| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Trident
5. Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the deployment of Trident. [6342]
Mr. Arbuthnot: The Trident system has been in operational service since December 1994. The phased replacement of Polaris by the Trident system is proceeding to schedule.
Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that when Victorious went on patrol it had only 12 missiles on board, compared with the 16 that Vanguard is carrying? Is that a change of policy? Does it mean that we are going
to buy fewer missiles from the United States; and will each missile be carrying more warheads than the Polaris missiles carried, thereby putting us in breach of the non-proliferation treaty? Or will we conform to that treaty?
Mr. Arbuthnot: We shall certainly conform to the non-proliferation treaty. The hon. Gentleman was one of 42 Opposition Members who last October signed a motion calling for Trident to be scrapped. He comes from the wing of the Labour party that represents the real Labour party, and that means we cannot trust Labour on defence.
Mr. Robathan: Does my hon. Friend accept that the history of nuclear weapons makes many hon. Members uncomfortable--particularly the deployment of cruise missiles in the past decade, which was opposed by many hon. Members? The non-stop opposition to Trident by some Liberal and Labour Members suggests that they are more concerned with their own peculiar principles than with the good defence of our nation, which is supported by the majority of its people.
Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes. Nuclear deterrence has worked to prevent war in Europe for the past 50 years. We should remember that our nuclear deterrent has been a very good buy. Had Labour been in power in the past 16 years, we would not have any of those questions because we would not have a nuclear deterrent.
Mr. Salmond: Will the Minister confirm that his Department contacted Rosyth dockyard with a view to estimating the price of a contract to refit the Trident missile system? What does that tell us about the status of the Devonport contract? Does it not suggest that it was always unsoundly based and that the decision to send it there was purely political rather than economic?
Mr. Arbuthnot: No. My Department has not contacted Rosyth dockyard, which put in a unsolicited bid. The decision in 1993 to put nuclear refitting into Devonport was taken when we needed to have the issue settled. We do not intend to reopen the issue and move the contract to Rosyth.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the results of the recent Russian election and the uncertainty that has been created underline the need for the west to maintain its nuclear shield? Do those election results not show that the meandering policies of the Leader of the Opposition on defence demonstrate that only one party can be guaranteed to defend the country?
Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes. The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) used to be a member of the parliamentary Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Defence is just one of many issues on which he and the Labour party have said time and again, "We were wrong about that. Please forgive us." But the electorate will not forgive them.
Ms Rachel Squire: Does the Minister agree that the Government are entirely responsible for the two and a half years of delay and indecision over the refitting of Trident and the future ownership of the two dockyards? Will he tell the House today when he intends to make an announcement about the future ownership of those dockyards and provide firm guarantees on work load,
safety and conditions of employment at both Rosyth and Devonport?
Mr. Arbuthnot: It is not as a result of Government indecision that the matter has been delayed for so long. It is an exceptionally important and complicated matter to tie up all the issues involved in nuclear refitting. The hon. Lady has been assiduous and vigorous in fighting the corner for Rosyth, but nevertheless the Government have been absolutely right to pursue negotiations with the various companies involved. We have done so vigorously, and we intend to pursue those negotiations to a conclusion.
Trained Personnel
6. Mr. David Nicholson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the measures he has taken to enable the services to retain trained personnel. [6343]
Mr. Soames: The services have well-established measures in place to encourage the retention of trained personnel including incentive bonuses and excellent resettlement provisions. A career in the services today offers a rewarding and often exciting life with excellent opportunities rarely to be found in any other career.
Mr. Nicholson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware that there are widespread concerns, which have been expressed to me recently by service families of constituents, about the number of officers voluntarily leaving the three services. Particular concerns have been expressed about general list naval officers. Is he aware that the reassurances and initiatives announced earlier will be very welcome, but can he assure the House that those initiatives will not involve any lowering of standards in recruitment?
Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is right to raise the concern that is felt about what is clearly a problem. The services have been through a difficult and protracted period of change. The process has probably been more difficult than that faced by any other organisation within our society. We believe that the front line is now properly, correctly and robustly configured for the pursuit of our defence and security goals.
Big decisions have been taken. I hope that the men and women in the armed forces can now look forward to a period of stability. I confirm that we shall be seeking no lowering of any standards. On the contrary: we seek always to raise standards. We seek to be a model employer, employing very good people.
Mr. Hardy:
Does the Minister agree that, as numbers fall and commitments are maintained or intensified, so the threat to the maintenance of good morale in the forces also intensifies, which is something that requires rather more urgent attention than the Government give it?
Mr. Soames:
On the contrary: as the hon. Gentleman knows--he has considerable experience of these matters--with one or two isolated exceptions where bases or stations have been hit badly by redundancy programmes, morale in all three services is extremely high. I know that the hon. Gentleman undertakes many service visits. He will know that the armed forces are supremely confident of their mission and supremely capable of carrying it out.
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
7. Dr. Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the Government's policy on the enlargement of NATO[6344]
Mr. Soames: The Government support the enlargement of NATO and are playing an important role in enhancing the stability and security of the whole of Europe.
Dr. Spink: Will my hon. Friend continue his policy of maintaining and building on NATO's strength and not jeopardise that strength by over-rapid development of NATO by following Labour's Eurocentric policies? Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party cannot be trusted to maintain a strong NATO and, indeed, cannot be trusted on defence?
Mr. Soames: I wholly agree with my hon. Friend on both issues. NATO is the most successful defensive alliance that the world has ever seen. My hon. Friend is right to confirm that it must and will remain for ever the cornerstone of our European defence. It is inconceivable that we could consider true security in Europe other than on the basis of a transatlantic alliance. I share my hon. Friend's real concerns and those of many ordinary people the length and breadth of the land about the United Kingdom's security should Labour ever come to power again.
Mr. Gapes: Is the Minister, when considering future security in the north Atlantic, alarmed at the developments in Guatemala, where the hand-picked candidate of the extreme right-wing former dictator is ahead in the elections? That man, Senor Alfonso Portillo, could become President. Is the Minister--
Madam Speaker: Order. That supplementary question is entirely out of order. It is the first day back and I shall bear in mind my reprimand to the hon. Member for the next two or three weeks. Let us have another question.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Coming from Guatemala closer to home, and agreeing with my hon. Friend about the significant importance of NATO and the excellent support that the Government have given and continue to give to NATO through the "Partnership for Peace" proposals, when considering the enlargement of NATO, will he assure the House that, in addition to the "Partnership for Peace" proposals, he will give the most urgent consideration to including the Visegrad countries--the countries of central Europe--as full members of NATO?
Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend has probably had a more honourable and distinguished career in respect of such efforts than anyone in this place. His contribution to NATO is great. He knows that the "Partnership for Peace" operation has been an outstanding success. He is right to warn that countries will not for ever tolerate being dragged along on the PFP programme. The how and why of the enlargement programme are almost settled. There is further work to be done, however, on retaining the effectiveness of NATO while the transition to enlargement takes place. Otherwise, I can definitely give the assurance that my hon. Friend seeks.
Mr. Spellar: The Minister is obviously aware that one of the key issues in NATO is the harmonisation of equipment. Can he give us a better reply than his
colleague and say how he reconciles that with considering field ambulances from non-NATO Austria over the world-class Land Rover? When will he put British industry first?
Mr. Soames: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a number of failings, but I did not know that deafness was one of them. My hon. Friend has said that no decision has yet been taken. The hon. Gentleman's question is therefore a total waste of time.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |