| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hain: There is no confusion. The conclusion of the economic assessment was announced on 9 June. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the House burdened by 20 studies of the matter in the end. Along with other Cabinet Ministers, I had to read them all. It was the most thorough economic assessment of the euro ever undertaken by this or any other Government. I do not understand how it can be claimed that there was confusion over the matter. The process was completely transparent, very detailed and very thorough.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington): The Government still intend to publish the White Paper on
airport capacity before Christmas, but some malevolent forces are suggesting that there might not be adequate time for debate. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the House will be informed of the Government's proposals first and before all others, and that there will be adequate time for debate and for questioning my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on the proposals?
Mr. Hain: First, I acknowledge that my hon. Friend has a direct constituency interest in this matter in respect of Heathrow. However, I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will want to inform the House about these important matters first, and that he will want to be questioned by and accountable to the House on this important matter. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have the opportunity to express his constituents' views in those discussions.
Jim Sheridan (West Renfrewshire): My right hon. Friend may be aware of early-day motion 1731.
[That this House congratulates the Scottish Sunday Herald in exposing the so-called dead peasants insurance scheme where employers can take out life insurance for their employees without their knowledge or consent and then cash in this policy when the employee dies; and calls on the Government to introduce effective legislation to outlaw this dishonest practice.]
I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend that he will use his extensive influence with the appropriate Minister to carry out an inquiry into the extent of that bad practice and, if necessary, implement effective legislation that will protect British workers from it.
Mr. Hain: Obviously, my hon. Friend has raised an issue that deserves consideration and I will certainly ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry considers it.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff, West): On the new 118 directory inquiries, has my right hon. Friend, like me, had occasion to use one of those so-called services only to be told that he can be put through to the number without being informed that there is a charge for that part of the service? Is that not a complete rip-off? Is it not an example of public service where the choice is not necessarily better for the consumer? The only winners in this case seem to be rip-off telecommunications companies, advertising agencies and, perhaps, if he wins his case, David Bedford the superannuated long distance runner.
Mr. Hain: Obviously, that matter has excited a great deal of concern in my hon. Friend and others. We will need to look into it.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud): Further to the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), Stroud district council is engaged in a ballot on large-scale voluntary transfers, which I oppose. Despite the huge sums of money that are being put in by those who are encouraging the sell-off, the group in charge—it is not a Labour group, I am pleased to say—has passed a protocol whereby all councillors are banned from putting out any information. Those councillors who do not agree have made their views
known and the Audit Commission has been brought in to decide whether they are meeting the terms of the protocol. That is an abuse of the role of the Audit Commission. Will my right hon. Friend talk to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to look at the way in which the ballots are taking place and, more particularly, into how the Audit Commission, which should have no role in this, is being used? Will he comment on that?
Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend has raised some serious matters. Having visited his constituency a few years ago with him, I know of his concern and also that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). There is an opportunity to table questions to the Deputy Prime Minister today. Perhaps he might avail himself of that opportunity.
John Cryer (Hornchurch): Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1751 in my name and 10 hon. Friends'?
[That this House calls on the Government to bring the Royal Mail management into talks with the Communication Workers Union on the issue of London Weighting.]
It concerns the refusal of the Royal Mail management to come to the negotiating table to negotiate with the Communication Workers Union in the dispute over London weighting, which has led to the present strike. I was on the picket line in Hornchurch and Rainham this morning. May we have a debate or at least a statement on the dispute? That would enable the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to tell us from the Dispatch Box why she has not as yet ordered the senior management of Royal Mail to go to the negotiating table and why she continues to allow senior managers to provoke the CWU and engage in a campaign that I think is aimed at eventually breaking the union, which represents employees who earn as little as £13,000 a year?
Mr. Hain: The Government do not want to see the union broken, if that is the objective of anyone concerned. It is important that post office workers—Royal Mail workers in particular—are properly represented and have a right to put their case, especially given the high living costs in London. I am sure that he will agree that the end result of the dispute must be a negotiated settlement—a fair settlement, but one that can be financed. We must continue to work for that.
David Cairns (Greenock and Inverclyde): Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to read the
reported remarks of the Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad, who yesterday called on Moslems to use brains as well as brawn to fight Jews who "rule the world". He is alleged to have said,
- "The Europeans killed six million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy . . . They are already beginning to make mistakes. And they will make more mistakes. There may be windows of opportunity for us now and in the future. We must seize these opportunities".
Mr. Hain: Like my hon. Friend I cannot understand how that statement came to be made. We should all focus on getting greater understanding and reconciliation between all faiths, especially between Jews and Moslems who live side by side in the middle east. Their future is in coming together as a community rather than being divided. Such statements do not help.
Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North): The Leader of the House will know that today in the north of England there are two significant local council by-elections in which candidates with explicitly racist platforms are standing for election. Interestingly, the Conservative party cannot even field a candidate in one of those elections—it is a shame that more Conservative Back Benchers are not here to hear that news. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that whatever the outcome of those by-elections this is an issue that can no longer be swept under the carpet. This House should be debating vigorously the reasons for the reappearance of political parties with neo-Nazi and fascist views. We should be looking at the social and economic conditions that give rise to that phenomenon in certain parts of the country. Will he find time for a debate on that matter in the near future?
Mr. Hain: I will certainly consider the opportunity for such a debate. As one of the founders of the Anti Nazi League in 1977, when that problem was last rampant, I share his sentiments exactly. It is crucial that we confront the racists and the Nazis wherever they appear, and that, when they stand candidates in elections, political parties campaign against them to expose their racism and neo-Nazism. Otherwise, there is a great danger of divisions being opened up and of spreading prejudice and racism.
Defence Policy
[Relevant documents: The Sixth Report from the Defence committee of Session 2002–03, A New Chapter to the Strategic Defence Review (HC93-I and II) and the Government's Response thereto, Third Special Report, Session 2002–03, HC 975.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Paul Clark.]
1.17 pm
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): This is the first of two debates on defence just one week apart. Today's debate focuses on defence policy. Next week's will look in more detail at equipment procurement. I recognise that equipment issues cannot be separated neatly from policy matters, but I want to draw a distinction between them for the purposes of these two debates. Right hon. and hon. Members will have an opportunity to examine current equipment issues in detail on 23 October.
Today, I shall give the House an overview of the policy changes driving work at the heart of the Ministry of Defence. I shall explain what those changes are and why they are necessary. In defence, policy changes have usually been gradual. Indeed, defence saw a remarkable continuity and consistency of policy certainly in the years from the end of the second world war to the end of the cold war. However, defence policy can never be static. Historically, there are periods when major and rapid changes are necessary. That reflects the emergence of new threats and requirements and the passing of former threats against which the armed forces have previously been configured.
Britain's armed forces have always been prepared to face up to change. That is a key reason why they have continually been among the best in the world and have punched above their weight for decades. We are in a period of rapid change again now. It requires new thinking and reform to ensure that our armed forces can continue to respond to the changing strategic environment in which they must operate.
The challenge for the Ministry of Defence and for the armed forces in recent years has been to ensure that their planning and assumptions for the future reflect the changes begun by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the military threat it posed. Fifteen years or so ago, we were used to assessing our military capability in terms of a numbers game, whether it was tanks, fighter aircraft, destroyers or frigates. There has been continuing and sometimes rapid change since, much of it at the time difficult and controversial. That was especially true of some of the major reductions in force structures across all three services in the early 1990s. Hundreds of tanks, all our conventional submarines and nearly 150 front-line combat aircraft were withdrawn during that period.
Ageing Chieftain tanks could not meet the logistical and environmental demands of deployed operations outside western Europe. We could barely support two armoured divisions in Germany. The large armoured force on the Rhine was a costly liability in the post-cold war period, not the basis for an expeditionary army. The conventional submarine force, useful though it had been in the Falklands and the Gulf, was primarily designed to help plug the north Atlantic gap against Soviet
submarines. The boats were not suitable for rapid reaction operations at far distances, so, in the early 1990s, they had to go. So, too, in 1992 did the Phantoms and, in 1994, the Buccaneers that provided air defence against a threat from massed Soviet bombers.Much of what was done during that period was retrenchment. The new systems that came into service during the 1990s, and those that were retained, were inspired by the cold war but adaptable for the new environment although they were not always optimised for it: aircraft carriers that were smaller than needed for significant operations against targets ashore; armoured forces that, although leaner, more modern and more easily supported, could deploy only slowly, by sea; and combat aircraft that were too specialised in single roles and lacked either the precision weapons to hit targets with minimal collateral damage or access to a network to find targets in unfamiliar environments.
The choices that faced defence were stark. Change was needed, not only to deliver a peace dividend but also to ensure that continuing capabilities were useful in a new strategic environment. The demands to use those capabilities were very real. Our armed forces became engaged quite suddenly in a series of expeditionary operations in the Gulf and the Balkans. Changes in force structure were opposed by some and questioned by many more, yet what seemed impossible or controversial then is today largely taken for granted as being self-evidently correct.
The 1998 strategic defence review did not conclude that process of change; rather it gave it a clear policy basis, setting our armed forces clear tasks and capability goals and moving them all firmly into the expeditionary era. Our forces now have far fewer tanks, fast jets and naval escorts than they did a decade or more ago, but they are significantly better organised, trained and equipped for expeditionary operations. That reflects decisions to invest heavily in the less glamorous capabilities that give our forces strategic reach and enable them to deliver effect when they get to a crisis.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |