two of his colleagues. He said:

"Not only have we not gone too far but there have been and will be further cuts and attempts to keep down the cost of the way in which we do our business."--[ Official Report , 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 115.]

It seemed to my colleagues and me, and to some Tory Members, that the Minister was flagging up more defence cuts. It is no wonder that concern had been expressed in some earlier interventions. The Minister must tell us tonight whether what we suspect is true. The reason why I raise the issue now is that whenever we argue for a defence review--one that will take account of the substantially changing world to which the Minister referred and of Britain's commitments in Europe and to the United Nations, and one which will examine overstretch in our forces--the Government criticise us and say that such a review would merely cause uncertainty. Once again, that shows the Government's arrogance. They

Column 188

believe, although the British public certainly do not, that they have got it right every time. The reality is that they are not prepared to face the consequences of a new world and new decisions, which are what make the prospect of a defence review so exciting. The Government are introducing cuts by stealth. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) spoke yesterday about the number of armed forces personnel. The defence estimates show that in the past decade alone, at 1993-94 prices, there was a 30 per cent. cut in defence spending. That may have been necessary--we are not arguing about that--but the cuts were made by a Government who have not had the courage to face their own Back Benchers or the armed forces and talk logically about Britain's defence needs and foreign policy requirements. In this, as in so many other spheres, Labour would promise an opportunity to consider the changing world to which the Minister referred, an opportunity to match Britain's role in the world with Britain's defence requirements, an opportunity for us to have a defence base driven by foreign policy requirements and a real assessment of Britain's needs in the world. That is what is exciting about a defence review.

Despite the cheap patriotism that Ministers like to use, the fact is that, because the Labour party is thinking about these issues and knows the way forward for Britain's defence and foreign policy, the people of this country trust us. That is why we shall form the next Government and take the crucial decisions about Britain's future defence needs.

6.6 pm

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): I begin by paying tribute to the previous Secretary of State for Defence, who has now moved to the Foreign Office, on his three difficult years in that post. He handled the difficulties extremely well and fought the armed forces' corner. In his absence, I welcome the new Secretary of State to his first defence estimates debate.

In my three and a half years as a Member of Parliament, I think that I have attended all our defence debates. As I said, it has been an enormously difficult period. I hope that there will be no further turbulence but instead more certainty and, dare I say, more stability. We need a period of positive progress and I therefore welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement of the joint rapid deployment force and the Tomahawk and other equipment procurement.

In looking forward to stability, we should be honest about the unhappiness of the past three to four years, which was characterised by the plethora of volunteers for redundancy, as mentioned yesterday by, among others, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans). We should now encourage a reinstatement of the previous high morale in our forces and fulfil our commitments to them. The Prime Minister promised last year that there would be no further cuts in the armed forces or in defence spending, and that promise was also made by the previous Secretary of State. I would welcome further reassurance tonight that there will be no further cuts in funding other than those already proposed in the "Statement on the Defence Estimates". Real-terms reductions have been planned and I accept them but now is the time to reiterate that there will be no further cuts.

Column 189

I believe that the cuts went too far. For example, I do not think that there are enough infantry battalions in the Army. Indeed, the previous Secretary of State agreed and reprieved two battalions a year ago. I still believe that there are not enough but I trust that I shall be proved wrong. Similarly, I am not happy about decisions such as that to scrap the royal yacht but I do not think that it materially affects the ability of the armed forces to fight a war. The results of the uncertainty and unhappiness of the past three to four years remain, which is why I stress that we must restore the high standards of which my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has spoken. For instance, yesterday the Secretary of State mentioned recruiting. Quotas for recruiting are now adequate, but unfortunately it is difficult to get recruits to come forward. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces acknowledged yesterday that the number of recruits for the infantry, the artillery and the Royal Armoured Corps is inadequate, and it is time that we stressed that fact and encouraged further recruitment by all means including, if necessary, pay rises above the rate of inflation.

Last week, there were various articles in the press that I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to dismiss later, suggesting that Gurkhas are to take over the role of British troops. I mean no criticism of Gurkhas, who are excellent soldiers in their own way, and have a history of loyalty and service to the British Crown, when I say that it is not a happy state of affairs to have non-British soldiers, indeed mercenaries-- [Hon. Members:-- "Oh!"] I do not denigrate the Gurkhas in any way when I say that they are troops paid to fight for us. As I have already said, they are excellent troops. I pay tribute to them, but they are not as flexible as British troops-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must settle down.

Mr. Robathan: The idea that Gurkhas can do everything that British troops can do has been acknowledged for many years as unlikely. For instance, Gurkhas are not fighting--or rather, not on the streets--in Northern Ireland, because it is not deemed sensible to place them there. They are not as flexible and they cannot replace British troops. I am sure that the Minister will address that problem, and I hope that he will be able to reassure me.

One cause of uncertainty hanging over the United Kingdom's armed forces is the Bett report, which was mentioned yesterday.

Mr. Bill Walker: Before my hon. Friend deals with the Bett report will he tell me whether he, unlike the Opposition Members who were laughing at him, has direct experience of military activity and of leading troops of different kinds? We know that they have none.

Mr. Frank Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The generalisation made in that intervention is insulting to the House--

Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East): And quite untrue.

Column 190

Mr. Cook: And, as my colleague says, it is totally untrue. I ask the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) to withdraw the implication of his statement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. There was nothing out of order in what the hon. Member for Tayside, North said.

Mr. Robathan: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have served in the armed forces as, I know, have many other hon. Gentlemen. Indeed, I have served with the Gurkhas within the past five years, and they are excellent troops--

Mr. Mackinlay: In their own way.

Mr. Robathan: They are super troops and I love them dearly. However, they are not British-speaking troops, as is painfully obvious. I do not know why the Opposition should find it difficult to accept that. They should look up the word "mercenary" in the English dictionary and discover what it means. The Gurkhas are paid to serve the British Crown, just as the excellent Swiss troops still guard the Pope.

One cause of uncertainty that hangs over the United Kingdom armed forces is the Bett report. It has been mentioned before, and I do not intend to speak in great depth about it. However, I emphasise the fact that the armed forces are different. They are not Tesco, British Telecom or any other business; there can be no profit.

We can encourage efficiency--which I am sure hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House would wish to see--but the ultimate test is in war. So far as I know, there are few complaints about the armed forces not being efficient. Certainly they could be more efficient, but they are well respected. I quoted the Minister of State's grandfather to him last February, so I shall not do so again, but those words should be marked well.

Sir Michael Bett's report, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said so much, considered the armed forces, especially the Army, in peacetime. That is not appropriate, because the armed forces exist for war. The hierarchical rank structure might seem odd in British Telecom, but it does not seem odd in a battle. I fear that the Bett report may strike at the very heart of the ethos, the fraternity, the spirit and the comradeship in the armed forces. It is not necessarily appropriate for a civilian business man to try to organise an army. Certainly BT is not more respected than the British armed forces. So I trust that Ministers will consider the consequences of the Bett report carefully before introducing its recommendations.

Many people wish to force the armed forces to be like the rest of society, and to allow homosexuals to be service personnel. That is a rather contentious subject, upon which the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has commented in the past. My own view is that such a change would turn common sense on its head in a desire to be politically correct. Are we to sacrifice the efficient defence of the United Kingdom for the sake of political correctness? Political correctness may not be peddled on the Government side of the House, but it is peddled by the Opposition.

Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Cleethorpes): My hon. Friend may care to consider something before he makes his point. I shall seek to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall be brief. My hon. Friend should

Column 191

consider how much it costs the Ministry of Defence to hound out perfectly good decent soldiers, not for reasons of misconduct during their military service but for being rather than for doing. My hon. Friend should be careful.

Mr. Robathan: My hon. Friend has his own particular point to make, and I look forward to hearing it later. I served in the Army for 15 years and met some people whom I suspected were latently homosexual. There were also one or two sad cases, which I greatly regretted, involving courts martial--for actions, not for "being", as my hon. Friend describes it.

It may surprise some people to know that most soldiers were extremely tolerant. They were not--to use a rather contrived modern term--homophobic. Indeed, they were quite happy serving with whoever, and they certainly regretted the courts martial, as I did. But they did not want to share a shower or a lavatory, a trench or a bed, with somebody who might be interested in them. Women have separate facilities, and it is not so unreasonable to say that men, too, should have their privacy respected in different facilities. There are quite enough difficulties with women when sex rears its ugly head, as has been well reported in the press, and I do not think that one needs to exacerbate the situation. [Hon. Members:-- "Go and have a cold shower."] I notice one or two Members laughing. Will they tell us whether it is official Labour party policy to allow homosexuality? I believe that the hon. Member for South Shields said that it was not. Or did he say that it was? I cannot quite remember. It would not improve the armed forces to allow homosexuality. I advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the other Ministers to defy the judges and political correctness, even if the sensibilities of a few people are offended.

The major operation of the moment is taking place in Bosnia. God willing, we may now have a lasting peace there, in which case I congratulate all involved, including President Clinton and the British Government. However, fighting continues in north-west Bosnia, and it is a peculiar state of affairs, about which many hon. Members are slightly unhappy, when United Kingdom soldiers and aircraft support, or by their actions seem to support, the territorial ambitions of Croatia. Not many hon. Members would say that President Tudjman leads a democratic government.

My view is that all three sides in Bosnia are culpable, and all three have committed atrocities, but for now I shall concentrate on Croatia and say that 18 months ago its forces were bombarding Mostar and killing Bosnian Muslim Government troops, and civilians. Now the regular Croatian army is fighting in Bosnia--a campaign aided, albeit perhaps unwittingly, by NATO and RAF soldiers and aircraft. That is not a conflict that we understand, and it is not a conflict of which we should be part.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman certainly does not understand it.

Mr. Robathan: I suspect that I understand it rather better than the hon. Gentleman who made that rather foolish intervention. About two weeks ago, while I was abroad, I heard on the BBC World Service that the United Nations had referred to a Bosnian Government action as "treacherous".

Column 192

I think that I am right in saying that. Should we really risk the lives of our service men in such an action? I think not, and I acknowledge that I was wrong to applaud the decision to send troops. Our other major operation is in Northern Ireland. Last week, an old flax mill in west Belfast that was my home for five months was knocked down. I am delighted that the battalion based there has been withdrawn and I hope that troop numbers continue to be reduced, as my right hon. Friend mentioned. Having soldiers who are not gainfully employed hanging around in cramped barracks is likely to cause difficulties rather than assist in the peaceful maintenance of law and order in Northern Ireland. We must keep our internal security training, but the sooner the Northern Ireland garrison is returned to pre-1969 levels, the better. Battalions can always return quickly if they are properly trained.

I congratulate the Government on their Northern Ireland policy and on reducing force levels, especially since there seems to be a great deal of opposition from some people in Northern Ireland who, I suggest, are wrong in the matter. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have jobs which anybody would be proud of, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that it was an honour to open yesterday's debate. I look forward to his being Secretary of State for Defence for the foreseeable future, and I know that while he is there, he will defend the best interests of our armed forces to ensure that they remain the envy of the world.

6.20 pm

Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield): With others, I am intending to vote against the White Paper tonight and I want to give the electors of Chesterfield, the House and my colleagues the reasons for that. I am in fundamental disagreement with the defence and foreign policies of the Government, and I would like to devote my comments to that. I was in the House during the big arms programme of 1951, and I heard Aneurin Bevan--who resigned from the Government on that occasion and was no supporter of the Soviet system--say that he did not believe that the Soviet Union ever intended to invade western Europe. I agree with that. I do not believe that the Soviet Union had either the will or the capacity to invade western Germany, move into France, take over Italy and then come to London. But enormous sums of money were spent on building up resistance to the Soviet Union. The real reason for that was very simple; if we pretended that we were about to be invaded by the Soviet Union, anyone who criticised the Government could be described as an agent of the KGB or of the Kremlin. It was a political campaign.

At any rate, NATO was built up to deal with that matter, and that included the build-up of nuclear weapons to which I shall refer in a minute. Looking at the difficulties the Russian army had in Chechnya, I wonder whether the expenditure undertaken by NATO was at all appropriate. I hear that Willy Claes, the Secretary-General of NATO--he may be, for all I know, about to be replaced for other reasons--has announced that now that communism is over, Islam is the great enemy of the west.

There is a picture of the crusades in St. Stephen's Hall, and we must be careful that we do not fall into the habit of believing that we now need all these weapons to protect ourselves from Islam. A holy war or, "jihad", would be

Column 193

very dangerous, although I understand that many Governments find it necessary to have a foreign enemy. Nor do I believe that the Bosnian Serbs justify our defence budget.

My second point in that context is that we cannot afford the present level of weapons. I have had the national defence budget divided by the population to help me to understand the matter, and it appears that every family of four is spending £40 a week on weapons. The Government should knock on any door and ask whether the occupants feel more threatened by an attack from the Bosnian Serbs or by the possibility that they might fall ill without medical treatment being available. The veterans who fought on D-day and who go to hospital now are told, "We are afraid that it is not worth treating you, Sergeant Bloggs. You are 75 and it is not worth giving you a new hip." That is where the threat to security comes from.

We should look at Japan and Germany, countries which we have not allowed to re-arm. Why have they done so well? Why are they selling us cameras and cars when we are supplying military equipment through the arms trade to other countries? While I cannot anticipate what the next Government will do, I do not believe that any incoming Government, faced with pressure to improve services, will be able to say that the defence budget is sacrosanct. It cannot be sacrosanct. We are about to send 15,000 people to Yugoslavia as part of a peacekeeping force. If we can house 15,000 British soldiers in Yugoslavia, why can we not house the people who live in cardboard boxes in London? Our priorities will have to be considered in that context.

My third point is--from the point of view of public deception--the most important of all. We have not had for many years--since atomic bombs could be dropped by Vulcan bombers--an independent British nuclear deterrent. I speak with some authority, as I was the Minister in charge of Aldermaston and I know what I am talking about. When the Americans supplied us with nuclear weapons, we allowed them to control our security services and they allowed us to pretend that we had an independent deterrent.

We do not have such a deterrent, and that is what Zircon was all about. We could not fire our so-called "independent deterrent" without the Americans switching on their satellite system. It has been a miracle of misrepresentation, that 10 general elections have been fought on the question of whether we should retain that which we have never had. I am disappointed that the Labour party has suddenly come around to accepting the need for a weapon with nine times the killing power of Polaris while denouncing the French for testing their weapons. I strongly doubt whether the computer testing of our weapons will give the reliability that is alleged. On those grounds, I shall go into the Lobby against the Government tonight. I think that an awful lot of people will share my view, although I do not know how many will join me.

I come now to the Government's foreign policy, which is more important, because all defence policy has to be related to the Government's foreign policy objectives. What has happened--I thought that someone must mention this--is that NATO is replacing the UN. We had

Column 194

a great celebration of the UN in the summer, and I remember the excitement I felt as a young pilot coming back from the war when I read, in the charter of the UN:

"We the peoples of the United Nations determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind".

I believed in that, but I now find that NATO has taken over. The basic principle of the UN was the power of unanimity, but the Russians have now been pushed to one side as the Americans, following the end of the cold war, have taken control of the Security Council. In the case of Iraq, a so- called "alliance" or coalition of partners was supposed to have been involved in the operation, but of course it was American dominated. The subject of sanctions has been raised, and 500,000 children under five have died in Iraq because of sanctions in the past five years, according to figures produced by international aid agencies. Twice as many children under five have died in Iraq as died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I cannot support such a policy, and I do not support it.

Reference has been made to Bosnia, and I tried--together with my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)--to get the House recalled to discuss the matter. We could not get the House recalled, although the decision to participate in the bombing of the Bosnian Serbs was taken in direct contravention of what the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary said during the summer, which was, "We do not intend to get involved in the war."

I wish to spend a moment on the matter, because there is a lot of background detail. Yugoslavia was occupied by the Turks for many centuries, and was then a part of the Austro-Hungarian empire. During the war, the Croats had the fascist Ustashi regime, which is now being recognised again by the Croatian Government. The German Government broke up Yugoslavia, and Herr Genscher--the former German foreign minister--said that the greatest achievement in that period of the German foreign office was to break up Yugoslavia. Why? Because the new Germany wants to extend its power in the Balkans. As Croatia and Bosnia were allowed to leave Yugoslavia, an argument could be made--although I am not in favour of any such

disintegration--for the Bosnian Serbs to be allowed to leave. Why should Bosnia be allowed to leave, but not the Bosnian Serbs? We have gone in to provide humanitarian aid, and I support that. I have said time and again in the House, and I shall say it again, that all that we can do in a civil war is provide an embargo of weapons, humanitarian aid and a peace table. It is a civil war in Bosnia, and we must not pretend that the war is an act of international aggression. Instead of providing an embargo, aid and a peace table, we have taken part in the most murderous assault by NATO, with which the Minister is proud to associate himself. That assault brought the Bosnian Serbs to the peace table. But if the Bosnian Government are not satisfied, they may say that unless NATO continues the bombing, they will not come to the table. NATO has become an instrument of the Bosnian Government.

I believe that the story will be different in the end. I think that Croatia will take over Bosnia, and that the Bosnian Serbs will probably move in with Serbia. We are seeing a partition of Yugoslavia between Croatia and Serbia, and the pretence that we are there to defend Bosnia's Muslim multi- cultural Government is quite untrue.

Next Section

Home Page