THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES
OFFICIAL REPORT
IN THE SECOND SESSION OF THE FIFTY-SECOND PARLIAMENT OF THE
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
[WHICH OPENED 7 MAY 1997]
FORTY-SEVENTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF
HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II
SIXTH SERIES
VOLUME 322
SECOND VOLUME OF SESSION 1998-99
House of Commons
Monday 7 December 1998
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
DEFENCE
The Secretary of State was asked--
Eurofighter Typhoon
2. Mr. Nick St. Aubyn (Guildford): If he will make a statement about the development of the Eurofighter Typhoon. [61338]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): The development of Eurofighter in conjunction with our partners from Germany, Italy and Spain is continuing to meet the planned delivery of the first production aircraft to the Royal Air Force in mid-2002. Seven development aircraft are flying and have completed more than 620 sorties. A number of notable milestones have been achieved, including supersonic flight, care-free handling, air-to-air refuelling and missile firings.
Mr. St. Aubyn: Given the changes in policy and personality since the last election, what guarantee can the Minister give the House that the export prospects of the Eurofighter have been unharmed and undiminished as a result of the actions of his Government and some of his colleagues?
Mr. Spellar: What an extraordinary question, not least because it was this Government who took the most
important step to ensure that Eurofighter was a viable project--getting the agreement signed and by negotiating and discussing that with the previous German Government. We are involved in discussions--at ministerial level and at the level of officials and defence export sales organisations--with a number of other countries for the future prospects of this extremely good aircraft.
Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife): Is not the importance of Eurofighter not simply that it gives the Royal Air Force an outstanding aircraft, but that it illustrates eloquently the advantages of European co-operation in defence procurement? In view of the success of co-operation in defence procurement, is it not now logical to consider co-operation across defence as a whole? May we hear from the Minister a little more about the Government's proposals for greater co-operation in European defence?
Mr. Spellar: The hon. and learned Gentleman will have noted that there have been discussions and an initiative by the Government to try to ensure that Europe plays a greater role in NATO's defence. We must ensure that we are getting a better return across Europe for the expenditure that is made, by ensuring a greater degree of interoperability and the ability of NATO European forces to act in operations in which the United States is not involved.
Those discussions are taking place, and we welcome the hon. and learned Gentleman's support for them. They run in parallel with a greater degree of involvement in the harmonisation of defence procurement through OCCAR and also with initiatives such as those taken by the leaders of the main industrial countries in order to rationalise the European defence industry so that it can compete more effectively with the United States and co-operate more effectively with the new US defence giants.
Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk):
The House will be pleased to hear from the Minister how well the Eurofighter Typhoon programme is coming on--the
Mr. Spellar:
The hon. Gentleman says that the previous Government put in hard work; they certainly made heavy weather of it, given the time that they took to get to the position that they reached. It was this Government who ordered Eurofighter. It is on schedule to be delivered in mid-2002. We do not anticipate any slippage in that programme.
3. Mr. Tony McWalter (Hemel Hempstead):
What plans he has to ensure that cadet-only units of the TA have access to senior and trained personnel from the regular forces and from other TA units; and if he will make a statement. [61339]
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. Doug Henderson):
All cadet units will continue to be affiliated to either a Regular or a TA unit, which will provide the cadets with both equipment and access to senior and trained personnel.
Mr. McWalter:
My hon. Friend is aware that in my constituency the TA has been reduced to a cadet-only force. I am concerned about the consequences of that diminution in status for access to trained personnel, especially as it seems that the 29 officers in my local TA are being pensioned off. Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is possible that cadet-only units will be upgraded to full TA units, especially in cases where the nearest units have been closed down?
Mr. Henderson:
I can assure my hon. Friend that every facility for personnel and equipment support that his unit used to have will continue to be provided at that location using officers and equipment from other locations.
On the future of cadet-only units, the Secretary of State announced to the House the future plans for the Territorial Army for the period ahead of us. These matters are subject to review over the long term. I have no doubt that any future Government will want to return to the issue of TA locations, as all such matters will be subject to review.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York):
As a result of the changes announced by the Government, the nearest TA unit to the Vale of York will be in Scarborough, which will pose enormous problems of access to trained personnel and to training in general. The settlement announced last week for North Yorkshire does not allow enough money for the police force to police the millennium celebrations effectively within the present budget. If it is envisaged that it will have to have recourse to the TA--as has been considered north of the border--what provisions will be made for the TA to be given special training for this capability before the millennium?
Mr. Henderson:
The hon. Lady will be aware that those who wish to serve in the TA--we want them to
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley):
Will the Minister confirm whether the cadet force at Chorley has a future under the review? Has he reconsidered the nonsensical removal to north Wales of the 101 Battalion headquarters?
Mr. Henderson:
I have discussed this matter with my hon. Friend on several occasions, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary responded to an Adjournment debate on it last week. I assure the House that, when there is a change in the location of a cadet force, we will guarantee that at least an equivalent level of service support, equipment and buildings are made available. Land Command will discuss with the Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association how that can best be achieved in Chorley.
Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South):
I am grateful for the Minister's comments about protection for the cadet force. Will he carefully consider the cadet force currently located at the Connaught drill hall in Portsmouth, which is due to be disposed of by the Ministry of Defence? Will he also reconsider the relocation of the TA units that are staying in the Portsmouth area from the Perone road depot to the Connaught drill hall? That would kill two birds with one stone. It would keep the cadets where they are currently located, and it would keep this much-cherished building in public ownership. It would also allow the MOD to dispose of two buildings that would be easier to dispose of than the Connaught drill hall.
Mr. Henderson:
As the hon. Gentleman will know, I shall be visiting Portsmouth tomorrow. I shall be happy to receive representations from him or his colleagues at an appropriate point in my itinerary. The decision on future locations of TA facilities within Portsmouth will be made by Land Command in consultation with TAVRA and others.
5. Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet):
If the memorandum of understanding relating to the United Kingdom's contribution to the United Nations peace support operations, due to be signed in March, will be available for parliamentary scrutiny beforehand. [61341]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson):
Our intention to update our existing declaration of forces potentially available to the United Nations for peace support operations, and to incorporate that in a memorandum of understanding, was announced in the strategic defence review. The outcome of the review was fully debated in Parliament. Decisions about whether to commit our forces to particular UN operations will continue to be taken by the Government and will be reported to the House.
Sir Sydney Chapman:
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. Given the importance of the
Mr. Robertson:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks about my contribution to last week's meeting of the WEU Parliamentary Assembly, which was made in difficult physical circumstances.
Decisions about what troops we deploy to the United Nations will continue to be made by Ministers. We will make those decisions on a case-by-case basis, using certain criteria. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman--well in advance of any memorandum of understanding--that the criteria will include effective ceasefire and the consent of the parties to the on-going political process, exit provision, a clear mandate and possible impacts on any other commitments. That approach will enable us to tailor our force contribution to the circumstances of a particular operation, and to draw on a broad range of capabilities.
Mr. Martin Bell (Tatton):
Has the Secretary of State considered the merits of a truly committed, dedicated, international UN force whose orders, received from the Security Council, could not then be countermanded or obstructed by the Governments of troop-contributing nations?
Mr. Robertson:
At the end of the day, it will be for the Governments of the countries that contribute to any UN force to make decisions about the fate of the forces concerned. The intention is, however, to try to create circumstances in which the UN would have on call forces from a number of different countries to deal with events that might arise. Command and control is clearly one of the more difficult and tricky aspects, and would have to be considered in advance; but I am confident that we would contribute British troops only where clear areas of command existed, allowing us both to be in charge of the troops and their safety and to contribute to the military effectiveness of any such force.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |