| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Royal Air Force (Equipment Budget)
9. Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the RAF's equipment budget for the next four years. [13723]
Mr. Arbuthnot: We plan to increase spending on major equipment procurement for all three services by more than 15 per cent. in real terms over the next four years. The RAF will be a major beneficiary, as demonstrated by recent orders for Nimrod 2000 maritime patrol aircraft, Storm Shadow cruise missiles and Brimstone anti-armour weapons.
Mr. Brazier: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important single requirement for a conventional war fighting capability is a modern air force, and that the bulk of the welcome forward programme for the RAF is based around Eurofighter and weapons to be carried by Eurofighter? Does he also agree that, should any Government be sufficiently irresponsible as to conduct a defence review driven by peacetime foreign policy requirements, the effect could only be an undermining of that modern war fighting capability that is so important in a dangerous world and a replacement that would look very much like the khaki branch of Oxfam?
Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right. We have already had exchanges today about Eurofighter and the fact that the Opposition refuse to exempt Eurofighter from their strategic review, but we have not yet had exchanges about whether Nimrod 2000 replacement maritime patrol aircraft would be exempted from that review. Would Labour exempt the CASOM--the conventionally armed stand-off missile? Would it exempt the anti-armour weapon? We do not know--perhaps Labour Members will tell us, because without such an assurance we know that Labour cannot be trusted on defence.
Mr. Barry Jones: Does the Minister still propose to go for the 40 to 50 future large aircraft? What is the status of that project in his Department? Would it not be best to keep wing technology in my constituency in Wales instead of letting it slide to Hamburg?
Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman is arguing very strongly for a further Conservative Government; I thank him for that.
The Government's position on the future large aircraft was set out in a written answer by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) on 16 December 1994 at column 823. It remains the case that we need to be satisfied that a number of conditions have been met before we agree to rejoin the FLA programme. That work has not yet been completed. We shall make an announcement as soon as a decision is taken.
Mr. Mans:
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the height of irresponsibility for any party to say that it will conduct a strategic defence and security review without telling the electorate before the general election exactly what the criteria of that review would be? Does he further agree that, without that information, all those orders that he has mentioned for the Royal Air Force are in jeopardy, threatening tens of thousands of jobs in Lancashire and dealing a death blow to the defence industry?
Mr. Arbuthnot:
I do agree, because a defence review is the policy that dare not speak its name. That policy is the mask for cuts demanded by Labour Back Benchers. That policy is the greatest skulk of the century; Labour Members are trying desperately to pretend that they do not want to cut defence expenditure. They are trying to be all things to all men, and the electorate will see through them.
10. Mr. Flynn:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new proposals he has to increase receipts from the sale of surplus defence equipment. [13724]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
The Disposal Sales Agency continues to involve private sector companies under contract to the agency. The agency is to broaden its customer base to include disposal sales services on behalf of other Government Departments.
Mr. Flynn:
Why did the Government spend £13 million on HMS Battleaxe and sell it off cheaply within 12 months? Why did they spend £25 million on HMS Andromeda and sell it within a very short time to India for £65,000? Why did they spend £155 million on HMS Renown, which has never been operational since and is about to be scrapped? Is this not financial incompetence on an olympic scale?
Mr. Arbuthnot:
No, it is not. We have the youngest Navy in living memory, and the sheer fighting power of our Navy is a tribute to the investment that the Government have made in the Navy in buying new ships and in ordering such things as the landing platform dock replacement craft, which we ordered last year, and ships like HMS Ocean, which will produce an incredibly powerful attacking force. We shall be able to maintain the amphibious capability because we shall be re-elected at the next general election.
Mr. Harry Greenway:
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a certain hypocrisy about those who demand smaller profits or no profits from the sales of defence equipment but more expenditure on social services, including those relating to unemployment and the like?
Mr. Arbuthnot:
It is difficult to say whether the Labour party has no values at all because its members present different sets of values according to whom they are talking to. They try to be all things to all men. They try to pretend that they believe in the defence of the country, when we know that they would undermine not only our armed forces, but our defence industry. Our defence industry is stronger than it has ever been. Last year, we had the best ever export results. That performance would be undermined by the Labour party: it would undermine defence exports just as it would undermine the defence industry.
11. Mr. Wilkinson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the Royal Air Force squadrons currently stationed at Laarbruch and Bruggen are to be based in the United Kingdom upon their withdrawal from Germany. [13725]
Mr. Soames:
Of the squadrons that are currently located at RAF Laarbruch, No. 18 Squadron will move to RAF Odiham, and we plan that Nos. 3 and 4 Squadrons should redeploy to RAF Cottesmore. The tri-national Tornado training establishment, currently at RAF Cottesmore, will reform on 1 April 1999 at RAF Lossiemouth as the national Tornado operational conversion unit. No final decisions have yet been taken about the redeployment of the Tornado squadrons from RAF Bruggen.
Mr. Wilkinson:
My hon. Friend's statement is welcome. Is it not a crazy situation that the squadrons in RAF Germany face restrictions on low flying and a shortage of ranges and have to expand much time and cost in transiting to the UK and elsewhere to train? Is it not more expensive to employ local civilians in Germany than to have civilian support in the UK? The earlier the squadrons can follow headquarters back to Britain, the more jobs there will be in this country.
Mr. Soames:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He rightly says that it is a prudent move, for all the reasons that he mentioned, and it is in line with the Government's continued search for increased efficiency and cost reduction in support and training. There is no doubt that, as the squadrons are presently configured in Germany, they are unable to deliver the value for money that we wish to see. I take my hon. Friend's point about the Tornado squadrons' base, and we shall take the decision as soon as possible. The changes in no way represent a diminution of the United Kingdom commitment to NATO, and the aeorplanes will remain tasked to NATO central forces.
Mr. Tony Banks:
We do not need any lectures in patriotism from Ministers. When I was clutching a rifle in the Air Training Corps, the Secretary of State was clutching a handful of white feathers. If Germany feels that it can spend a lower proportion of its national wealth on defence, why cannot this country?
Mr. Soames:
The hon. Gentleman's reference to my right hon. Friend is outrageous. If I may say so, it has
The UK spends what it does on defence because we have the best armed forces in the world and we have a major role to play beyond these shores. We do not compare ourselves with our German friends: the British forces are different, and the Tory Government will continue to give them all the support that they need.
12. Mr. Lidington:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of RAF Halton. [13726]
Mr. Soames:
RAF Halton will continue to be the RAF centre for administrative and support trade training and to provide basic recruit and general service training for the majority of airmen.
Mr. Lidington:
Will my hon. Friend congratulate all those involved in the professional transition of the functions of RAF Halton in recent years? Will he bear it in mind that the previous uncertainty about the future of the base has led to a backlog in necessary repairs and refurbishment for single quarters at Halton? Will he review his budget to see how those problems may be tackled as soon as possible?
Mr. Soames:
I know that the commanding officer of RAF Halton is grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is another example of the wider youth community.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |