| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.44 pm
Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead): I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), for whom I have a great deal of respect. I say that genuinely, not just because she has some fine distilleries in her constituency to which I hope to receive an invite one day.
I start by congratulating the Government on one of the most thorough examinations of defence policy carried out by any British Government. Ministers are right to say that other Governments have been impressed by its process, analysis and, I suspect, outcome.
The outcome gives rise to my first criticism. There has not been much saving in defence expenditure. With the cold war over, we could have expected more. The consensus was achieved by keeping defence spending at roughly the same level at which it was at before the review. As Professor Paul Rogers of Bradford university's school of peace studies told the Select Committee on Defence, of which I am a member:
The strategic defence review was thorough, but it was not comprehensive. Some areas of defence policy were not covered thoroughly enough. An example is nuclear weapons policy. I welcome whole-heartedly the announced reduction in warheads carried on Trident, but, as the Select Committee pointed out, the United Kingdom's strategic and sub-strategic nuclear policy needs clarification. That policy remains at best unconvincing, and at worst dangerous. We are prepared to use a nuclear bomb, not just on a non-nuclear country but on a nuclear one, in order, allegedly, to prevent a nuclear exchange. That is not a reassuring policy.
My hon. Friend the Minister referred to Labour's manifesto commitment to retain Trident; but there was also a manifesto commitment, supported by 90 per cent. of the Labour party, to enter into international nuclear weapon disarmament negotiations. There is no sign of when that will be fulfilled. It is far too early to talk of the betrayal of that manifesto pledge, but Labour's policy makers should be aware that insistence upon maintaining
nuclear weapons should not be in the next election manifesto if future international nuclear weapon disarmament negotiations are to be meaningful.
Another example of relatively closed thinking is the defence of the dependent territories. Are we to go to war on their behalf as if any challenge to them were an invasion of the United Kingdom itself? Is not that unwise as an indefinite future commitment? Long ago, the United Nations passed a resolution saying that all colonial powers should relinquish control over their foreign territories by 2000. All the dependent territories should go, in accordance with the UN resolution. That does not prohibit close relationships and security agreements freely entered into, but those should not be taken for granted on our part and the principle of completely ending colonialisation should be adhered to.
Another issue not properly covered by the review is the United Kingdom's place as one of the select five on the United Nations Security Council. The obvious sensible solution is for a joint European Union seat to replace ours and that of France. Instead of being viewed as a loss of prestige, that should be grasped as more realistic, and evidence of our co-operation in Europe, and may lessen the onus on our military.
The Defence Committee, notwithstanding its members' diversity of views, carried out an intensive inquiry into the SDR, and produced a report that is both extensive and constructive. I should like to highlight a few aspects. It does not welcome nuclear weapons, including those of the United Kingdom--I regard that as significant in comparison with previous Defence Committee reports--and recognises that appropriately targeted development aid improves security, and that there should be more of it. Good overseas aid is good for our security.
The report notes that, if the dependent territories are used as havens for gangsters or for money laundering, they should risk forfeiting their security guarantee from this country. It notes that there may be a peace dividend from Northern Ireland, should the peace agreement hold, and recognises that the United Kingdom--in the distant past, I should note--has not supported the United States in every military action that it has undertaken, and that it should not be presumed that it would do so in the future.
The report takes a strong position against racism and gender inequality in the armed forces. I hear rumours that there are to be new codes of conduct on racial and sexual harassment; I would welcome that, and, if those rumours are true, I ask that they be published.
Professor Paul Rogers, whom I quoted earlier, talked to the Defence Committee of moving away from "lidism"--keeping the lid on present circumstances--to plans for a more co-operative world which would ensure sustainable economic growth based on economic justice. That would give defence a much more inclusive aid and peacekeeping role. The real decision for security today is whether to fight to keep the present international status quo or to move to a changed world which would be more just and equal, and would have effective international institutions to prevent and resolve conflict fairly.
The status quo argument is highlighted in the SDR:
The millennium is a good focus. To think that we will fight over the next 100 years for the present unsatisfactory state of the world is not enticing. Unless we act to make the world a fairer place, injustice, backed by arms profiteering, will make for a future world which bristles even more with mass destruction weaponry. That will inevitably price us out of effective security. International disarmament measures are better than arms races for our security. A hefty defence budget does not automatically make a country more secure.
The SDR also considered the changed world option, however. It states:
In the context of justice, however, the ethical element of our foreign policy is vital. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on bringing that to the fore. It must be protected, enhanced and enshrined at the forefront of our defence policy. Although I suspect that a number of powerful figures in the Government, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence--even in Downing Street and the Foreign Office itself--and certainly in the arms trade, do not like the ethical dimension, have doubts about it, or are just plain cynical, it points us in the right direction to improve our future security. The ethical dimension needs to be built upon, in this country and internationally.
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot):
It is a great pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen). It is wonderful that old Labour is still preserved, if somewhat muted, and I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's speech was not cleared by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Nevertheless, it was a sincere speech--let us have more of them in the House.
The Secretary of State, who has just left the Chamber, said yesterday:
One of the features of that success was the European fighter aircraft, which has, I am delighted to say, been renamed the Typhoon. A very fetching tie has been issued to mark the renaming, and I am proud to sport it tonight.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East):
It looks lethal.
Mr. Howarth:
The tie is pretty hideous, it has to be said.
I shall address a number of issues. First, I thank the Defence Committee--which, we all agree, has done a splendid job--for its comments on the future of5 Airborne Brigade and the Aldershot garrison. The Minister will not be surprised that I refer him to paragraph 248 of the report, which relates to 5 Airborne Brigade and whether the new airmobile brigade will be located in Aldershot or Colchester. It states:
As currently organised, we have a highly deployable airborne capability, which is able to move at short notice and encompasses full airborne logistics support. According to the Defence Committee, the airmobile brigade's Apache attack helicopters will require a long logistics trail to support them. The Committee suggests that the first-line supporting establishment for a regiment including 16 attack helicopters is likely to consist of 220 vehicles, which would severely impair its ability to move at short notice.
The ability to move at speed provides the Government with a means to reinforce their political message to a potential enemy--the option of making a credible threat of action. That valuable benefit will be removed if rapid deployment is no longer possible.
Secondly, I, like many other hon. Members, wish to raise the issue of the Territorial Army. I had the pleasure of visiting 10 Battalion, Parachute Regiment, recently in the Aldershot constituency, and I was greatly impressed. The paras have a special appeal, not only for regulars, but for reservists. Hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that the regiment is over-subscribed--men travel to Aldershot from the far side of Essex, from Andover and from Portsmouth to take part in training.
That training provides not only fitness sessions or mortar training, but the essential link with the Regular Army. Above all, it provides men who are frequently called upon, even now, to fill gaps alongside the regulars, especially in Northern Ireland and in Bosnia, where they are deployed on S-type engagements, which are specifically designed to recruit TA personnel to fill front-line vacancies.
The TA para units are highly valued by 5 Airborne Brigade. They are the only reservists to train to the same standards as their regular colleagues. Those men made it clear to me that they fulfil an important function in today's Army, but they are concerned that in future the reserves will be limited to those with specialist skills. In times of emergency, a reserve force without infantry will not be sufficient to replace any casualties. Accordingly, the Government's policy threatens to expose the Army to a gaping hole left by the absence of infantry reserves.
As the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) and others said yesterday, in many parts of the country the territorials are the only military manifestation. They provide the only contact between the civilian community and those responsible, in the final analysis, for defending our freedoms.
Thirdly, I remain deeply concerned about the Government's relentless chipping away at the special ethos of the services. Ten days ago, my wife and I had the pleasure of attending a marvellous concert given by the Cannock Chase Orpheus male voice choir in my previous constituency. It was accompanied by the central band of the Royal Air Force.
I understand that the band's membership is being reduced from 220 to 175. Regimental and service bands provide an important contribution to creating that essential ethos--an esprit de corps of pride in service and country--as well as representing the armed forces before a wider audience. How long will it be before the services have only token bands, or, dare I say, bands are replaced by jukeboxes? It is a serious matter, which has not been raised as much as it should have been in this debate.
The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen) mentioned museums. Military museums are an important link between the civil community and the armed forces, and provide a link with our history. They are vital, and I hope that the Army and other services will always find space to accommodate them.
"Some further modest cuts are envisaged, but the bottom line is that Britain will still be a major military player on the world stage, a role which is believed to give it international clout, but at the cost of maintaining a pretty hefty defence budget, at least by post-Cold War standards."
We have the largest defence budget in Europe. Defence is an insurance policy, but the British taxpayer is paying the high cost premium.
"The first requirement of our foreign and defence policy is to maintain and reinforce the present favourable security environment."
But the reality is that we do not know for how long that environment will exist. Following recent turmoil, we cannot even be sure what the world economy will look like in the first few years of the new millennium.
"The challenge is now to move from stability based on fear to stability based on the active management of these risks, seeking to prevent conflicts rather than suppress them."
That is a security policy based on foreign policy. Although the SDR was supposed to have been foreign policy led, I am not sure that that was the case. The foreign policy baseline was never published, and its terms were discussed only vaguely.
"Let me make it clear: we were building on success, not on failure."--[Official Report, 19 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 970.]
Conservative Members agree entirely. He was building on a policy of 18 years of Conservative Governments who were committed to strong defence in this country and who had to manage a difficult period of change following the end of the cold war--an end which was brought about, in part, by a determined Conservative stance on defence. It is important to recognise that.
"We would urge the Government to weigh very carefully the balance between military and other factors in reaching its decision on where to base the Brigade, and to make the balance of these factors explicit when announcing its decision."
Although my principal concern is for the implications for my constituency, I have also argued that the proposal to establish a new airmobile brigade based in East Anglia carries risks with it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |