| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6.31 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford): The debate has provided us with an invaluable opportunity to examine the whole issue of defence, defence policy and our defence establishment from the point of view of those who serve in the armed forces.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) suggested that we might revert to the system of individual service debates, which could be held in Westminster Hall. I think there might be great merit in that, but it would have been a pity if we had not had this opportunity to consider the question of armed forces personnel as a discrete subject.
Another interesting feature of the debate--to which, unfortunately, we have become used during defence debates--was the extraordinary lack of interest in, let alone commitment to, the subject on the part of Labour Members. The Labour party has a vast majority over all other parties: it has far more than twice as many MPs as my party. However, we have heard three speeches from Labour Back Benchers, two from members of other parties, and six from the Conservative Opposition. That, I think, says it all.
Nevertheless, I want to do justice to the speeches of Labour Members. The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) has served in our forces and
speaks with knowledge and experience. He paid a striking tribute to the value of military training, which contrasted with some of the politically correct speeches that we heard from other Labour Members.The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), speaking for the Liberal Democrat party, dealt in a statesmanlike manner with the urgent need for decisions to be made on strategic airlift. He mentioned the roll-on roll-off issue, with which I shall deal shortly; not surprisingly, he also mentioned his horror--widely shared by Conservative Members and no doubt also shared, more discreetly, by Labour Members--at the reported remarks of the Secretary of State about metal bashing no longer being a national asset. As the Secretary of State is here, perhaps he will take the opportunity to set the record straight.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also said--I think every member of the official Opposition will agree--that, if the European security and defence identity is to proceed at all, it must be capability led. Nothing could be more disastrous than an ESDI that did not represent a substantial increase in the actual commitment of the European allies to provide the resources that are necessary for our common defence; indeed, an ESDI on that false basis would be not just useless but extremely dangerous.
The hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), speaking as a member of the Defence Committee, seems to have adopted the politically correct agenda. She said that everyone should be subject to the same rules and regulations. I am afraid I must disagree: there is something special about the armed forces. There is something special about service in them, and about the people who are prepared to commit themselves to that service and to risk their lives in consequence. It is important for the armed services to continue to be based on the traditional values of discipline, duty, selflessness, coolness and steadiness under fire. All those values are discounted in our modern, politically correct society. Nothing would be more disastrous than to introduce the politically correct culture into the armed forces.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) made a powerful speech. He stated--it cannot be stated too often, or emphasised too greatly--that good armed forces do not happen by accident. They are the result of years of training, hard work and people going into the armed forces who are prepared to put up with that degree of discipline, sheer personal discomfort and disruption to their lives. There must be worries in some circles as to whether society as it evolves will continue to produce enough people who are prepared to make such a sacrifice. We will all suffer if that is not the case.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised a single issue: the overseas allowances that are paid when people are resident in Germany, but then are lost when they serve in former Yugoslavia. A similar point was made about London allowances by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood. I hope that we shall get a response on that from the Minister.
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) quite rightly went into procurement issues. He talked about the mess-up of the Tornado refurbishment and conversion programme: the GR1-GR4 programme. It has taken two years and the problems still do not seem to have been sorted out.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the SA80. The Labour party loves to say that that problem has been with us for a long time. It certainly has: it does not seem to have resolved it in the past three years. It is about time that the Government did what a Government are supposed to do: take decisive action to resolve the problem in short order or to make alternative arrangements. As I have said at the Dispatch Box before, having an unreliable rifle is a nightmare.
The hon. Gentleman talked about Bowman, which was several years behind schedule when the Labour party came to power. Now it is twice that period behind schedule: it is six, seven or eight years behind schedule. Again, that is not good enough. He talked about the beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile. I thought at one moment that he was making a sales pitch for Raytheon, with which Shorts had a relationship, but I later discovered that his constituent has a bet each way. No doubt, whatever the result of the Government's deliberations, he will be a happy man.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) reminded us that the real task of the armed forces is to prepare for high-intensity warfare. We know that it is precisely by preparing for that and by having the equipment, men and training available to cope with it, if it comes, that we provide the best possible deterrent and make it least likely that those skills will have to be used. Those must be available, as must the equipment to back them up. Nothing must be done in any way to deplete or erode the high level of training that is needed for high-intensity warfare. We must bear that in mind in peacekeeping operations and in other uses of our armed forces personnel, as my right hon. Friend said. He made it clear that it would be a great mistake to cut the budget any further.
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) talked about the recruitment of women. Apparently, he wants quotas for women. Conservative Members do not believe in quotas in any context. That seems a particularly ill-considered suggestion.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) talked about the importance of getting ESDI right. He is right about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) congratulated the Government, which shows that Conservative Members are open-minded, generous and prepared to give credit where it is due. We regret just that there are so few occasions when it is due. He congratulated the Government on their families taskforce. I am happy to endorse that congratulation.
My hon. Friend made it clear that we cannot expect the United States to go on making an utterly disproportionate contribution to the security of the world, including in our time zone. Based on his considerable knowledge of reserve forces throughout the world, he revealed some interesting facts about the United States having not just 10 regular divisions, but 13 national guard divisions, which can be mobilised to support them. My hon. Friend also talked about the way in which our Territorial Army has been run down not merely quantitatively, but qualitatively, and the fact that the so-called 15 remaining infantry battalions are not battalions at all--they are probably not effective even as companies. It is a
disgraceful state of affairs. He also mentioned how important it is to have not only shop-window, high-profile equipment, but necessary back-up.My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said that the quality of our armed forces is quite exceptional. He also said, however, that the quantity is quite inadequate, and he is right about that. He also made 10 interesting suggestions that I, for one, will certainly be thinking about very carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) made an eloquent appeal for St. Dunstan's and gave a moving account of the Channel Dash operation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) rightly pointed out how revolting it is that we have Ministers who, when they are on their best behaviour, say how good and splendid our armed forces are and how much they are to be admired, but who, when they let down their guard, make thoroughly revolting remarks.
Mr. Brazier: They should apologise.
In the past two months, since I started the job of Opposition Defence spokesman, it has become clear to me that the strategic defence review is in many respects very inadequate. It is certainly vapid and vague in many spheres, and it certainly does not emphasise sufficiently home defence. One might also perhaps have liked to have more frigates. The proposals on the TA were certainly a great mistake.
Parts of the SDR, however, are fine as a business plan. It would be fine if the Government had the slightest intention of implementing them. As we proceed, however, we realise that the SDR is another example of clever, new Labour smoke and mirrors. It is spin-doctoring, but it is not intended to be reality.
The important procurement decisions have still not been taken, and the Government have been proceeding to run down our defence effort by continually cutting the defence budget. As I have said before, one cannot be serious about defence and plan annually--year in, year out--to take 2 or 3 per cent. in real terms from the defence budget. One cannot do that and be serious about defence.
Ministers who call themselves Defence Ministers have now abdicated completely responsibility to the Treasury. We have an extraordinary situation in which the Treasury is getting involved in absolutely everything. The Treasury is taking over procurement decisions, meeting with Raytheon and Boeing on the beyond-visual-range air-to-air missile system and strategic airlift. The Treasury is taking those decisions.
One thing that we had better find out today is whether the Treasury is taking the key decision on rollon-roll off ferries. If the Treasury is not taking the decision, who is? I tabled a written parliamentary question on the issue about 10 days ago, but I have not yet received a reply.
When the Government decided on a private finance initiative structure for that procurement, did they realise that the effect would be to remove from the project the protection on defence procurement offered under the treaty, thereby making it impossible for the Government to give the order to British yards if a lower-cost bid came in from elsewhere? Or did the Treasury know perfectly
well that that would be the consequence, and therefore establish a PFI project in the hope that it could deny all responsibility?Our yards are entitled to believe that they will receive some preference in placing the order. It is quite certain that there is not a cat in hell's chance that our yards could bid successfully for military vessels for any other major industrialised European Union country, certainly not for France or Germany. The Government have established an unlevel playing field. Did they do it by incompetence and inadvertence, or did they do it deliberately, thinking that they would have an excuse for an utterly unforgivable situation?
Of course, one could argue for obtaining the benefits of competition within the European Union, but one certainly could not make a coherent or respectable argument for unilateral disarmament--for saying that other shipyards can bid for our orders, but our shipyards cannot bid for anyone else's orders; at least, one could not do that unless one had complete contempt for Britain's manufacturing base and believed that metal bashing was no longer a national asset. We had better have an answer to that this evening, as there is great concern throughout the country from an industrial and defence point of view.
The defence of the country is no longer in the hands of people who care about defence; it is in the hands of the new Labour Treasury. There can be no less safe hands for the defence of this country than that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |