| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 195
I shall give one or two other reasons why I shall vote against the Government, although I do not want to take up too much time. The arms trade is the most criminal trade in the world. It is worse than terrorism because it is sponsored by Governments. It is worse than AIDS because it is sponsored by Governments. As the House knows, Britain has supplied weapons, as has America to a greater extent, to both sides in most conflicts, just as at the time of the crusades the European arms manufacturers supplied weapons to Saladin and Richard I. That came out at a recent seminar in Cairo.The arms trade uses conflict to test weapons. Then when the weapons are used, they send in peacekeepers and say, "Have a ceasefire." The ceasefire allows arms manufacturers to find out which weapons worked best. That is what happened in the Falklands war. The Exocet proved to be so successful that it is now widely sold.
If we look at the world seriously--I try to do so--we find that the way in which international finance causes countries to cut their public services to satisfy the demands of international financiers creates poverty. Poverty is one of the greatest causes of war, as is unemployment. There were 6 million unemployed in Germany before the last world war. That brought Hitler to power. People who are unemployed are frightened and look for a strong leader. A strong leader, or would-be strong leader, always finds foreign enemies. Hitler found the Jews. The Secretary of State found all foreigners. Anyone who has read "Mein Kampf"--as I did in my teens--and the life of Mussolini could not mistake the roots of the ideas that came out of the Conservative conference. If we do not deal with the problem of world poverty, we should not be surprised if it leads to conflict. If it leads to conflict, that means more weapons. If it means more weapons, it means less money for development. So the policy is wholly misplaced.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) will be called to speak. He will talk about the cancellation of third world debt, which I support. Do not tell me that it is not possible to diversify from weapons production. At the end of the war, within 18 months we moved 4 million or 6 million people from producing weapons into producing houses. I remember when the Beaufighters stopped coming out of the factory in Bristol. About eight weeks later prefabricated houses started coming out of the factory. Do not tell me that we cannot diversify. Of course we can, if we plan so to do.
We should also seek to reduce our defence expenditure. I cannot see any reason why there are British troops in Germany. I hope that the peace process will result in the withdrawal of all British troops from Ireland. The purpose of the peace process must surely be that. I have put my arguments without making any reference to the Ministers who have spoken because I do not believe that our debates are improved by turning to the level of abuse that we have seen. I said that yesterday in my tribute to Lord Home and I say it again. The issues that face Britain are formidable. It is not possible to have law and order without social justice. It is not possible to have world peace without international justice. It is not possible to have either while we devote so much money to the weapons of war and neglect the real threat to people's security, which is that they do not have a home, a job, education or health or they do not have dignity when they are old.
Column 196
Throughout the world, the gap between rich and poor is widening. There are 1,300,000,000 people in the world without a clean water supply. Half a million women die every year in childbirth for lack of proper resources and 35,000 babies die every day from poverty- related diseases. When will the country and the Parliament face those questions? If we go on thinking that a few more weapons or a few more soldiers will solve the problems, we will make worse the very problems that we should be solving.6.33 pm
Mr. Bill Walker (Tayside, North): I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. The House knows of my interests, and particularly my Royal Air Force interests. That is one reason why I am wearing my tie today. I notice that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) is wearing his tie. I welcome that because, as another member of the Volunteer Reserve, I too wear my tie with pride.
I assure the right hon. Member for Chesterfield that he is not the only Member in the House who remembers 1951. Some of us remember it vividly. There was another war going on at the time, called the Korean war. The right hon. Gentleman may have overlooked it when he talked about the need in 1951 to improve the capability of our armed forces. He was right to say that, when the war ended, we thought that war was over. We all rejoiced, and the Americans went home. The United States military left the United Kingdom and left the bases. It was not until 1948 and the problems in Berlin referred to as the Berlin airlift that the United States returned to the United Kingdom.
In 1951, we had to spend more money because the Royal Air Force, among other services, had to train new people to take on the tasks. I remember vividly how the training regime in the RAF had to be stepped up again to train new pilots and air crew, because we thought that the Chinese intervention in Korea would lead to a much greater war. That was the reason for the planning at that time.
The House will note that I do not make the criticism that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield makes of the Labour Government. The truth was that we faced an extremely tortuous and difficult situation. No one really knew what was going to happen in Korea with any certainty. The fact that the Chinese could have become much more involved was one reason why we had to have adequate air crew available to meet the envisaged possible needs. The same was true for the rest of the services.
Of course, we all know that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield is the real voice of Labour. It is not the new Labour that we keep hearing about. His views on nuclear weapons are of long standing. He has never changed them. That is to his great credit. When one cares deeply about something, one should stand by it. I know that the right hon. Gentleman does. I do not doubt the integrity of his position--I just disagree with it. That is an entirely different matter. When the right hon. Member for Chesterfield touched on the break-up of Yugoslavia, I found myself agreeing with him. It was Germany's precipitous recognition of Croatia that brought about the break-up of Yugoslavia. Germany took that decision without consulting its European allies.
Column 197
Is it anti-European to make that comment? Am I being nasty? Am I being hideous? Of course not. If one is talking among friends, one must tell the truth as one understands it. I said in an intervention earlier that I would be making some comments about Germany. I did not intend making a comment about Germany in relation to Croatia, but the right hon. Member for Chesterfield gave me that opportunity. He and I are in agreement.I am also in agreement with the right hon. Member for Chesterfield--this may get those on my Front Bench worried--that regimes and politicians under stress at home will try to find foreign enemies. I am concerned about the unstable situation in the former Soviet Union and parts of the Islamic world, where there is undoubtedly a proliferation of weapons. In the former Soviet Union in particular, there is a proliferation of nuclear weapons, and some nuclear capability will exist in Islamic countries in the foreseeable future. So it is wise--I put it no higher than that--to retain a capable deterrent.
The right hon. Member for Chesterfield, like myself, spent quite some time flying aircraft for the Royal Air Force. He will recollect that, if we had had sufficient Spitfires and Hurricanes available, we might have been capable of deterring Hitler in 1938. They were the deterrent capability at that time. The Germans believed that their Luftwaffe was invincible. They believed that it could take them anywhere they wanted to go. If we had had television and all the pundits that we have today, we would never have fought the battle of Britain, because they would have told us that we could not possibly have won.
Mr. Benn: Galtieri attacked a nuclear power: Britain. Saddam Hussein attacked three nuclear powers: America, Britain and France. Where was the deterrent then?
Mr. Walker: They never attempted to use a nuclear capability against nuclear powers. I drew attention to Spitfires and Hurricanes because, had we had a deterrent capability in the south Atlantic--had we had the aircraft carrier squadron that Dennis Healey withdrew--we would probably have had a deterrent capability. [Interruption.] I say that as a passing reference. Dennis Healey withdrew the aircraft carrier squadron from the south Atlantic. It was part of the east of Suez policy at that time. Some of us remember what actually happened because we were there. Those who were involved cannot be told the fairy tales that we sometimes hear today.
Mr. Hardy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Walker: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a high regard.
Mr. Hardy: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall the fact that the iron lady removed HMS Endurance just before the Argentine invasion of the Falkland islands, and was warned by hon. Members on both sides of the House of the consequence of that withdrawal? Is that not more apposite than a reference to my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Healey?
Mr. Walker: It was an unhelpful act, which contributed to that. But if we could have deployed an aircraft carrier squadron, carrying aircraft that a proper
Column 198
aircraft carrier would carry with an over- the-horizon radar capability, Galtieri would undoubtedly not have taken the chance. I simply draw attention to that point.May I return to the matter of foreign enemies? Given the unstable regimes and conditions in countries such as the former Soviet Union and Islam, it is wise for us to retain a nuclear capability and a conventional deterrent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) made some scathing comments about the Bett report. I agree with Ministers to a degree. While aspects of the Bett report may be helpful, many other aspects want throwing out, as they have nothing to do with a military capability, leadership, or what is required under active service conditions.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the reserve forces, and I endorse what he said. We must now look seriously at beefing up our reserves. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is sitting behind me, because I am about to say something which he and I have been trying to get the Government to agree to for years: the Royal Air Force Reserve should have a flying capability. An opportunity could arise if we are to deploy the rapid reaction force. A reserve squadron could and should have done that job. I welcome the ceasefire agreement, such as it is, reached in Bosnia. Like everyone in the House, I pay credit to the professionalism, quality and courage of our Army, Navy and Air Force. The House will not be surprised that I wish to draw attention in particular to the Royal Air Force and its pivotal role in Bosnia, particularly in reaching the current agreement. Its contribution, which was made in harmony with the United States and our other NATO partners, was pivotal in producing those results. The operational task of the Jaguars and Harriers in delivering laser-guided bombs is an example of professional flying and great capability. The tankers and early warning aircraft, which also played a role, are often undervalued, but very necessary in combat conditions.
I also draw attention to the critical and vital part in the military jigsaw played by the transport fleet, which rarely gets credit for what it does. I am always amused when people talk to me about buying foreign aircraft. What short memories they have. How could we ever have won the war without the Dakota--the DC3, for those who do not know what it is? We should not forget the remarkable and often dangerous sorties carried out by the Chinook helicopter crews, particularly those attached to 24 Air Mobile Force.
Last but not least--sadly, it is often overlooked--we must recognise the vital top-cover role of the Tornado F3s. Other NATO air forces were unable to take on that task, as they could not provide top cover at night. The role that the RAF's F3 crews and aircraft carried out with such distinction should be acknowledged.
We should also remember the contribution of the ground crews and staff of Logistics Command. Like many of my hon. Friends, I have often wondered what "Front Line First" is. It is uncomfortable to be in the front line if one does not have the ammunition required to carry out one's task, so the work of Logistics Command was very important. Its staff often worked long hours, with frequent absences from their home base. I have received letters, as have other hon. Members, about the concerns of their wives. I simply say that they are right to be concerned and to contact their Members of Parliament.
Column 199
On the replacement aircraft and replacement programme, I want first to look at maritime patrol aircraft. The Nimrod has been, and still is, a super aircraft in that role. It has done a remarkable job, and is one of the most popular aircraft in the Royal Air Force. Air crew love the Nimrod. I make a plea this afternoon for a thoughtful and considered debate to evaluate and properly assess the respective types under consideration to replace the Nimrod. I do not want next year's decision to be pre-empted.I make that plea because I have no wish to see a repeat of the public and high-profile campaigns that took place during the Hercules replacement programme. Those did nothing for the candidates and little to make the work force affected any happier, particularly as many of the scare stories circulating at that time have been found to be overstated. They caused concern and made many people in the industry feel insecure. It does not help to tell people that their jobs are at risk because of something that may happen in five or 10 years' time. I hope that we shall have an in-depth debate, but not lots of scare stories.
The Eurofighter 2000 is critical to the future requirements of the Royal Air Force. I deplore German attempts to delay the programme and obtain what I regard as an unfair share of the construction work. The Germans have deliberately tried to delay the programme because their entry-into-service date differs from that of the Royal Air Force. Moreover, they have reduced the number of aircraft which they originally committed themselves to purchasing. The only country that has kept to its original commitment is the United Kingdom. As we are buying the lion's share of the aircraft, it is only right and proper that British factories should have the lion's share of the work. I find some of the comments made by German politicians particularly nauseating. Am I allowed to say that, Madam Deputy Speaker? Am I being anti-European or anti our allies? It is the job of German politicians to suit their own needs and ends, but, as a British politician, it is right that I should criticise them, especially as Britain is honouring its commitments on the Eurofighter 2000. If the United Kingdom is to have a design and construction capability in the future, the Eurofighter 2000 programme is vital. Therefore, we are honouring our commitment; the Germans are not--to name a name, Volker Ru he.
In an earlier intervention, I asked Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen if they recalled any European politicians making comments that I might judge to be anti-European. I repeat the name: Volker Ru he. He was saying what he judged would appeal to the German electorate and, more importantly, to his party's supporters. It was all right for him to do that; perfectly in order. After all, he is a good European. I am not a good European.
Let me remind the House that some of us remember what being good Europeans meant. As many of us remember it on the Government side as on the Opposition side. Loyalty, chivalry and the other qualities that go with being in the military do not belong to any particular individual or party. Britain has those qualities in abundance across all sections of society. We were good Europeans twice this century. I recently went to a conference with politicians from Europe and other parts of the world. The Speaker of the Belgian Parliament was making comments about the British not being very good Europeans. I said, "Excuse me, you are from Belgium, that wee country between
Column 200
Germany and France. Have you ever visited the war graves? If you do, you will find Macdonalds, McGregors, Campbells and Frasers and, if you look carefully, you will find a few Walkers as well. You say we are not good Europeans. We gave you your freedom with our blood. That is the kind of good Europeans we are."The Eurofighter 2000 is important to the United Kingdom. I do not have to remind the House that the Belgians would not give us the ammunition we required during the Gulf war. People talk about what is required to be a good European. I believe that the blood of my relatives is sufficient evidence of what being a good European is. I come now to a subject about which I care deeply--this will be no surprise to my hon. Friend the Minister--the cadet forces. Again I have to declare an interest, because I am the honorary president of the Air Cadet Gliding Organisation, which is a voluntary organisation.
During defence costs studies, the volunteer officers, staff and parents of the air cadets were exposed to many months of uncertainties. A 50 per cent. cut in the budget was originally proposed. I thank my right hon. and hon Friends on the Front Bench, and their predecessors, for their support for the cadet forces and for recognising their responsibilities in that respect. Without their support, the uncertainty would not have been removed.
We were relieved when we heard what we thought were the decisions of the defence costs study, only to find that there is something called "Defence in the Public Eye" rumbling around the corridors of Whitehall. I understand that proposals--I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will note this-- that involve air and other cadets being required to raise more funding for themselves are being considered. In real terms, that means that air cadets would have to raise more than the £3 million that they already raise each year by their own efforts.
The adults who give up their time to run the cadets do so largely because they have specific knowledge and skills to impart. In my experience, they do not have specific knowledge or skills in fund-raising. That is not what they are there for. They would find themselves in competition with other good causes, many of which are experiencing difficulty in raising funds.
The proposal is wrong-headed and unwise: our cadet forces exist because the volunteer adults, officers and instructors are prepared to give of their time to do the tasks they have accepted. If we ask them to become fund raisers as well, I judge that we will lose many of our adults, which we can ill afford. I hope that Ministers will engage their minds as they did during the latter part of "Front Line First", when they came up with some helpful answers, for which I thank them.
I have again to declare an interest in considering the rationalisation of the defence estate. The Air Cadet Gliding Organisation has 28 units scattered throughout the country with both powered and conventional gliders. They require airfields from which to operate. With the reduction of Royal Air Force airfields, and with some airfields being transferred to the Army and other services, it is important that we have some meaningful arrangement about how volunteer units are going to be deployed.
I am concerned about northern England, where--it may interest some hon. Members from northern England that I commanded a volunteer unit at Dishforth many years ago--the volunteer unit at Catterick may have difficulties.
Column 201
Can the Minister give me an assurance that consideration will be given to the needs of air cadets, and especially the volunteer gliding schools, so that the voice of the air cadets will be heard during the rationalisation? Once the airfields have gone, it will be too late to try to find somewhere else; that is what happened to the unit at Dishforth, which closed 21 years ago and has not reopened. That is a plea from the heart.The volunteer gliding schools are close to my heart. My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) told the House that he had given 18 years of service; I have given close on 40 years of volunteer service. In my time as a pilot and instructor, one of the things that gave me the greatest joy was seeing 16 or 17-year-olds going off on their first solo flights. It gave them an uplift that one has to see to understand. It is part of character development. It is a real challenge; if they make a mistake they could easily kill themselves. Such youngsters are never likely to steal a car for kicks, because they have had the thrills, excitement and challenges. That is what sending them solo achieves. That is why airfields are critical at a time when we hear so often of the troubles of young people. The House knows also of my interest in the scouts. I believe that the scouts and cadet forces contribute massively to the well-being of our young people, and we must recognise that.
I hope that Opposition Members will not feel that I am making my plea this evening because the cadet forces are military organisations; it is the good that the youngsters do for the community afterwards that pays back the nation. More important, it is easier to keep good kids good than to make bad kids good, and much less expensive. That is why I believe that the air, Army and sea cadets, supported as they are by the Ministry of Defence, are a massive contribution to the well-being of our people.
Several hon. Members rose --
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member to speak, I must remind the House that Madam Speaker has decided on a limit of 10 minutes for speeches between the hours of 7 and 9.
6.59 pm
Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Govan): I am grateful to be chosen to speak while there are still shop stewards from the naval building yards of Yarrow, Barrow and Vosper here to listen to the debate. I want specifically to raise with the Minister of State for Defence Procurement the procurement of the type 23 frigates, the batch 2 Trafalgar submarines and the landing platform docks. I want to raise with him not simply the question whether those orders should be placed, but the timing of the orders.
I accept, as all of us do, that, in the past, much defence procurement was far too cosy. I believe, however, that it has now become, in many ways, far too rigorous, and that the Ministry of Defence is not taking into account the full enormity of its influence on the suppliers as, effectively, a monopoly purchaser when there are far fewer orders, both in this country and for export purposes. The Ministry needs to recognise more than it does at the moment that the shipyards need a flow of work to ensure that they retain the vital skills that will enable them
Column 202
not only to meet Ministry requirements at present and in the immediate future, but to tender for export contracts now and in the future. It is not reasonable for the Ministry of Defence to postpone the placing of orders and to expect privately owned yards to retain full work forces on the understanding that an order might arrive at some time in the future.There has, of course, to be competition for tenders, but if the tenders are not being awarded timeously, it is not reasonable to expect the employers to retain substantial work forces when there is no work for those people to undertake.
The Ministry must enter a much better partnership with the private sector shipyards to ensure that capacity is retained. If capacity is lost, there is no guarantee that we shall be able to turn to the French, to the Germans, to the Italians or to the Spanish in future and ask them to build ships to our requirements or to our time scale. If the capacity is lost, it will never return. The orders must be placed to ensure that there is a work flow, rather than placed simply to suit the cash flow of the Ministry.
The Ministry of Defence and the Government have been correct to focus on the idea of national champions when going for export orders, and I very much welcome that. I hope, however, that, given that there is a recognition that so much is based on personal contact, especially in the third world and in the middle east, the Government will take into account the possibility--they may wish to concede no more than this--that there may be a change of Government.
I hope that the Government will ensure that there are Opposition Members who are well aware of the nature of the contracts and who have had the opportunity, in a bipartisan way with the Government, to form links with possible suppliers to ensure that the links are not broken in a way likely to be detrimental to British industry and to the possibility of winning foreign orders, if there is a change of Government.
I say that in an entirely non-partisan way, and I hope that the Government will accept the suggestion in that spirit. The proposal was put to me not by an Opposition Member, but by the shop stewards when we met them this morning. Obviously, many of them support us politically, but they recognise that a change of Government might result in loss of opportunity if there was disruption in the negotiation of contracts.
I hope that the Government recognise that export orders can best be gained on the backs of orders being placed by them. The credibility of yards often depends on their having obtained orders from their own Government. The sooner, therefore, that orders for type 23 frigates are placed, the better placed United Kingdom yards will be to bid seriously for overseas orders.
I hope that the Government recognise the needs of our industrial base. I am aware that I do not need to repeat my next point to the Minister. After all, we were told yesterday that
"we have as a Minister of State for Defence Procurement a Member of Parliament who is probably the brightest person in the House, and someone of great competence."---[ Official Report , 16 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 97.]
I do not know whether that was just an appeal for promotion from the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham). I am sure, however, that these issues do not need to be repeated.
Column 203
We want orders to be placed now, not simply to be rolled over because the Government want to create space in the public sector spending requirements for tax cuts. If yards close as a result of orders being postponed because the Government have sought to save money for tax cuts, the Tory party will truly be placing party before country, and placing short-term electoral needs before the defence of the country. I hope that the Government will consider that point seriously, and that they will move forward as quickly as possible to place orders, especially for the type 23 frigate.I hope that the Minister will also be prepared to look seriously at whether our reduced civil shipping capacity is sufficient in terms of being able to call up from trade all the vessels that might be required in time of war to move the appropriate equipment overseas. There is a grave worry that the British mercantile marine is becoming so depleted that it will not have the capacity in time of war or in time of need to shift heavy equipment overseas, and that we shall be forced to depend on what can be taken in the spot market and what can be taken from allies--who may not be our allies in those circumstances. I hope that the Minister will reconsider that point. The next issue is far more political. I, like many others, very much resent the way in which the Government have, today and on previous occasions, cast doubts on the Labour party's commitment to the defence of this country--as if, in some way, it was the preserve of the Conservative party. It is noticeable that there are two deserters from among the Ministers who were here when those statements were made. Given that the boundaries of their seats have been redrawn, they have chosen not to fight but to flee the field of battle and to seek pastures new--in one case successfully and in the other case, not yet successfully.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): On a purely personal point, the hon. Gentleman may like to confirm with his hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who is sitting here, that my seat has completely disappeared, most unfortunately. Luckily, I have been fortunate in being selected for another constituency.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Although this is a fairly broad debate, it will not encompass constituency arrangements and rearrangements.
Mr. Davidson: The Minister's defence is very poor, given that the entire seat has probably not disappeared. Is he saying that there were no survivors whom he wished to continue to represent? Is he saying that there was nobody at all left? Have they all been decanted to the new constituency?
Mr. Fatchett: They are victims of friendly fire.
Mr. Davidson: Yes, perhaps they are. I rest my case on that matter. The "brightest man in the House" would no doubt beat me if it came to an exchange on the matter.
I hope that the Minister will take the points I have made into consideration, and that he will announce later today that he is placing an order for type 23 frigates as quickly as possible, so that Yarrow can get the order and keep its men in work.
Column 204
7.7 pmDr. Charles Goodson-Wickes (Wimbledon): It gives me great and belated pleasure today to welcome the announcement on orders for the support helicopter, the Tomahawk missile and, above all, the attack helicopter for which many of my hon. Friends have been pressing for so long. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and his predecessors promised, our armed forces are now among the best equipped in the world, to the benefit of our country, our service men and, of course, our defence industry, even if, sadly, we have not always provided the prime contractor.
I saw Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen squirm yesterday at the bizarre intervention by their new and raw recruit, the hon. Member for Stratford-on -Avon (Mr. Howarth). Old Labour, which still believes that British defence policy revolves around what I have heard described as pay, pregnancy and poofs, may welcome him to its bosom, but, luckily, new Labour has sound men who are not shy of recognising that more than 400,000 jobs are dependent on our defence industry, which has an export value of no less than £5 billion and which makes up the largest export sector of United Kingdom manufactured goods. I am proud to have in my constituency a distinguished company, Racal, which has proved its record throughout the world. It continues to lead the world in certain technologies, such as Racal Radio, which presently holds 25 to 30 per cent. of the tactical radio market outside the United States.
However, the defence industry faces increasing pressure at home and abroad from foreign competition. Its contribution to the United Kingdom's balance of payments, employment and skills base must never be underestimated. In that context, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces knows, I have long been concerned about the staffing levels of British embassies and the number of defence attache s, which is small in comparison with the United States and France. France has now overtaken us to become the second leader in the field.
I have therefore been pushing for an enhanced role for defence attache s which involves the closest possible co-operation between the Ministry of Defence, the Foreign Office and the Department of Trade and Industry. I hope that the Government will stick to the yardstick of satisfactory access to the host nation which also involves the right rank structure. I hope that senior serving officers will be used in such roles so that they can talk to Governments at the right sort of level in order to promote British industry.
The latest "Statement on the Defence Estimates" has another cosy, comforting subtitle, "Stable Forces in a Strong Britain". The snag is that, by definition, the armed services are needed primarily to maintain or create stability elsewhere, particularly when British interests are at stake.
Stability has hardly been a well-known feature of service life through the ages. It is not expected. But after three major reviews in three years, it is high time for a period free at least from extra turbulence. I am sure that the House will want to protect the quality of life of service men and women and their families who put up with so much disruption.
Column 205
I believe from my continuing links with the military--I declare an interest as a reserve officer--that there is an increasing and worrying trend outside the forces to equate life in the armed forces with civilian jobs. The distinction is in that very sentence. A job can never be the same as a way of life and there are considerable dangers in regarding the services as a business to be managed rather than led. We want our armed forces to be run not by managers but by leaders-- people with flair and initiative. Unless we attract and, above all, retain good-quality recruits, the fine reputation of our troops worldwide will be prejudiced, and the very qualities that we so admire--their efficiency, skill, bravery and, not least, their special brand of humour--will be less evident.Service men endure long periods of training and often mundane and repetitive tasks offset by deployments to dangerous troublespots around the world at minimal notice. It takes a particular kind of person to cope with that and it was profoundly disappointing to hear the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday that the long-promised 24- month tour interval is yet to be achieved, despite the welcome reduction in tension in Northern Ireland.
In those circumstances, it is hardly surprising that, even at a time of high unemployment, there is a marked shortfall in recruitment. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench not only to be aware of the problem but to continue to emphasise and promote the variety and sort of challenges that soldiers relish--from higher formation training, which sadly has been curtailed recently, to training units in more than 20 countries spreading expertise and good will; from high intensity capability to humanitarian relief work.
Soldiers are very good at disguising their worries about change and its effects on their career prospects. No one expects operational stability, but the time is ripe for at least stability of funding after defence cuts which have resulted in expenditure falling below 3 per cent. of GDP.
I make no apology for concentrating on the human aspect of service life, because unless that is addressed our capability is reduced, and how well we are now using that capability. I welcome the significant British presence in the ACE rapid reaction corps and the announcement of the joint rapid deployment force. However, the mind boggles at what sounds like multi- hatting at a level never before experienced even by our own flexible and tolerant forces--national, NATO, UN and Western European Union roles no less. If rationalisation is needed anywhere, it is certainly needed there.
I share my right hon. Friend's resistance to the WEU's aspiration to be the defence arm of the European Union as well as the European pillar of NATO. Events in the Gulf and Bosnia have demonstrated yet again, firstly, the powerlessness of the United Nations, in the absence of a command structure, properly to respond to crises which blow up in this turbulent post-cold war era; secondly, the absurdity of the dual key arrangement in Bosnia, which paralysed NATO for months, undermining its authority, prolonging the conflict and costing many lives; and, lastly, the need for American commitment and leadership. As Winston Churchill once said, the United States will always do the right thing once it has exhausted all the possibilities. We must be thankful for that and the American role in NATO.
Column 206
Let my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State continue to resist a defence union as firmly as we resist economic and monetary union. The time is not ripe, and may never be, for either. Close co-operation with other countries in common cause, of course, but, as one of the foremost powers for good in the world, we owe it to our service men and to our country to reject any constraints on pursuing our national interests as a sovereign state.7.15 pm
Mr. Alan Simpson (Nottingham, South): I must begin by explaining why this year's debate on the defence estimates is so important to me. It comes at the end of a year in which we have commemorated the 50th anniversary of the dreadful destructiveness of the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and of Nagasaki; a year in which we have also celebrated the 50th anniversary of the ending of the war in Europe and in south-east Asia. It also comes at a time when we have celebrated the 50th year since the birth of the United Nations. If one puts this debate in an even wider context, it takes place at a time when we have supposedly turned our backs on the era of the cold war which so disfigured the way in which we saw other people in society; the common strands of interest and the common threats to our survival. It comes at the end of a year in which the world, or most of it, signed up to an indefinite extension of the non-proliferation treaty. It comes at the end of a summer in which there has been worldwide condemnation of the French nuclear testing. It is the first time that I have ever encountered a significant number of British people positively shopping for what they described as "non-nuclear" wines. It comes at the end of a week in which Professor Joseph Rotblat, the nuclear physicist, was awarded the Nobel prize for campaigning, throughout his life, for the elimination of nuclear weapons.
If one tries to locate all those huge events--the seismic shifts in public understanding and what is happening in the world--against the contents of the Government's "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1995", or the Minister's comments as the estimates have been presented to the House, it is almost impossible to detect that sense of seismic shift that has taken place. That missed opportunity in this year's debate is a matter of great sadness to me.
One can still see a change from last year. There is greater talk of the Government finding efficiency savings or streamlining, but there is no strategic rethink of what defence and common security are fundamentally about. I would argue that this year's "Statement on the Defence Estimates" makes us more rather than less insecure than we were last year. I want to set out the four reasons why I believe that and why I shall be voting against the estimates tonight.
The first reason relates to the nuclear vacuum in relation to Ministers' opening speeches. During the entire period of the Government's life they have recognised that they no longer have a sustainable argument about a nuclear deterrent. What they do have is a nuclear dependence. They are increasingly dependent upon a logic that is not only obsolete but extremely dangerous. It is an obsession beyond the dimensions of rational debate, and beyond any recognition of the huge costs of missed opportunities. These are both the costs involved in cutting
Column 207
conventional defence services and the wider social and economic costs that society must bear as a result of the obsession with nuclear weapons.I was greatly relieved by the comments of Field Marshal Lord Carver, who-- putting his view in a very technical way--said, "The trouble with nuclear arms is that we do not know what the bloody hell they are for. We cannot use them independently; we can't even run them without the help of the USA. Indeed, no sane person would use them at all." During the summer, in slightly more diplomatic terms, two more military experts expressed their views. Professor Sir Ronald Mason, who was the Government's chief scientific adviser between 1978 and 1983, said that it was fairly clear that we were "over-egging the pudding" in relation to the arguments in favour of nuclear weapons. He went on to argue that the cost of operating and refitting the Trident submarine would be between £40 billion and £50 billion during its lifetime, and that we could save £10 billion by not ordering the final Trident submarine--or the whole amount, if we mothballed the lot. The same argument was then put by Sir Nigel Bagnall, Chief of the Defence Staff between 1985 and 1989.
The House should remember the scale of those costs when discussing other decisions in regard to where savings are to be found--whether the subject is the defence estimates or other social and economic programmes. This makes Greenpeace's estimate that Trident would cost £33 billion during its lifetime seem positively modest.
For me, the problem with the nuclear weapons programme is that we still refuse to address the fact that such weapons are almost entirely irrelevant to the resolution of any conflict. Certainly they have been irrelevant to the resolution of any conflict in my lifetime. I suspect that they will be irrelevant to the resolution of any conflict during the lifetimes of my children or their children. We shall, however, continue to pay a huge price for the obsession with an obsolete system of defence. It is a distortion of our language that we still presume to speak of nuclear weapons as though they were part of a sensible defence and deterrence strategy, and I feel deeply ashamed of the fact that we do so in the House. Beyond that psychological dependency, I have a second reason for voting against the estimates. The Government refuse point-blank to condemn French nuclear testing, at a time when the public are appalled and the international community is outraged. What have the Government done? Have they been outspoken in their condemnation of the French? No; they have been "out to lunch" on their indifference. I know that the Government are not used to speaking with the support of the majority of the British public, but I should have thought that, given that only 3 per cent. of the country's population supports the actions of the French, even Polly would have had the sense to take the kettle off this silent support. France's actions are internationally frowned on, and it is a source of despair that Britain remains silent when other countries have spoken out much more courageously.
Why are we doing this? I believe--and this is the third reason why I will vote against the estimates--that we are moving into a new era of Anglo- French co-operation in the development of the next generation of nuclear weapons. I say that with reference to documents that have already been made available to the House. According to the Defence Committee's second report on the progress of the Trident programme, the Ministry of Defence has been
Column 208
"talking actively with the Americans, and the French, on how to co-operate effectively in the use of . . . facilities"at the Atomic Weapons Establishment
"as part and parcel of the business of exercising and maintaining proper stewardship of . . . nuclear weapons".
The report adds that
"stronger links could usefully be forged with France who, with untested new warheads, are more anxious to test than are we, and who may indeed recommence doing so following the elections in 1995 unless suitable alternatives are available. Indeed, the UK may itself learn from this co- operation".
This year, in its eighth report, the Committee provided an update, saying:
"Last year we urged greater co-operation with the US and France in non- nuclear testing. MoD reported on some technical discussions with the French on issues related to nuclear weapons stewardship such as hydrodynamic experiments and computer simulation. Progress has not been swift . . . Whilst Britain would want to retain a capability to test independently, an efficient use of resources may involve some specialisation . . . there may be considerable potential for the French and Americans to be invited to conduct work at Aldermaston which may go some way towards filling the void created by a CTBT"-- a comprehensive test ban treaty.
What is that void? It is spelt out on page 77 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates":
"The United Kingdom's capability in nuclear warhead science and technology is principally vested in the Atomic Weapons Establishment . . . at Aldermaston".
Discussing a "streamlined technical programme", the statement says:
"It would, however, also necessitate changes . . . in our ability to develop new warheads which may be required in the future. So, whereas in the past we have used a very small number of underground nuclear tests to provide a cost-effective means of maintaining capabilities, we are now looking to a further enhancement of `above ground' experiments"--
| Next Section
| Home Page |