| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): Does my hon. Friend share my concern, and that of other hon. Members in whose constituencies DERA operates, about the fact that, while the uncertainty to which he has referred continues, different arrangements are being made in different constituencies for the release of DERA property? There is great concern in my constituency about decisions being announced while DERA's whole future is uncertain--decisions about the release of land for DERA test tracks on which houses might be built, for instance. That may completely alter the housing structure in different constituencies.
Mr. Key: Yes, I share my hon. Friend's concern. Indeed, in my constituency DERA has been involved in seeking to use land and assets for commercial activities. We must press the Government to come clean on the issue, and to do so quickly.
Was it wise of the Government, in retrospect, to promise to deliver the SDR within six months? Was it wise to claim that it would be foreign policy led? Was it wise to keep secret the foreign policy baselines, while claiming that this was the most open policy review ever? Was it credible of the Secretary of State to launch his "mother of all reviews" on the basis that funding might at best stay level, but would probably be cut, and to offer as his opening gambit to the Treasury guaranteed cash back of at least £500 million a year? That already looks pretty old-fashioned in view of the recent United States decision to increase its defence budget by 10 per cent., to$280 billion: an increase greater than our entire defence budget, which we are cutting.
The Secretary of State told us that he is developing a strategic planning process that will keep defence planning up to date; that there are no plans to hold defence reviews at regular intervals; but that there may be further reviews if the need arises. It will.
The Labour party manifesto in 1997 promised a
Responses to threats to the UK homeland were not given sufficient consideration. We got a reorganised--and, yes, improved--military posture, but we have no new central Government mechanisms or initiatives, in stark contrast to our friends in the United States of America. The review scarcely addresses our future relationship with the USA or with other European countries. It reduces the defence budget without reducing our defence commitments: do more with less.
We should not be surprised, as that sounds exactly the same answer as the Government would get from a focus group of taxpayers; indeed, the Government spent £50,000 on such groups last summer, claiming that they wanted
Dr. Lynda Clark (Edinburgh, Pentlands):
I enter this debate with some trepidation. I know that many of those who have spoken have considerable expertise on the subject. I cannot claim that expertise. I cannot claim, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) did, to have lived and worked with Marines--some people have all the luck--but I have the expertise to recognise a well-founded argument when I hear it. The constituents who beat a path to my door with their worries about the TA proposals have had good arguments--so good that I felt that, despite my lack of expertise on the subject, I should try to do my best for them in this debate.
We have already heard many powerful arguments in favour of retaining the strength, organisation and local connections of the TA. In order not to weary the House with repetition, I will adopt the brevitatis causa, as we say in court in Scotland when we mean that we do not want to waste time.
I am sure that the Minister will take into account the views expressed in the wide consultation process, which I understand to be similar to those expressed by many hon. Members and by the Select Committee. My constituency is home to TA units of the Royal Armoured Corps, the Royal Artillery and the Royal Engineers. My hon. Friend will be well aware of the pride that the volunteers have in their units, and of their proud history.
My plea is not that the TA should be preserved in aspic as an historical institution with little relevance for today--that would be a poor memorial for all those who have served in the TA; nor do I support the position of those who want to preserve the existing TA because they have a narrow, nationalistic view of defence strategy based on the perceived need to defend internal national borders.
The Government's vision is, I believe, the correct one--we need a new role for the armed forces and the reserve forces in the post-cold war era--but I believe that, in that vision, my right hon. and hon. Friends should attach more importance to the critical defence role that can be played by volunteers. The wider implications go beyond defence, and they may not have taken that sufficiently into account.
There are economic considerations: the TA's contribution to local community employment is extremely valuable, and there is military aid to the civilian population, which is especially important in isolated communities. It is important to realise that the TA's role fits well into the Government's wider programme of training for work. TA training is valuable not only to those who receive it but to the wider community, which benefits from the skills that have been acquired.
In the cost calculations, we should remember that what is spent in the defence budget spreads out into other budgets. In my constituency, as in many others, the TA also gives considerable support to the veterans who have served us all so well. The TA has a host of roles that go beyond its important defence role, which we should not evaluate in isolation.
I am concerned about the allegations made by the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), who said yesterday that TA staff had been forbidden to talk to their Member of Parliament and that a TA officer had been reprimanded. I regard raising concerns with one's Member of Parliament as a fundamental right of any TA member. I understand that there may be some restrictions on persons serving in the military talking to their Member of Parliament--if that is the case, it should be investigated--but that there are no such restrictions for TA members. If any of my constituents have been threatened in that way, I hope that they will tell me about it, because I will certainly make strong representations on their behalf.
I am here because of my constituents, but, having sat through this interesting debate, I am pleased, unlike some Opposition Members, to be able to congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on the excellent developments that are giving opportunities to all our people regardless of sex or race. We are looking for talent in our armed forces, and we will find that in a wide range of people.
Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater):
Having had some responsibility in this area, I start with a word of congratulation to the Government on the presentation, certainly, if not on all the content, of the strategic defence review. We know the Government pretty well by now, and when I started hearing about "smart procurement" and "rainbow teams" I realised that the spin doctors had been through all the presentations.
I was enthusiastic to hear about smart procurement, so I read what was proposed. I saw that almost all the ideas, on the need continually to improve the procurement process--which, with the scale of the procurement
programme, is far from satisfactory and will be a continuing challenge to Governments long after the present Government have gone--were around in my time in the Ministry of Defence, so I wish the Government luck with them.
I admire many aspects of the review. Although one cannot call it comprehensive because it excluded from its purview the two largest defence expenditure programmes, Eurofighter and Trident, there is much in it that commands respect.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar)
rose--
"strategic defence and security review",
but that is not what we got. True, the review included threats posed to the UK and UK interests by drugs, international crime and environmental degradation, but the Government failed to produce a cross-departmental military and security review involving the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, with input from the Department for International Development; the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions; the Department of Trade and Industry; Customs and Excise; the Home Office; and the intelligence services.
"to explore the public's attitudes, feelings and knowledge regarding the key issues covered in the SDR."
That was in keeping with the Government's declared objective of achieving a national consensus on the defence of the country. It is consensus first, tough decisions later--perhaps.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |