| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire): Will the Minister confirm that, right at the beginning of the strategic defence review, the Government said that there would be no more money for defence, so it did not matter what were the results of the SDR, or what were our foreign policy requirements? As there was no more money, the armed forces had to trim what they wanted to do.
Mr. Henderson: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman raises the subject of cuts in defence. I cannot recall how many such cuts were made by the previous Government, but I think that the cumulative effect was about a 30 per cent. cut over their last 10 years in office. I will not take any lessons from Conservative Members on cuts in defence. The SDR considered the allocation that is possible and that will meet our defence requirements, and we will choose priorities within that framework.
The Royal Navy provides our independent strategic nuclear deterrent, in the shape of the Trident force, which provides the fundamental guarantee of our security.
Our reliance on nuclear weapons has, of course, radically reduced since the end of the cold war, but the strategic defence review confirmed that nuclear deterrence still has a unique and essential contribution to make to our security and that of our allies.
The deterrent prevents nuclear coercion against us--we should never forget that there are a great many nuclear weapons in the world--and I believe that it will contribute to preserving peace and stability in Europe as we work towards global verifiable nuclear disarmament. With the withdrawal of our last remaining free-fall nuclear bombs, the Royal Navy now operates our only nuclear weapon system.
In the new strategic setting, we have been able to reduce the readiness of our trident force while maintaining continuous at-sea deterrent patrols. As a measure of our commitment to further nuclear de-escalation, the notice period regulating the operation of our nuclear weapons has been increased.
I know that the House will want to put on record our appreciation of the work of our Trident submariners. Any of us who have visited submarines will recognise the difficult conditions in which submariners work to serve their country.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde):
As my hon. Friend knows, Trident submarines are a familiar sight in my constituency. I want to know about the code of conduct governing the passage of those submarines through our traditional fishing grounds. On 21 August, an incident took place involving a nuclear submarine and affecting seven fishing vessels from Tarbert, Loch Fyne. A meeting was held on 22 October to discuss the incident. I pleaded with the Tory Government for years and years to have a code of conduct. Can we now have a review of that code and a revision of its rules, in the interests of our fishermen?
Mr. Henderson:
I can reassure my hon. Friend that I take very seriously the code governing the way in which our submarines enter the Clyde--and elsewhere--on the way to the bases. I visited Faslane a few weeks ago and discussed the matter with naval personnel. I am not aware of the specific incident to which my hon. Friend refers. I shall look into it and write to him, but I can reassure him now about the principle: we want the highest safety standards to ensure that submarines do not collide with fishing boats or their kit.
I believe that we can improve submariners' conditions of service. The Royal Navy is investigating how such improvements, including the possibility of more port visits, can be made. I hope that the House will welcome the launch in September of the fourth Trident submarine. It has ensured our ability to guarantee a capability to maintain continuous patrols over the lifetime of the Trident force.
Defence diplomacy is increasingly important for all our armed services. HMS Marlborough's visit to Syria and HMS Somerset's visit to St. Petersburg are important examples of that work.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will deal with the major part of procurement issues at the end of the debate, but I should like to refer to some of our equipment needs. In the strategic defence review, we stated our belief in a
world-class Navy equipped to do the job. We have to continue to modernise and improve our equipment. I can assure the House that we are doing that.
The type 23 frigate is one of the most modern surface combatants in the world. With the last three in the class currently in build, the type 23 will form the backbone of the Navy's surface fleet well into the next century.
HMS Ocean, our new helicopter assault ship, brings a new dimension to amphibious operations: an area in which the Royal Navy has unparalleled experience and expertise. We all witnessed the contribution that HMS Ocean made to the humanitarian effort in central America.
The Navy's air capability has benefited immensely from the upgrade of the Sea Harrier aircraft, and from the ability to fly Royal Air Force Harriers from the Invincible class carriers. The highly capable Merlin helicopter--representing the state of the art in naval rotary-wing aviation--enters service next month. Beneath the waves, our Swiftsure and Trafalgar class submarines remain among the quietest, most capable nuclear-powered submarines in operation today.
The strategic defence review confirmed current plans for future equipment as follows--three new astute class submarines to replace the swiftsure class; two new assault ships to replace HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid; and two auxiliary oilers to replace the current Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service ships, Olwen and Olna. We have plans to replace the type 42 destroyer; to update all our submarines to make them capable of firing Tomahawk cruise missiles; and for a further four roll on/roll off ships that can provide the strategic lift we need to enable us quickly to deploy leading elements of the joint rapid reaction force.
Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon):
I served in the original HMS Fearless, when it operated as a landing platform dock, for a short while when she was first commissioned. I notice that the Government will rightly replace the two LPDs with two further ships. Why, therefore, have the Government planned for only one new helicopter carrier--HMS Ocean--when that ship has already been used during its trials period? It is imperative that we have at least two helicopter assault carriers, and I ask the Minister to reconsider that point.
Mr. Henderson:
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but I hope that he understands that we have to have priorities and make choices. We cannot have everything in this world. HMS Ocean is an excellent vessel, which is in trials at the moment, and will serve us all well. We have plans for two further carriers that will provide many of the facilities that Ocean provides, and many others. Those carriers, which were the subject of much discussion during the debate on the strategic defence review, are an essential part of our modern provision. They will carry a more powerful force of future carrier-borne aircraft--the successor to the Harrier.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
The Minister referred to the Tomahawk and I believe that we have a Tomahawk capability in the Gulf off Iraq. Can the Minister confirm that the information that is crucial to the targeting of the Tomahawk comes from UNSCOM?
Mr. Henderson:
My hon. Friend will understand that I am not prepared to cover such issues in today's debate.
Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow)
rose--
Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)
rose--
Mr. Henderson:
I wish to make some progress.
I shall now deal with the issue of people in the Navy. The House has recognised previously that people are our most important asset in the armed forces and that is certainly true of the Navy. We put people first. We need to recruit more people into the Navy. We are currently 2,000 people short and we must close that gap. We shall do so by offering a first-choice career to those who have the potential to form part of our naval force.
The main shortfall categories are now among operator mechanics, Royal Marines and Sea Harrier pilots. The shortfall is being tackled on several fronts, but it will take some time to turn round. Our target is to achieve full staffing in the naval service by 2002.
Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South):
Some 27 Harrier pilots requested to leave the service early in the past 12 months. Has the Minister discovered the reasons behind those requests from people who have been trained to a high level of proficiency? What can he do to get people, especially pilots, to stay in the Navy once they are fully trained?
Mr. Henderson:
That is an important question and it has no easy answers. At the moment, we face an increase in demand for civil aviation pilots, and many--if not all--of the Navy's pilots have skills that make them an attractive proposition to any airline that is short of pilots. If the airlines are prepared to put a lot of goodies on the table--as I used to say when I was involved in industrial relations--it is hard for pilots to turn them down and hard for us to respond. We have recognised the problem; special arrangements have applied to pilots in the past, and that will probably continue. I assure the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) that the Government are doing what they can.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |