| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.45 pm
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, might have felt quite at home in the debate, given that, at some points, it almost turned into a confessional for several hon. Members--but let us draw a veil over that.
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) quoted Churchill, which reminded me of one of Churchill's remarks about speeches full of cliches--but, as the remark was somewhat indelicate, we shall have to draw a veil over that, too. The hon. Lady eventually moved on from cliches and addressed the issue of national missile defence, to which we shall return in a moment. However, she did not give way to the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), on the crucial issue of precisely what she would sign up to and what she was so urgently urging us to sign up to.
Between generally castigating the rest of the world, the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) talked about those who had changed their position. He is a well-known entryist who has certainly changed his party, if not his position, which led me to wonder whether he has now become a reverse entryist to enable him to discredit some of the positions adopted inside the Conservative party.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) rightly pointed out the deficiencies of the Liberal Democrats' motion. It is interesting that the excuse they offered was their party's usual inefficiency. To those who know them from either the inside or the outside, that is not surprising. However, I note that the motion does not include the regular calls for additional expenditure issued by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). One wonders whether, in making such calls, he speaks for the whole of his party, or even its Front-Bench team. Perhaps he will clarify that matter on some future occasion. The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South about the Budget are welcome, but he will understand that, at this stage in the financial cycle, I cannot comment on them.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), apparently using a JCB, dug ferociously into the archives of history. We shall pass over his comparison between the two Chamberlains; suffice it to say that, if he represented a west midlands constituency, he would probably be able to distinguish more clearly between them. He raised a serious issue--one that is regularly raised by Conservative Members--which is the notion that a European security and defence identity creates the spectre of detachment between Europe and the United States, and therefore reinforces isolationist tendencies in the USA.
As I have said several times at the Dispatch Box, the reverse is true: in a world wherein US orientation is moving, gently and slowly, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, it is only by Europe assuming a greater share of its own defence and making a more significant contribution that we and those in the US who want to maintain transatlantic international links will be able to argue that Europe is bearing its share of the burden. A European defence identity reinforces those long-standing transatlantic links; it does not negate them. The hon. Gentleman quoted Disraeli at some length. I have to say that we rarely see signs of Disraeli's one-nation party being alive and well in the modern Conservative party.
I took somewhat amiss the comments made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife that we intervene only in places where there are oil or diamonds. Neither is present in Kosovo.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: I did not say that. If the Minister reads the Official Report, he will see that I said
that there was a caricature of our intervening only in connection with oil or diamonds, so we must be given proper explanations of why we intervene and set out in public the criteria by which we judge it necessary to intervene.
Mr. Spellar: We obviously do not do so because, as far as I am aware, there is neither of those things in Kosovo.
As we all know, our people in Kosovo are doing an excellent job, to which the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) rightly drew attention, as he did to our need to back up them and their families. He conceded that we have made considerable progress, particularly through the service families taskforce. Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient time to reiterate those points.
I am pleased to announce some more improvements and enhancements. We have recently approved a procurement of the necessary infrastructure to give our forces in Kosovo access to the internet so that they may stay in touch with their families. Personnel in our overseas garrisons and many Royal Navy ships' companies already have such access, but we are breaking new ground in providing the facilities in an operational theatre. The equipment will be installed in the next few weeks and will be seen by our troops as a real improvement to their quality of life in theatre.
That announcement is in spite of the schoolboy sniggering on the Opposition Benches on Monday when I referred to e-mail. I do not know whether it was the concept of e-mail that was alien to them, or whether it was a complete misunderstanding of the needs of service families to stay in touch. Either way, it was a bizarre performance and it will certainly have been noted by our service personnel and their families.
Mrs. Gillan: On examination of the record, I believe that the Minister said on the most recent occasion he spoke of the matter from the Dispatch Box:
- We have seen the introduction of e-mail--[Official Report, 5 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 10.]
Mr. Spellar: Yes. Had the hon. Lady been listening, she would have heard me say that personnel in our overseas garrisons and many Royal Navy ships' companies already have such access, and that those in operational theatre will have it in the next few weeks. We have already placed the orders. That is a considerable enhancement. Yet again, the Tories show that they are completely out of touch with how people live and the improvements that people want.
Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Spellar: If I may move on.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister says that he is not giving way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Spellar: The Liberal Democrats congratulated our forces in Sierra Leone. In that context, I should point out
to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that Commonwealth countries are playing a considerable role in that country. We are engaged with them in that operation and have been of considerable assistance to them. Our forces have been doing what they do best, and doing it professionally and quickly. Criticism of our role is not representative of the views of the United Nations. It sees that our provision considerably enhances its role and is of great assistance. The key element was our ability to make decisions and to move quickly.We shall enhance that role. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already announced the leasing of four Boeing C17 aircraft to meet our strategic lift requirements. I am pleased to announce that those aircraft will be based at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. With their capacity to carry a wide range of heavy equipment, including Challenger 2 tanks, Warrior armoured fighting vehicles and even the Army's new Apache attack helicopter, they will revolutionise our capability to deploy forces with real punch to deal with crises anywhere in the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) has been pressing me on the issue for some time and will certainly be pleased by the announcement. It is unfortunate that he is not able to be present as he is at the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Mr. Dalyell: Before my hon. Friend leaves the issue of Kosovo, can he tell me whether we are likely to find out who placed the grenade that caused so much trouble for Brigadier Shirreff and the 7th Army Brigade? I realise that doing so might be difficult.
Mr. Spellar: It is certainly difficult at this stage to do so, but people should not automatically assume one particular source. Obviously, the authorities on the ground are conducting investigations.
I turn in more detail to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, who moved the motion. I was slightly taken aback when he rather dismissed this country as a medium-sized economic power, not a member of the Security Council or a major force for good in the world. I thought that he over-egged the pudding on behalf of his client, the United Nations, and did not reflect its true views.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman then came to the serious issue of national missile defence and the anti-ballistic missile treaty and the need for strategic stability. I got the feeling that both his speech and that of the hon. Member for Hereford had been written over the weekend, before events had taken a turn.
Mr. Spellar: In that case, I exonerate the hon. Gentleman of having written the speech before the events, but not of failing to keep up with the news. He obviously had not kept up with the joint statements of the Presidents of the United States of America and the Russian Federation on principles of strategic stability. The press release says:
- They agree that the international community faces a dangerous and growing threat of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, including missiles and missile technologies, and stress their desire to reverse that process, including
- through existing and possible new international legal mechanisms. They agree that this new threat represents a potentially significant change in the strategic situation and the international security environment.
They agree that this . . . should be addressed through mutual cooperation and mutual respect of each other's security interests.
- we respect the opinions of our partners in negotiations, we think that what they say has a certain logic and to a great degree we agree with that logic. There are new threats arising that we must address but our proposal is to answer them together.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |