House of Commons
Tuesday 28 November 1995
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
DEFENCE
Procurement Programme
1. Mr. Batiste: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what would be the effect on the Government's procurement programme of reducing defence spending to the European average. [810]
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): If any Government were to reduce spending to the European average of 2.5 per cent. of GDP, they would be forced to cut spending on defence by as much as £4 billion. That would have a devastating effect on our procurement programme.
Mr. Batiste: Is it not clear that the Government's policy of putting the front line first could not be sustained if we reduced defence spending to the European average? Would that not put 315,000 defence jobs at risk, and deny our troops the equipment that they need? Do not those who advocate such a policy--including many Opposition Members--put Britain's front line last?
Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes. Year after year, the Labour party conference has voted to cut defence spending to the European average. This year, members of the Labour party did not do that. They did not even allow themselves a vote, because they knew that they could not be trusted on defence. The entire country knows that Labour cannot be trusted on defence.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: Do not some procurement issues depend on the management rather than on the size of the budget? Why has a lack of spares led to 30 Royal Air Force Tornado aircraft being grounded? Why has pilot training been restricted as a consequence? How are those developments consistent with the Government's stated objective of putting the front line first?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I am pleased to say that the difficulties that have arisen over spares--partly because of industrial action at Rolls-Royce--are being rapidly overcome. They have not affected our ability to deploy Tornadoes at times when they are needed, and we are fully up to speed in making the aircraft available for the tasks that need to be done.
Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that, if we reduced our defence spending to the European average, the Eurofighter programme would be put in severe jeopardy? Does he also agree that rumours perpetrated by
American aircraft companies that the Government are thinking of buying some F16s instead of the Eurofighter should be nailed once and for all?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to correct the story that has recently appeared in the newspapers. We are not considering buying F16 aircraft in place of the Eurofighter; we are fully committed to the Eurofighter, and intend it to form the cornerstone of our air defence capability over the next century. In that context, I am pleased to be able to announce that the revised main development contracts for the Eurofighter were signed yesterday. That puts the project on a much tauter, more commercial and better basis.
Dr. David Clark: Does the Minister feel somewhat guilty about spreading the falsehood that the Labour party intends to reduce defence spending to the European average? Is it not the Government who have reduced defence spending by 30 per cent., with the result that the Army is 10,000 men short and call-up papers had to be sent to reservists yesterday? Is it not true that our Royal Navy has been reduced to 30 ships, and that of 36 planes at RAF Bruggen, only six can fly? Does the Minister agree with the Daily Mail that our services are now overstretched and undervalued?
Mr. Arbuthnot: No. The hon. Gentleman is being a little desperate. He knows that, shortly after the Labour party conference, 42 of his hon. Friends voted to cut defence spending to the European average. He knows that his party has voted for that time after time. Now he is calling for a fundamental defence review, but we know that he is scared to admit that what he really wants to do is to cut defence spending.
Western European Union
2. Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last discussed the Western European Union with Defence Ministers from the other members of that organisation; and if he will make a statement. [811]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): Western European Union Foreign and Defence Ministers met in Madrid on 14 November. We made clear our view that European nations acting within the WEU needed to develop their capability of mounting effective, small-scale military operations.
Mr. Garnier: I accept that European security is British security, but will my right hon. Friend confirm his support for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and, in particular, for the transatlantic limb of that alliance? Will he also assure me that he will not allow the WEU to be folded into the European Union?
Mr. Portillo: NATO must remain the cornerstone of European defence. I cannot conceive of true security in Europe other than on the basis of a transatlantic alliance. For north Americans to have confidence in NATO, it is necessary for Europeans to show that they can do more and do their bit. The WEU and not the European Union is the proper organisation to develop that European defence capability.
Mr. Jim Marshall: First, will the Secretary of State accept that, throughout the House, there is general
agreement anyway that foreign and security policies should remain a separate pillar under the Maastricht arrangements? Secondly, will he give some idea of how he intends to improve or increase the WEU's operational capability? Words are fine--we have had plenty of words--but what sort of action will ensue?
Mr. Portillo: I am not sure that it is a shared view in all parts of the Chamber that security and foreign policies should remain part of the European Union's pillared structure. It certainly is the belief among Government Members that it should not be brought within the treaty of Rome, but I notice that European socialists, certainly in the European Parliament, have advocated the spread of qualified majority voting to sectors including foreign, defence and security policy. I do not know, therefore, whether Labour Members are disowning the socialist European Members. I hope that, during our presidency, the situation centre of the WEU, the planning cell and the intelligence section will be brought into life so that they will be fully operational towards the end of our presidency.
Defence Land (Gosport)
3. Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the release of defence land in the Gosport area. [812]
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): Where it is not possible for my Department to find alternative uses for redundant sites, we seek to dispose of the surplus land as quickly as possible.
Mr. Viggers: I thank my hon. Friend for the manner in which the Ministry of Defence has co-operated with local authorities over the release of defence land. Does he agree that the proposed development of the Portsmouth harbour region, involving some £100 million of investment, backed by some £40 million from the millennium fund, offers an unprecedented opportunity to local authorities to develop their land sensitively? Will he undertake to maintain close contact with the local authorities, including, if necessary, at the appropriate time, a further ministerial meeting on the subject?
Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree that the project is extremely exciting, interesting and potentially rewarding. I shall be happy to see my hon. Friend at the head of a delegation to discuss those matters and I look forward to receiving that delegation at his convening.
Mr. Miller: The project in Gosport is extremely interesting. Will the Minister assure the House that, in discussions with local authorities such as that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), careful consideration will be given, both to the need for low-cost housing in those communities and to economic development? What discussions is the Minister having with his colleagues in other Departments on those specific points?
Mr. Soames: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we always have regard to uses other than defence uses when we come to make such plans and, plainly, housing is one of them. We work extremely closely with the local authorities and, where possible, we try to conform to what they wish. As to our relationship with other Departments, plainly, in matters such as planning and the environment, we work absolutely cheek by jowl with them.
Recruitment
4. Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on recruitment of reducing United Kingdom defence spending to the European average. [813]
Mr. Soames: If any British Government were to reduce our defence spending to the European average, that would have a devastating impact on the size of our armed forces and the Government would never consider it.
Sir Anthony Durant: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Bearing in mind our commitments in Northern Ireland and Germany, and now heavy commitments in Bosnia, will he ensure that we have enough personnel to deal with those issues, and with any others that might arise?
Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and he is quite right to draw attention to the recruiting difficulties that we have, in the Army in particular--the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are satisfactorily recruited. We are doing everything possible to ensure that we overcome those difficulties and are able to continue to recruit the high-grade young men and women that we need in the armed forces today.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is not one way of reducing defence spending, which would not have any effect on recruitment, to buy the British-made Land Rover military ambulance rather than the Austrian Steyr that has been recommended to the hon. Gentleman?
Mr. Soames: The hon. Lady makes a fair point. I am able to tell her that no decision has yet been taken, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will have heard what she said and noted her interest.
Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a certain inconsistency between wanting to reduce defence spending to the level of the European average on one hand and the special pleading by individual Members who are concerned about orders for their constituencies?
Mr. Soames: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said, a reduction to the average level of European expenditure would be about £4 billion, which would represent a down-sizing of about two thirds in any one of the individual services. That is a totally unacceptable proposition and is one of the reasons why this country knows that it can never trust the Labour party on defence.
Mr. Spellar: Can we thank the Tory Whips for having planted that question so that we can ask the Minister how the Government have managed in the past year to spend £500 million on redundancies and £100 million on recruitment, to make a number of troops compulsorily redundant yet still be short of troops in the armed forces and to have to call up reservists? What level of incompetence is that?
Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman has no idea what he is talking about and is clearly suffering from paranoia. The question of recruiting should be understood. We are having difficulties recruiting for the infantry and it will not be easy to continue to recruit people to be match fit
for 365 days a year for a demanding job. We need to spend more money on recruiting and we need to do it better. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong to speak as if reservists were second-class. We have called up reservists to do jobs for which they provide extraordinarily important specialisations, and we badly need their help.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend accept that Her Majesty's forces are the finest military personnel in the world? They are envied for their expertise and their skill. Will he further agree that, without adequate defence, no country has the credibility to play any role in the world today?
Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The British armed forces are renowned throughout the world for their competence, skill and courage and the plain, understated way that they just get on with the job. My hon. Friend is also right that having formidable armed forces give our country strength and sinew and a far greater sense of nationhood than would otherwise be the case, and, sadly, is not the case in other less favoured countries.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |