| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): Look what he has just done.
Mr. Clark: Indeed; I have already applauded him, but perhaps that was before the Under-Secretary came into the Chamber. Unless the Prime Minister exercises his authority over the decisions and the counter-pressures that the Treasury will apply to our defence policy, the time will come--perhaps sooner than is comfortable for him--when he no longer has the muscle when he needs it to back up the posture that he is adopting.
11.57 am
Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South): I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on being successful in securing the debate and on his speech this morning, but he was a little idle in his research. He failed to mention the miserable existence that service personnel and civilian employees have endured over the past 18 years, facing the consequences of successive Tory defence reviews that were misplaced, mishandled and disappointing, and dispiriting to the personnel involved. I represented my constituency in the 1980s, so I know from first-hand experience how demoralising were the successive reviews, which were never transparent in their conception and were pretty damning in their delivery. However, he gives us an opportunity--the importance of which is shown by the number of hon. Members who are present--to address once again the difficult questions of defence and the strategic review.
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot): The hon. Gentleman attacks the Conservative Government, despite our belief in strong defence, but is it not true that the Liberal Democrats were in favour of cutting defence by a third just before the deployment of our forces in the Gulf, so he is not really in a strong position to criticise the Conservative party?
Mr. Hancock: The hon. Gentleman makes his point, but those who were around at the time will consider the historical facts and discover that what the hon. Gentleman is saying is not only misplaced but downright mischievous because it is inaccurate.
I share hon. Members' concern that we have failed miserably to put before the House or, for that matter, the wider community, the rationale behind the foreign policy initiatives on which this defence review is based. It cannot be right for that to persist even now. Like other hon. Members, I had hoped for some appreciation in the House of the priorities. I am disappointed that that has not happened.
As considerable numbers of my constituents are serving in the Gulf, it would be wrong not to appreciate and applaud their work, and to ask the Minister to pass on good wishes and hopes for a speedy return to all the crews and personnel, men and women, serving in our fleet and on land in the Gulf. It would also be wrong to miss this opportunity to say that many families of the crew of the Invincible would be interested to know when she will return to the United Kingdom. I hope that there will be good news on the near horizon for them. I also thank my local newspaper The News for its work in pushing the story of the efforts of those people and keeping the crews and personnel down there informed of the good wishes of the people back here.
The Iraqi crisis has shown us two things. First, it has shown us that the United Nations still has a vital role to play. As a nation which took such an active part in the recent Iraqi crisis, we must use the strength that we now have to insist that the UN strengthens its position on such topics. Secondly, it raises the question of joint European defence. During the past few weeks, we have seen how difficult it is to get our European partners to agree on something as important as Iraq. We should seriously question on what they would agree.
Some of us were present at a recent North Atlantic Assembly briefing in Brussels when it was interesting to see the frustration on the faces of our American colleagues when all sorts of allegations were made about why they were in Iraq. More worrying, from a European point of view, was their riposte that they should not be pushed too hard or they would sort out the Bosnia situation by seriously considering whether Congress and the Senate wanted American forces to remain there. That was an ill-tempered threat, but it was directed at those European partners who were less than enthusiastic about why we were even considering taking action against Iraq. Once again, we missed the opportunity as a nation to use our leadership in Europe to bring our European colleagues on board. We set an example, but we were unable to lead our European colleagues to back us more enthusiastically. That is a disappointment that many share.
Like other hon. Members, I had hoped that we would have got to the bottom of where foreign policy issues were taking the defence review. Many of us who would be accused of being cynical would say that, because the Foreign Office initiatives have not been published, they have moved up the road from the Foreign Office to the Treasury. Before they come here, the Chancellor and his colleagues are running their beady eyes over them. As a result, the House is being denied the opportunity properly to evaluate the defence review in its true light.
We have been told time and again that the review would be an exercise in transparency which would involve people. Hon. Members have had the opportunity to be involved and I am sure that the Minister will tell us how many members of the public have joined in enthusiastically in one form or another, but the Government have failed to be straight and honest about
what was driving it. Was it the Treasury's insistence on substantial cuts or a genuine attempt to allow foreign policy, for the first time, to be open enough to drive a defence review that would realistically address the defence ambitions of the British Government and the British people?
I support the views that have been expressed about the fixed-deck carriers. The country cannot afford three, but we shall need two. HMS Ocean is a major addition to Britain's fighting capabilities. However, I also agree with the points made by the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) about the role of the Royal Navy and a strengthened Royal Marine corps, and their strategic responsibility in defending the foreign policy issues that Britain holds dear.
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury):
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on his tenacity in securing the debate. He is right to have persisted since before Christmas. The Ministry of Defence currently has other things on its mind, but Ministers have repeatedly made it clear to the House that, with regard to the strategic defence review, the show must go on.
I thank my hon. Friends for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) shared with us his deep knowledge and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Clark) showed us his particular insight and his important vision of the way forward. It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle)--whose heart is in the right place, even if he does have a tendency to rewrite history--and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), with his particular responsibilities as a Member of Parliament representing Portsmouth.
Recent events in the middle east have given the Royal Navy a providential opportunity to demonstrate its strength in force projection. Not since the first world war has chemical and biological defence assumed such importance for British forces. All three services have reacted swiftly and efficiently at a time of international crisis, and we congratulate and thank them.
What lessons have the Government learnt, what conclusions will they draw and how will they inform the strategic defence review?
Defence is rarely the subject of political knockabout. It rarely attracts large numbers of hon. Members to Question Time and debates. However, today it is important to note that the Secretary of State has been here for part of the debate, the Minister for the Armed Forces is here and the Under-Secretary was here. No doubt, the Minister for Defence Procurement is watching on his television in another place.
I emphasise that Her Majesty's forces know that a comparatively small number of Members of both Houses have a deep knowledge of, and commitment to, Britain's
defence, and that they can be relied upon to be persistent and tenacious in pursuing military matters. They also know that, at times of tension, both Houses of Parliament can be relied upon to swing behind them with generous cross-party support. Most service men and women would wish that defence was not a party political issue. Defence should stand astride the common ground between the parties.
After 18 years in opposition, Labour's understanding of defence issues was incomplete. It reformed its party's defence stance and the Labour Government's policy is now on trial. They pledged that they would have a defence review, but they did not know what to expect, and that is clear 10 months on. Labour chose the big bang approach, rejecting our philosophy of continuous review with occasional necessary reforms. They have not said, and we do not know--I doubt whether they know either--whether they will revert to the continuous review process or adopt the Australian and American pattern of a review every three or four years.
We were told that the SDR would be over in six months and that the uncertainty in the armed forces and the defence procurement industry would be worth putting up with. Apart from the Secretary of State, no one believes that the review is now foreign policy led. Clear as he was about the downward ratchet in defence spending--I hope that he took note of the wise words of the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee in last week's debate on Iraq--the Secretary of State has been consistently unclear about the nature of Foreign Office and Treasury involvement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk has already drawn attention to the lack of a clear statement on foreign policy baselines, as has the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South. The Secretary of State continues to expect us to believe that his speech at the Royal United Services Institute on 18 September last said it all. It said virtually nothing new--I read it again this morning. It will not do for him to pretend that we know about those baselines. They remain secret and out of date.
Both the early consultations and the establishment of the foreign policy baselines last August have receded so far into the past, and world events have moved forward so quickly, that serious doubt must be cast on the validity of both. We have also had a long period of silence from the Secretary of State. According to the Ministry of Defence, since he was appointed last year, he has made just four speeches on defence policy, only one of which was on the strategic defence review. He made two speeches on NATO and one on defence diplomacy, a concept originally introduced by the Conservative Government in their 1981 defence review White Paper. Will there be no more speeches from the Secretary of State until the SDR is safely out of the way?
Ministers now appear like rabbits caught in the Treasury's headlights. The military input will be complete by the end of March as promised. Defence Ministers will no doubt reach conclusions by the end of April. Then all that work will disappear into the black hole of the Treasury and the Cabinet Office. The comprehensive expenditure review will take time to resolve. We might be lucky and have a statement on the SDR by June, or it might slip to the last week of July--perhaps to the last day that Parliament sits before the recess. All that will give the Treasury an opportunity to push the whole exercise into the next public spending round, implying no
real movement on the SDR until April 1999. Two years after the Government's election pledge, with the world a different place, the Government will hope that the Opposition will support the results of the review.
Defence Ministers should be aware that they are putting at risk cross-party support by their failure to listen and to answer the concerns expressed not just by Opposition Members but by Labour Members. I absolve the Minister for the Armed Forces from that accusation. We recognise that he is a tireless worker for the armed forces and that he can be relied on, with his grasp of detail and his patience and courtesy, which are much appreciated. However, I wish that he would have a word with the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary because routinely in debates, questions have been asked and points raised, which are apparently not heard and certainly not answered. Even in last week's debate on Iraq, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) made some good points and asked some straightforward questions but received no answers.
I mentioned the new significance of chemical and biological defence. The proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is a major threat to the peace and security of the global community. The previous Government recognised that and invested in substantial facilities to combat the threat. The time has come for further appraisal of active and passive defence against chemical and biological attack, both military and civilian.
It is our choice to stand by the United States. We must be as good as the United States. The 1999 US defence budget will add $1 billion to counter chemical and biological threats. How much new investment will the strategic defence review suggest for us? How much will the Treasury then allow us?
Similarly, we cannot afford to be left behind, following the revolution in military affairs that now informs so much defence planning. Since last May, the world has become less stable and more dangerous. British military forces are under increasing pressure and peace in Northern Ireland is more fragile. Abroad, Bosnia remains the top priority for Britain's and NATO's long-term commitment. In Bosnia, we must consider the need for a smaller but more permanent and established presence, and we need to overcome the current lack of a corporate memory. Escalating ethnic tensions in Kosovo could provide the next flashpoint in the Balkans.
Will the SDR require cuts in our contribution to NATO, material and financial? The "Partnership for Peace" process absorbs substantial resources, mostly to good effect, but there is little Mediterranean dialogue. NATO's troubled southern flank poses threats to Europe's political, economic and military stability. Further afield, we cannot ignore the potential for trouble over the Spratly Islands in the South China sea, nor events involving our dependencies in Commonwealth countries. More immediately, tensions in the middle east will require our constant vigilance and continuing military presence. Our military relationship with Turkey should have a higher priority.
Back home, the Green Papers on the Defence Diversification Agency and the future of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency are now three months late. Unclear of their priorities and befuddled by their
vision of Europe, the Government want to maintain their special relationship with the USA while demanding that our defence industry merges our efficient world-class companies with some of the nationalised, subsidised, dinosaur industries elsewhere in Europe--answers by 31 March please, on one side of a postcard.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |