| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Joint Carrier-borne Air Group
10. Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey): What assessment he has made of requirements for new aircraft to equip the joint carrier-borne air group. [75974]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): The new aircraft to equip the joint carrier-borne air group is known as the future carrier-borne aircraft. No decision has yet been made on the choice of aircraft to meet that requirement. A strong contender is a variant of the United States joint strike fighter. We are participating in the concept demonstration phase for that aircraft. We are also assessing a number of other options, including a navalised Eurofighter, Rafale-M, F18 and an advanced Harrier variant.
Mr. Colvin: I thank the Minister for that reply, but will he bear it in mind that the acquisition of aircraft with short take-off and vertical landing capabilities could considerably reduce the capital cost of the two aircraft carriers that the Government have promised to order, because such aircraft do not require the long flight-decks needed by conventional aircraft? Does he see an opening for the Harrier, with its STOVL capabilities, in a sale to the French--whose new aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, was at sea undergoing trials when it was discovered that her flight-deck was too short for conventional French aircraft to take off from?
Mr. Spellar: I would just correct the hon. Gentleman, who said that the Government have promised the aircraft carriers. We are accomplishing the stages, however, exactly on the time scale that we predicted, and I am sure that he will welcome that. Moreover, as I said in my answer, an advanced Harrier variant was one of the options being considered. He will understand the need to evaluate all the technical options, as those carriers will be considerably larger and much more capable than the current ones. We have to have consider all the options--including, as I said, not only the joint strike fighter, but others.
Trident Targets
11. Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North): What targets the UK's Trident submarine missiles are aimed at. [75975]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): As I have made it clear before, our Trident missiles are de-targeted.
Mr. Corbyn: If the missiles are not targeted at anyone, will the Secretary of State explain what they are for? Why
is it necessary to spend billions of pounds on building and maintaining a nuclear submarine fleet when there is no enemy against which to target it, and when launching Trident would cause a global explosion and the extermination of most of the human race? Furthermore, many people think that the whole issue of nuclear weapons is fundamentally immoral and--within the terms of the International Court of Justice judgment of two years ago--illegal. Is it not time that we decommissioned them, took them out of service and cancelled the whole programme?
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to take that point of view, but should always remember that he fought the previous general election on retaining Trident. A pledge to do so was in both the general election manifesto and the draft manifesto, which was endorsed by 95 per cent. of the Labour party. Insurance is the answer to his simple question about why we need the missiles--which, today, are de-targeted. In the future, neither we nor anyone else can tell what dangers will exist in an increasingly unstable world. That is why we have those missiles. My hon. Friend also says that a growing opinion holds that nuclear arms should be done away with and that they are illegal. I tell him that, at the weekend, in Newcastle, I attended a Labour party policy forum, at which only one question about nuclear weapons was asked. The party member said that we had not got enough of them, and that one submarine on patrol was not enough. No one demurred.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): Will the Secretary of State put my mind at rest? Is the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) a lone voice in the wilderness, or does the Labour party in government still insist on its campaign for nuclear disarmament?
Mr. Robertson: The hon. Lady clearly prepared that question in advance. She was therefore unaware of what I would say, and did not bother listening to my answer. The Labour party fought the general election on the basis that we would keep Trident. We are committed also to further reductions and to moving towards a world without nuclear weapons. We are fulfilling both those objectives in what we have said and in the proposals that we have made in the strategic defence review.
European Defence Co-operation
12. Mr. Peter Bradley (The Wrekin): If he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards further European defence co-operation. [75976]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): Our aim is to ensure a strong common foreign and security policy, so that Europe can speak with authority and act with decisiveness in international affairs. To achieve that, we need to provide the tools to allow the European Union nations to make decisions collectively on military matters, including the political control and strategic direction of Europe-led military operations. We also want more effective European military capability so that we are able, when necessary, to back up our policies with military action, both for Europe-led military operations and as a means of strengthening NATO.
Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. However, does he agree that, just as there is a need
for greater co-operation in Europe, there is a need for greater co-operation in our own domestic market? Does he recognise that, with a contracting and diminishing United Kingdom defence sector, interdependence between the Ministry of Defence's procurement strategy and the private sector is all the greater? Does he share my concern that companies with healthy long-term order books, and the jobs that underpin them, are at risk when they have no short-term work? Will he therefore consider the benefits of better and closer integration between the armed forces' procurement strategies and the needs of private contractors in order to predict their business, and thereby to underpin their capacity and the jobs that they provide?
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. That is precisely why the Government have evolved a close partnership with the industry in this country. I do not think that I would be contradicted in the industry if I said that the co-operation between us in dovetailing our requirements and its demands is at an historically high level. My responsibility is to ensure that the budget that I have is spent in the most cost-effective way, but I am always conscious of the fact that we have a big industry with a huge export potential and a great record at the forefront of our manufacturing cutting edge. We cannot neglect our industrial responsibilities either.
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet): When deciding on European defence and security co-operation issues, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the fact that there are six European NATO countries that are not members of the European Union and that five of the 15 European Union countries are not members of NATO? Does that not lead to the inescapable conclusion that the Western European Union should take the initiatives on such matters, rather than the European Union?
Mr. Robertson: What matters is that NATO's integrity and strength remain undiminished. We in Europe should have the political will and the determination to act when it is in our interests. It is also vital that we have the military capability to act when we come to policy decisions. There are plenty of ways to design and redesign the security architecture of Europe. There are wiring diagrams by the thousand, but a wiring diagram cannot be sent to a crisis. That is where we have to put our principal efforts and energies. The Western European Union has shown how we can weld together all the nations that are involved in that common endeavour, but we need to concentrate much more on the political will and the military capabilities and allow institutional relationships to be developed thereafter.
Laura Moffatt (Crawley): Does my right hon. Friend agree that defence co-operation in the European Union will benefit our relationship with the United States? With a more grown-up relationship, the European Union would be able to deal with certain difficulties without being compelled to go to the United States for assistance. That would be better and more sensible.
Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend makes a strong point. Europe can and should do more. In many ways, that will strengthen the alliance. The European security and defence identity inside NATO was developed at the 1995
NATO summit, when the Secretary of State for Defence was one Michael Portillo. The development of the European capability inside NATO was not dreamed up by this Government, but the process of making that capability real, strengthening NATO and giving Europe more control over its destiny has come to fruition only since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched that major and significant initiative.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate): The Secretary of State is in danger of confusing me. At one moment, he is trying to downplay the significance of the development, talking about it as merely wiring diagrams, but he told the Select Committee on Defence that the importance of the St. Malo agreement could not be understated. If I understand it correctly, it represents the most fundamental shift in British defence policy for decades. Bringing defence policy within the remit of the European Union would change the policy that informed the Government's approach to the treaty of Amsterdam. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that is an enormously significant change for British defence policy? Why were we not able even to get the French to join the integrated administrative structure of NATO as part of the St. Malo deal? That would be a small price for them to pay for a fundamental change in British policy.
Mr. Robertson: There is a danger that I am misleading the hon. Gentleman, but that does not seem to be too difficult. Let me spell it out in simple terms for him.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |