Examination of Witnesses (Questions 760
- 779)
WEDNESDAY 19 JANUARY 2000 [Afternoon]
THE RT
HON GEOFFREY
HOON MP, MR
KEVIN TEBBITT,
MR RICHARD
HATFIELD, AIR
MARSHAL SIR
JOHN DAY,
AIR MARSHAL
MALCOLM PLEDGER
AND MR
JOHN HOWE
760. There seems to me to be something of a
cooling-off of further expansion after the NATO summit in Washington.
(Mr Hoon) That is certainly not the position of the
British Government, but what we are learning in the process of
absorbing the new members is that this is a significant commitment
by candidates and by new member states, and in that commitment
we clearly have to assist them to reach the appropriate state
whereby they can play a full part in the alliance.
Mr Gapes
761. Is there not a wider question as well?
Clearly some of these countries by their geographical location,
the Baltic States in particular, have wider implications because
of the geographical proximity that they have. For example, it
is not very far from Narva to St Petersburg. Therefore, there
are wider security questions relating back to Russia in particular
which need to be given consideration. The American Government
seems to be very determined to have NATO enlargement to as many
countries as possible almost regardless of other issues, is that
the position of our Government?
(Mr Hoon) I think I have set out the position of the
Government but in response to your specific observation, I do
not judge it is necessarily our responsibility to determine whether
a particular country when making an application should or should
not have regard to its proximity to Russia. That seems to me to
be a matter for the country in question, not our judgment. What
we would have to look at is whether, when such an application
was received, that particular country could satisfy its obligations
under the Treaty. That is a careful process which I think we have
learned in the course of the accession of new member states, and
I think it is something we will continue to learn as we look at
new candidates.
762. Are you saying that the relationship between
NATO and Russia is not a factor which has to be taken into consideration
with regard to applicant countries?
(Mr Hoon) No, that is not what I said.
763. I am sorry, maybe I misunderstood you.
The impression from what you have just said is that consideration
of those questions was simply a matter for the applicant countries.
If we are talking about collective security and security guarantees
and obligations under the NATO Treaty, clearly other member states
have issues to consider here?
(Mr Hoon) What I am saying is that nobody is ruled
out. We made it quite clear, and this is a clear statement from
the alliance, that a European country is eligible for membership
and that we would look carefully at their ability to satisfy the
terms of membership in looking at their application. What I am
anxious to avoid is any kind of impression that anyone by reasons
of geography other than being in Europe is excluded from the process,
because clearly the alliance has said that is not the case.
764. But at the end of the day there has to
be a unanimous decision amongst the existing NATO members for
any applicant country to come in.
(Mr Hoon) That is normally the case with most treaties,
yes.
765. I think I will leave it there for now.
We will probably come back to this one.
(Mr Hatfield) Perhaps it is worth saying that NATO
as an alliance has essentially said that there are three broad
types of considerations to be taken into account. One is indeed
the position of the individual applicant you are considering,
the state of their armed forces, the state of their body politic,
et cetera, and their ability to join NATO as an individual. Second
is of course the ability of the alliance to absorb new members
and actually the alliance is finding it quite difficult—I
am not saying it is a major problem and it was expected—to
absorb the three new members. The third is the wider security
issues. Of course, Russia is a factor but so are many other things.
We do already have a long-standing member of the alliance with
a border with Russia; Norway. So there is not a rule which says,
"If you have a border with Russia, you cannot join the alliance"
or anything like that. There is a consideration to be borne in
mind here. The alliance has committed itself to a review by 2002
and I am not in a position, and I do not think anybody else is,
to predict what is going to happen at that review.
766. One question about Northern Ireland. Clearly
there have been a lot of developments, in fact statements today
and other developments going on all the time. Can you up-date
us on your latest thinking about the implications for our commitments
in terms of the security situation in Northern Ireland and the
possibilities that that may have for releasing resources or reducing
pressure within particularly the Army but elsewhere, and how do
you see the development going if things move along positively?
(Mr Hoon) Clearly, we are hopeful that things will
move along positively, that there will be a new and permanent
change in the security situation in Northern Ireland. We have
around 15,000 people there at the present time, that is actually
the lowest number since 1970 so we have made progress in recent
times in reducing our commitment, but they are there to do a specific
job in support of the police and in providing a valuable means
of addressing the security problems which exist in that part of
the world. If the changes which we all hope for are realised and
become permanent, then obviously we will review very carefully
the numbers of our armed forces which are required, either to
be permanently stationed in Northern Ireland or to be available
at short notice. That is a change which I would be delighted to
be able to see as the Secretary of State for Defence, but equally
I have to recognise that that does depend crucially on the security
situation in Northern Ireland. That is something we have to work
for to improve.
Chairman
767. I am sure there is somebody in the Treasury
casting covetous eyes— Mr Tebbit says no!
(Mr Tebbit) It would ease the over-stretch, Mr Chairman.
Chairman: I hope it will ease the over-stretch
and that the Treasury does not ask you to make further cuts in
the Army because although we have 15,000 troops there, when you
tot up how many are preparing to go and how many are recovering
from, then the figure of the Army committed to Northern Ireland
is much higher than the number of forces actually there on the
ground. So we will watch this space very closely.
Mr Blunt
768. Can I come on to a few quick questions
on manning, and first of all the Armed Forces Overarching Personnel
Strategy? This was promised in the SDR, in the White Paper 18
months later it says, "We are ... moving rapidly to develop
an Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy ..." and then
it appears to suggest separately, "And we are beginning to
give thought to longer term issues in the defence personnel field
affecting how we recruit, manage and retain our personnel."
I am not quite sure why there should be a differentiation between
that overarching armed forces personnel strategy and the longer
term issues, but perhaps you could explain that. Is it on schedule
for implementation in April this year and what will it consist
of?
(Mr Tebbit) The realisation of the targets for the
full manning levels? Is that the question?
769. The question is, what is the strategy?
The impression I get is that the Armed Forces Overarching Personnel
Strategy is a degree of elegant waffle. We understand it might
comprise a policy statement which will outline "a set of
values" common to all service personnel; personnel strategy
guidelines, covering 20 to 30 aspects of personnel policy and
setting out MoD goals in each; and an action plan linked to departmental
plans. That is what we understand it might contain but there appears
to be this differentiation in the White Paper between the strategy
and what is then described as "giving thought to longer term
issues in the defence personnel field" affecting rather fundamental
tasks like recruiting, managing and retaining our personnel. I
am intrigued by that differentiation.
(Mr Tebbit) The distinction is firstly that there
is the need, as it were, to integrate and to find the common areas
which are helpful in an integrated strategy. That should be in
place by April 2000. Then there is the question of the long term
beyond that and how it is taken forward and I think that is the
distinction we are talking about, but I would not want to trespass
on the ground of the Air Marshal.
(Air Marshal Pledger) You seem to imply there is some
kind of incoherence between developing a strategy which will look
at a component of a policy for people which itself is a development
from the implementation of SDR, and then putting in place the
policy guidelines, some 24 in fact in actuality, and then developing
an action plan which will actually deliver some of the consequences
of that in the longer term. That is an entirely reasonable and
coherent process, I suggest.
770. So it is incorrect to have a differentiation
between the overarching personnel strategy which contains the
action plan and a long term action plan?
(Air Marshal Pledger) The whole purpose of this was
to draw together the three single services' ideas and aspirations,
recognising the new employment patterns in joint arenas and joint
forces you have heard of, and try to combine those so we all actually
follow a coherent process in solving some of the very difficult
situations and problems that we outlined this morning.
771. Let me have some answers to some simple
questions which I should be able to understand. Will the strategy
address key issues such as recruitment and retention?
(Air Marshal Pledger) One of the policy guidelines
actually deals with recruitment and retention, yes, and looks
at the application of those processes and feeds back information
across the three services.
772. How will it change the way the separate
services currently operate in relation to personnel matters?
(Air Marshal Pledger) The answer to that, as I say,
is that each of these areas is being outlined in the specific
plans which will then form the element of that action plan. Until
we have finished that process, I cannot give you a particular
example.
773. Is it on schedule for April 2000?
(Air Marshal Pledger) The Armed Forces Overarching
Personnel Strategy is in the last stages of its development and,
yes, we believe it still is very definitely on track to be introduced
into systematic application from 1st April.
774. But in Chapter 4 of the White Paper and
"Policy for People", it is announced under "What
we've done", "Introduced an Armed Forces Overarching
Recruiting Strategy". Is that part of it or not? It is announced
that has been done. So the White Paper is slightly inaccurate
there?
(Air Marshal Pledger) I think, as I said, what we
are doing is introducing this in a coherent way across the three
services where there are development opportunities for each of
these policy guidelines coherently across the three services.
There are already recruitment policies in place amongst the three
services.
Mr Cohen
775. Are you buying in some expertise from the
private sector in these personnel matters or are you doing the
whole of this in-house?
(Air Marshal Pledger) Again, we have had in the past
external expertise as a non-executive director on the highest
level committees which dealt with this, and indeed, at a lower
level now, in the forum which is developing this particular strategy
we too will have that kind of external advice.
Mr Gapes
776. Can I take you on to defence diplomacy
issues? Your predecessor last year told the House, with reference
to arms control negotiations, that the Government would bring
"a considerably greater sense of urgency than previous administrations
did to previous negotiations." In view of that statement,
could you tell us in the last year of any evidence that that has
happened?
(Mr Hoon) Urgency in the various international negotiations
which take place is sometimes difficult to precisely quantify,
in the sense that some of these agreements do take some time to
resolve. Of course, they are not usually entirely in our hands
but we make a very full contribution to the range of international
agreements which are currently being negotiated and I assure you
that is done, from our point of view at any rate, with some degree
of urgency.
777. The Strategic Defence Review referred to
a world in which there is no place for nuclear weapons, being
an aspiration of the Government. Have we made any progress on
that in the last 18 months?
(Mr Hoon) In 1999 NATO's strategic concept acknowledged
that the circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons might
be contemplated are extremely remote. That is not to say, for
the moment at any rate, they remain the ultimate guarantee of
our national and indeed of NATO's security. It is rather like
the answer I gave earlier to Michael, that whilst we live in a
much less predictable world as far as the kind of security issues
which can arise are concerned, nevertheless as far as mutually
assured deterrence and the destruction which follows from that
is concerned, perhaps we live in a rather safer world. That did
allow us, as you know, in the SDR to make certain assumptions
and to make certain changes as far as particularly Trident was
concerned which over a period I hope have contributed to a lessening
of the availability of nuclear weapons, but it is still clearly
in our national interest to retain that ability and indeed it
is vital to NATO we should do so.
778. But since the Strategic Defence Review
we have had the nuclear weapons tests by Pakistan and India and
clearly we have had concerns expressed about the dangers of further
proliferation. Is there any new thinking about nuclear non-proliferation
and disarmament?
(Mr Hoon) We certainly use our influence and it would
be central to our diplomacy in relation to the countries concerned
that we would encourage them to display restraint in the way in
which they behave. Certainly we encourage them to sign up to the
relevant international agreements. That is not a message which
they always respond to with the kind of alacrity which we would
like to see. Richard, do you want to add anything?
(Mr Hatfield) Two things I was going to add. One is
that we have of course implemented our own changes from the SDR,
which have reduced our own holdings and reduced our state of alert,
if you like, in simple terms. We have contributed to the preparation
for the next round of the nuclear conference—the non-nuclear
conference, if you like—so we are contributing but in a
way, as the Secretary of State's answer points out, the front
line of the debate has to be diplomatic at the moment. We can
support that and we do support that and we set our own example
through our own behaviour.
779. Our report recommended the clarification
of both our own strategic and sub-strategic nuclear policy and
it specifically stated the need to clarify that, and your response
said, "We will identify a suitable early opportunity to do
this." Have we as a Committee missed that or is it still
coming?
(Mr Hatfield) The previous Secretary of State gave
a speech at Aberdeen on 7 March last year which covered this.
|
