| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
NATO
8. Ann Clwyd: What assessment he has made of the cost to Her Majesty's Government of NATO expansion. [16801]
Mr. George Robertson: Our assessment is that the costs associated with the enlargement of NATO to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic will be manageable. I and other NATO Defence Ministers will be considering tomorrow a report from NATO staffs on the military and financial implications of enlargement.
Ann Clwyd:
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, but I have been asking the question for some time and I would have expected the Government to have been able to give an assessment of the costs of NATO expansion by now. Can he assure us that the cost of expansion will be met from the current defence budget and that he will not be asking for an extra penny from what many of us already consider to be much too large a budget?
Mr. Robertson:
Any additional cost to our NATO subscription arising from enlargement will be met from
I have just told my hon. Friend that, tomorrow, Defence Ministers will receive the report from NATO on its assessment of the cost of enlargement. I would be most surprised if NATO expenditure were to rise significantly in real terms. There will certainly be a cost, but we believe it to be manageable and we shall pay our contribution.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith:
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there is no pressure on Poland, Hungary or the Czech Republic to spend huge sums trying to integrate into NATO? Will he also confirm that there is no pressure on us and no urgent requirement beyond what might be described as command and control procedures, integrated air defence and so on?
Mr. Robertson:
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the cost of NATO enlargement will be spread over a considerable period. For the new countries--the invitees to the membership of NATO--participating in collective defence is preferable to, and cheaper than, attempting to provide the same security on a national basis. Any nation--ours as well as the new countries--must be secure before it can do anything. Inevitably, the new countries would have been involved in assuring their future security by expenditure on military capability. Our country has been able to live in peace and security for almost half a century because of our membership of NATO. It is clear that the 12 nations that have applied for membership did so because they wanted the same.
Mr. Llew Smith:
What savings would come to the United Kingdom if we were to link our defence expenditure to the average of other western European countries?
Mr. Robertson:
I do not believe that we should link our defence expenditure to any average or any particular figure. This country should be defended strongly and it should be defended well. It is important that we establish the priorities for our country not only as a nation, but as a partner in NATO and a member of the United Nations Security Council. We make our own decisions. That was the position taken by the Labour Government in 1945 when they took Britain into NATO, and it is the position taken by the Labour Government who were elected this year.
Sir George Young:
The hon. Members for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) and for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) asked about the size of the budget. Does the Secretary of State agree with what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in last week's pre-Budget statement: that defence is not a priority?
Mr. Robertson:
The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Labour party was elected on a manifesto that said that we would assure the strong defence of this country. Of course it is a priority and it will remain so. This nation's defence is safe in this Government's hands.
10. Mr. Wilkinson:
What assessment he has made of the adequacy of heavy lift transport aircraft in Royal Air Force service. [16804]
Dr. Reid:
Our strategic lift requirements, in terms both of air lift and of sea lift, are being scrutinised closely in the strategic defence review, which aims to ensure that our armed forces are properly equipped to undertake their tasks. That scrutiny is, of course, informed by my Department's assessment of the adequacy of our currently available assets.
Mr. Wilkinson:
I am grateful for that answer. In peace maintenance as in war fighting, is it not important to get to the critical spot firstest with the mostest, particularly when the United Kingdom is increasingly withdrawing from overseas bases? Will the Minister therefore assure the House that, after the review, the RAF will be able to procure at the earliest possible date a proven aircraft--the C17, which can carry a main battle tank and has been an admirable aeroplane in the United States air force?
Dr. Reid:
The hon. Gentleman, who is well known for his interest and expertise in these matters, is absolutely right about the nature of the threats we now face. The old simplicities and certainties of the cold war have gone. We live in a more volatile, less predictable world and our ability to react quickly is paramount. It is also important that we have a variety of equipment, which the RAF cannot, at present, move by air. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been at pains to make that point. Several options merit consideration, including, perhaps, the future large aircraft and C17.
Mr. McCabe:
When considering the future of RAF heavy lift, will my hon. Friend ensure that adequate attention is paid to preserving aircraft that have served us well, particularly as we approach the millennium?
Dr. Reid:
That is absolutely correct. I am pleased to say that, today, I presented a charter mark award to the RAF museum, which has played such an important role in maintaining and exhibiting our RAF heritage. I am also pleased to tell the House that, Treasury and Parliament permitting, as of today the RAF intends to pass the ownership of the vast majority--121 out of 122--of its historic aeroplanes to the RAF museum, thus showing our confidence in it and our commitment, as we approach the millennium, to retaining the heritage of past generations of the RAF for future generations.
11. Mr. Robathan:
What assessment he has made of the importance of the regimental system. [16805]
Dr. Reid:
The strategic defence review's examination of the future structure of the Army is taking full account of the recognised strengths of the regimental system. It would, however, be premature for me to speculate on any particular aspect of the review's outcome.
Mr. Robathan:
I welcome the Minister's statement because I know that he is personally committed to the
Dr. Reid:
I whole-heartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman on both statements.
Mr. Davidson:
Does my hon. Friend agree that tradition in the regimental system can be a burden as well as a benefit? What steps will he take to ensure that regimental traditions that restrict access to the officer class are swept away? In particular, what steps is he taking to ensure that youngsters who are not from public schools can become officers and, say, guards in the cavalry regiments?
Dr. Reid:
I have the utmost respect for the esprit de corps, the ethos and the almost concrete capacity of the regimental system to instil the will to fight in men--and, I hope, women--in the most difficult circumstances. As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, we have made it clear that we want the best and the brightest in the British armed forces. We want the widest possible pool of recruits and we want the pathways to progress in the armed forces to be open to all, irrespective of sex, ethnic background or social class. We shall maintain that commitment.
Mr. Key:
On how many occasions since 1 May has the chain of command's responsibility for military discipline been the subject of intervention by Ministers, including the Lord Chancellor?
Dr. Reid:
As far as Defence Ministers are concerned, none. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises, when he makes such imputations, that although he may be attempting to slur the Government Front Bench, he is also--wrongly--bringing into question the integrity of those in the Army chain of command, who would never allow such a thing. As for the hon. Gentleman's reference to the Lord Chancellor, I have no intention of commenting on internal advice or correspondence between Ministers, which I have already withheld under exemption 2 of the code of practice on access to information. The hon. Gentleman should know that that is always the position taken on such matters.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |