---

5.9 pm

Mr. John Spellar (Warley, West): Mr. Deputy Speaker, unashamed and unabashed, I rise to respond to 50 minutes of uncharacteristically reasonable discourse from the Minister of State. I thought that I might have to cut out some of the more offensive parts of my speech,

6 Feb 1997 : Column 1172

but fortunately he indulged in five minutes of bogus outrage at the end of his speech. One would never suspect that, having claimed in its last election manifesto that the Labour party would cut defence spending by 27 per cent., the Conservatives went on to cut it by 31 per cent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), who is responsible for personnel matters, informs me that there as been a 38 per cent. reduction in Royal Air Force personnel. The Government spent £500 million in one year on redundancy payments in the forces and another £100 million on recruitment. They still cannot get their figures right, and the service is 5,000 troops under strength. Perhaps the Minister's bogus outrage is good cover, good camouflage and good deception tactics in an attempt to divert attention from the Government's shameful record.

In the more presentable part of his speech, the Minister correctly paid tribute on behalf of the House to the professionalism, dedication and effectiveness of the Royal Air Force. We join him in recognising its contribution to the security of our nation and to peace around the globe. We also join him in paying warm tribute to Sir Frank Whittle, whose career demonstrates the importance of innovation in engineering to the operation of a successful Air Force. I am pleased to see the Minister wearing his demob suit today, in a further tribute to Sir Frank.

In opening for the Opposition in last year's RAF debate on 6 June, I mentioned that it was the third and last of the services debates in that Session. Surprisingly, the batting order has been changed this year. We understand why the Government could not hold the Navy debate, after the comments by the Secretary of State for Defence about the royal yacht and the embarrassment that he caused the Government. We understand also why the Government could not hold the Army debate, because of the shortfall in troops that is particularly serious in that service.

However, that does not explain why this debate was rushed forward--especially since the annual RAF briefing for hon. Members from both Houses is scheduled to take place next Monday. Were Ministers concerned that the RAF would raise questions that they would find difficult to answer? As a result of this early debate, many of the issues that we raised last year remain pertinent and this debate may repeat several elements of the last one.

In some cases, events have moved on. Last July, through all-party pressure--I pay tribute to the efforts of hon. Members on both sides of the House--we managed to force announcements on Nimrod and the missile contracts. However, it was a close-run thing, involving a last-minute debate--which did not turn out exactly as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) had anticipated--a comprehensive clobbering of the hapless hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and a flustered eleventh hour appearance by the Leader of the House. The announcements nearly did not happen, and their handling suggests that Ministers have little comprehension of the cost to industry of unnecessary contract delays or the resulting damage to export prospects.

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury): I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for giving way. While he is on the subject of damage to industry and the impact of new equipment on the RAF, will he give the House an absolutely straight answer tonight? Would a Labour Government include the future

6 Feb 1997 : Column 1173

of Eurofighter in their defence review? Will the hon. Gentleman give the House an undertaking that a Labour Government would not cancel Eurofighter--yes or no?

Mr. Spellar: I shall turn to Eurofighter in a moment. Does the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) believe that he is doing the Eurofighter cause any good by raising that question in Session after Session when Conservative Back Benchers have received comprehensive answers about it? He must understand that there are on-going debates in Germany, that fine decisions are being taken there, that difficulties are being faced, and that we may get a decision in March. In the light of those developments, does he think that it is helpful to try to generate confusion and uncertainty in the minds of our partners overseas?

It is now clear that this debate has been rushed forward for party political reasons. The hon. Gentleman is undermining the Eurofighter project and the national interest. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North responded to the Minister, who chose not to believe him--that is his right. My hon. Friend made clear our position on Eurofighter, and I shall clarify it further later. The hon. Gentleman must understand that he is not doing the industry any favours--unfortunately, he was not in the Chamber to hear the earlier exchange--by playing political games with the issue.

Mr. Mans: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must send the right messages to the Germans about the future of that important European project at this critical time. The Secretary of State for Defence has said that we wish to proceed to the production investment phase. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he could send a clear message to the Germans tonight by confirming that the Labour party would exclude Eurofighter from its defence review?

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman must accept that that issue was raised in the last two rounds of defence questions, and my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and I responded to it. We agree that Eurofighter is vital if we are to meet the future requirements of our armed forces. That is why Labour has consistently backed the project, and why we recognise its importance for the future of our defence and our security needs in the 21st century. It is irresponsible for Conservative Members to try to create uncertainties in the electorate by attempting to undermine our position.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman will know that the project is vital to my constituents who are involved in the production of European fighter aircraft. Will he assure them that those aircraft would not be part of any future Labour Government review, and that the 230 aircraft that have been ordered would not be scaled down at any time under a Labour Government?

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Gentleman recognises that the Government have reduced the number of aircraft from 250 to 232. Let me make it clear: we are committed to the programme as it stands currently. We will order Eurofighter, provided that there is continuing agreement

6 Feb 1997 : Column 1174

about work share and financial arrangements which are acceptable to the British Government and to British industry.

Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam): This is a fudge.

Mr. Spellar: The hon. Lady must recognise that negotiations are currently proceeding with the German Government. That is the position of Ministers, and I have made clear the position of Her Majesty's Opposition who will take those decisions after the election.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): No, the position is not clear. Would the hon. Gentleman exclude Eurofighter from a defence review--yes or no?

Mr. Spellar: The Minister is setting up Aunt Sallies and then being frightened by them. As he is aware, the issue may well arise before the defence review is completed. The question is therefore whether we will order Eurofighter when the decision must be taken, and I have given our response to that question. The Minister, quite wrongly, is creating an issue. The consequences of the position adopted by him and by other Conservative Members will be to encourage those in Germany who want to undermine Eurofighter, and they are playing a very serious game. They are playing that game not only over Eurofighter but over defence exports and British companies.

Some Conservative Back Benchers--to be fair to them--are making sterling efforts to reassure other countries that the scare stories being put around by the more irresponsible elements of the Conservative party are untrue. Those stories are undermining the British national interest, and they are desperate ploys by desperate men.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that his proposal for a review is causing instability in British industry? Does he not understand that?

Mr. Spellar: I do not, because it is not true. The matter is self-evidently a political ploy. We should now move on in this debate, because Conservative Members are obviously incapable of understanding our position, although I have expressed it in plain English. I have made our position on the Eurofighter clear in my statement, but that does not suit Conservative Members' party political purposes. It is a game played by those in a party which is so far behind in the opinion polls--[Interruption.] They are desperate to cling on to office, by their fingernails--[Interruption.] Those who work in the industry will fully understand their game.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I have been very tolerant, especially with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans). The Minister made a 55-minute speech and was given a reasonable hearing; the shadow Minister must be given the same.

---