| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hoon: So far, the hon. Gentleman has majored in allegations about defence cuts. He mentioned commitments. Can he say categorically which of the commitments into which British armed forces have entered since 1 May 1997 he, as a potential Defence Secretary, would not have entered into? He says that he is concerned about allegations of defence cuts. How much would he restore to the defence budget if he were elected to government--the amount as of 1 May 1997, or, for example, the amount that was in the budget before the Conservatives cut it by up to a third?
Mr. Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State shows just how panicky he really is. He sees Labour slipping behind the Conservatives in the polls on defence, and then the panic begins. All of a sudden, Labour is more worried about what we will do when we return to government than about what it is doing in government.
There is a simple answer to the Secretary of State. When in opposition, the Labour party had nothing to say about what it would do about any of those issues. Furthermore, under Labour the recommendations of the strategic defence review have been in operation for less than two years. Is the Secretary of State saying that he has no idea how to reduce the commitments, and no idea about whether to put in extra money or to cut the budget? If so, there is a simple solution: the right hon. Gentleman should vacate those Benches, and let us take over.
Mr. Hoon:
In the unlikely event of it being necessary for us to vacate these Benches, I shall still want to know the answers to my questions. I gave a long list of the commitments that we have been able to reduce. What commitments would the hon. Gentleman have reduced had he been in my position? He is telling the country that he wants my position; he ought to be able to tell the country what he would do--and, moreover, how he would afford it, in the light of the tax guarantee given by the leader of his party.
Mr. Duncan Smith:
I think the Secretary of State protests too much, although I understand why he is so worried. He is clearly very upset with his friends in the Treasury, and is trying to convey to them that he needs to know where to place his vote at the next election. He is saying, "I have to worry: if the Conservatives have a really good policy, Defence Ministers will have to vote for them."
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar):
Answer.
Mr. Duncan Smith:
The Secretary of State will hear the answer in good time. He will hear it after we have convinced everyone, as we are in the process of doing, that he and his colleagues have damaged the defence forces by making such a serious cut when they came to office, and that their commitment is not deliverable in the context of the strategic defence review.
Mr. Spellar:
Give us an answer.
Mr. Duncan Smith:
Instead of bobbing up and down like a superannuated teddy bear with supercharged
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury):
My hon. Friend mentions the policy for people. Perhaps we could make an early pledge to restore the so-called efficiency saving of the £1.5 million cut in the programme designed to return some of the 5,000 unfit service men requiring orthopaedic treatment to the front line.
Mr. Duncan Smith:
That, of course, was another Labour cut. My hon. Friend is right: what was in the budget to help to deal with those priority patients was cut. I know that the Minister had a view about those in the medical services, which is probably unrepeatable here, but there is a more positive way in which to proceed. I hope that, in making changes to the medical services, the Government will reinstate the money that they took away.
The Government's flagship policy for people was subjected to scrutiny by The Daily Telegraph on 21 November. The newspaper quoted from a briefing paper drawn up by Vice-Admiral Sir Jeremy Blackham, which stated:
Mr. Duncan Smith:
Before I give way to the Minister, let me remind him of what my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) said at Question Time yesterday about the further trimming of about £1 million from some budgets.
Mr. Spellar:
As the hon. Gentleman suggests, there is a danger that what is said today will become repetitious in terms of what was said yesterday. I rightly pointed out then that the move from 2003 to 2005 was due to the fact that, when a full study was made of how much would be needed to upgrade the properties to category 1, the previous Administration had underestimated the amount
Mr. Duncan Smith:
I hear what the Minister says, but that concerns total money. My question was, why the delay? That is the key question, and he has not answered it. The truth is that good management would not have allowed the delay, although it might have affected the total involved. He stands condemned.
That element of delay creates the greatest problem for families to whom my colleagues and I have talked. [Interruption.] I also have personal experience of what happens when Government change programmes. I wish that the Minister would talk to married families more, and find out what they think.
Strategic lift is a key issue, which is at the heart of Government policy. The strategic defence review made some big statements about it, which are critical to its ability to meet its targets. As Secretary of State for Defence, Lord Robertson said:
We understand that the decision on that programme is imminent. That is what the Secretary of State tells us. We have heard the word "imminent" so often in this context that we have a case of rolling imminence: one month after another, the decision is imminent. The Treasury, however, has delayed the in-service date, at least for our heavy-lift aircraft, by a year or, perhaps, even longer. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State--I will take his intervention--were to say exactly when he intends to take the decision and, perhaps, announce what it is. It is imminent, no doubt.
Mr. Duncan Smith:
I am pleased that the Secretary of State is able to shift his position slightly and move from imminent to soon. I am sure that those who study the small print will recognise a clear, major shift in policy.
I want to draw the Secretary of State's attention to an important part of strategic lift. It is not just the air side. There is the ability to move using ships. There is a clear question about the order. I gather that some of that capability in shipping was meant to be in place in October, but I should like to know at some point--I will take his intervention again--when the decision will be made; imminently soon, I dare say. He made the point that joint rapid reaction force capability requires that corresponding capability. Without that, his great statement, which I wholly applaud, that they will be able
to work together and be deployed, which is exactly what should happen, will become near impossible to achieve, as we saw during the Kosovo exercise.
Again, the Select Committee shared our thoughts on the matter. It said:
"The ambitious plans in the SDR and its supporting essays are in danger of coming to grief for want of resources . . . unless more resources are forthcoming we must abandon any pretence that we are putting people at the heart of our policy . . . The money must be found or the policy will not be delivered."
The first of the report's valid concerns was married quarters, in which I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) is interested. Married quarters are the Cinderella of defence spending, and are most affected by short-termism. Although the Government have spoken of extra money--I believe that the Minister of State did so yesterday--they fail to explain why they have allowed refurbishment programmes to slide by at least two years from the dates originally proposed. The upgrades that are being put on hold amount to about what the Government trim in their attempts to find short-term savings. That is important, not just in terms of total money, but because it sends a message to families who feel undervalued as a result of the slippage. I think that the slippage also undermines service men and women when they go away from home, because they too worry about their homes.
"New transport aircraft and ships will move our people and equipment rapidly to trouble spots."
The Government clearly approved the short-term strategic lift programme in saying that the Ministry of Defence would meet
"our strategic airlift needs in the short term with four C-17 large aircraft or their equivalent."
That was in the strategic defence review. On the Treasury's insistence, however, the short-term strategic airlift competition has been bundled together with the Hercules rolling replacement programme--as far as I can see, in order to save money.
"The SDR committed the UK to force projection strategy. If we lack the ability to 'project' force, many very expensive assets are wasted. We view the lack of adequate deployability, particularly with regard to strategic airlift, with grave concern".
Hear, hear.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |