House of Commons
Monday 3 November 2003
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
DEFENCE
The Secretary of State was asked—
Military Co-operation (European Forces)
1. Angela Watkinson (Upminster): What recent training the armed forces have received to prepare them for co-operation with European armed forces outside the NATO system. [135543]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Our armed forces conduct a wide range of training with our European partners. Such training assists in preparing forces for multinational operations, whether they are led by NATO, the European Union or the United Nations, or undertaken as part of an ad hoc coalition.
Angela Watkinson : Has the Secretary of State consulted the Bosnian Government as to whether they would prefer NATO or the European Union to continue in charge of peacekeeping operations after next spring? The Bosnian Government may not have spoken publicly because of their financial dependence on the EU, but would it not be infinitely preferable for NATO to be the umbrella organisation in charge of peacekeeping, even if the United States is not involved?
Mr. Hoon: May I make it clear to the House that no decision has yet been taken to end NATO's operation in Bosnia? There are discussions about the possibility of follow-on operations. As the hon. Lady implies, the EU could lead such follow-on operations, although, again, no decision has been taken. We will certainly consult the Bosnian Government before any such decisions are taken.
Mr. Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw): One area of European co-operation is the international security assistance force in Afghanistan. Last week, members of Select Committee on Defence, including me, were privileged to visit Kabul and, in particular, see the work being carried out by the civil and military co-operation teams. Those teams are rebuilding hospitals, roads and
schools, but they are unfortunately still vastly underfunded. Will the Secretary of State examine ways of funding that vital service in Afghanistan?
Mr. Hoon: I thank my hon. Friend. I know that he and his colleagues had an interesting visit to Afghanistan, and I will certainly take full account of their views about it. We want to ensure that all such activities in Afghanistan are properly and adequately funded.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex): I am interested that the Secretary of State says that no decision has been taken about Bosnian peacekeeping, given that it was announced at the Copenhagen summit, which I believe the Prime Minister attended last December, that the EU would be taking over peacekeeping in Bosnia last spring.
I want to ask the Secretary of State about exercises and training. How can he pretend that exercises will not continue to be cancelled when the average gap between operational tours for the infantry is not 24 months, as promised in the strategic defence review in 1998, but just nine months? Does he realise that the Royal Scots went off to Northern Ireland after only six months and that 2 Para, which is off to Basra, will be spending its third Christmas in a row on operations? The King's Own Scottish Borderers, which is coming back from Iraq, is going straight off to Northern Ireland with hardly any training and no post-operational leave whatsoever. Is it not clear that the armed forces are more overstretched than ever, that Labour does not care about them or their families and that the Ministry of Defence is dead in the water under a lame duck Secretary of State?
Mr. Hoon: If I may take the hon. Gentleman back to the question, he may have seen that it relates to training and co-operation with European armed forces. If his concern about the armed forces were sincere, he would recognise that the more training we do with other European forces, the more effective, and therefore less stretched, our armed forces become. I have never heard him congratulate the Ministry of Defence or the armed forces on the excellence of their co-operation with other European nations.
Mr. Kevan Jones (North Durham): Like my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Roy), I had the privilege of visiting Afghanistan last week. Will my right hon. Friend commend the work carried out by the European partners in Afghanistan, and in particular the work done by British armed forces in Afghanistan under the able command of Colonel Richard Kemp? Will he confirm that that is a good example of co-operation between the European allies, which is desperately needed in bringing peace and security to that country?
Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is quite right. That is a practical illustration of the benefits of common training and co-operation with other European nations. He is right to commend that; I only regret that we never hear such words from the Conservative Front Bench.
Ministry of Defence Police
2. Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury): For what reason Ministry of Defence Police area policing teams are being disbanded. [135544]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): Following recommendations made during the quinquennial review process and as a result of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary's inspection in April 2002, two internal reports were produced. The Ministry of Defence Police Agency management board concluded that the existing area policing team structure should be withdrawn and that divisional support groups should be created.
Mr. Key : The arrangements described by the Under-Secretary have been introduced by only one working group in consultation with the Ministry of Defence police. There was no consultation with the Home Office constabulary. The interface between the Ministry of Defence police and the Home Office county constabularies is crucial given the new stress on homeland security. There will again be job losses for the Ministry of Defence police just when we need it more. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why, apart from cutting the Army's budget, the Labour Government are doing that?
Mr. Caplin: The formation of the divisional support groups will enable the force to implement the Home Office national intelligence model—I thought the hon. Gentleman would welcome that—which will mean a more focused defence intelligence-led approach to crime against the defence estate. It is absolutely nothing to do with cuts because no budgetary issues arise at the moment.
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): Does the Minister's brief explain to him what the difference is between the divisional support group and the existing arrangements, because it is not too clear to me or, more important, to officers in the Ministry of Defence police and their federation? Is there not a case for the Minister to have a word with the board, those very important people, to tell them to communicate with their officers and perhaps with Members of Parliament and Ministers to explain what the qualitative difference is? Discuss.
Mr. Caplin: I can assure my hon. Friend, who takes the matter very seriously, that the chief constable and his board are in discussion with the Defence Police Federation, and I spoke recently at its conference in Manchester. I will certainly take note of his comments.
Patrick Mercer (Newark): I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. I wonder whether he could explain why under the divisional support groups the Ministry of Defence police will no longer be capable of looking after and supervising married quarters establishments? At a time when the threat to married quarters and indeed the whole defence establishment is rising, surely it is time for some fresh thinking from the
Government about how our defence establishment should be properly protected, especially when homeland security is in such a parlous state?
Mr. Caplin: I should have thought that the decision taken by the Ministry of Defence Police Agency management board was innovative and an example of fresh thinking. The security of service families' accommodation will be a matter for local commanders to resolve.
Hugh Bayley (City of York): Given the important role that civilian police forces increasingly play in providing support for the policing of military bases, does it not make sense for the MOD police and their civilian counterparts to work more closely together and to use whichever force, civilian or military, is best placed to provide the particular policing service that is required?
Mr. Caplin: My hon. Friend is right, of course, because, unlike the Conservative party, he understands the flexibility that is needed to manage the urgent requirements in the defence estate. I am disappointed at the way in which Opposition Front Benchers have debated this matter.
UK Armed Forces (Independent Operations)
3. Norman Baker (Lewes): What his policy is on the extent to which UK armed forces should be able to operate independently of the United States. [135545]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Our policy is to continue to develop balanced, flexible forces able to undertake a wide range of military tasks, normally alongside the forces of other NATO and EU countries, in support of the United Kingdom's security objectives, but, as I have repeatedly said, it is highly unlikely that the UK would be engaged in large-scale combat operations without the United States.
Norman Baker : I agree with that answer, but is not the reality that the relationship between the two countries is one of subservience rather than closeness? It is inconceivable, for example, that Britain could use its so-called independent nuclear deterrent without US approval and technical co-operation. Is not the reality that those who are concerned about the potential loss of sovereignty over foreign affairs and defence to the EU under the EU constitution should be far more worried about the loss of such sovereignty to the United States?
Mr. Hoon: I simply do not accept that. Obviously, the views of the United Kingdom and of the United States closely coincide on a great number of important defence and security issues. Therefore, it is vital that we can operate alongside the United States, our key defence ally in NATO, and, indeed, bilaterally. The United Kingdom offers expertise, defence capability and advice, which is valued by the United States, as is currently being demonstrated in Iraq.
Llew Smith (Blaenau Gwent): On the question of military co-operation with the United States, did the Secretary of State read the article in the Independent on Sunday, which showed that a British company, BNFL,
which is owned by taxpayers, is seeking contracts to develop America's next generation of nuclear weapons of mass destruction? If that is the case, does he agree that, in doing so, we would be in breach of article I and article VI of the non-proliferation treaty, to which we and the United States are signatories?
Mr. Hoon: Obviously the nature of the work entered into by BNFL depends entirely on its judgment as to business opportunities, but I agree with my hon. Friend to this extent—it is important that the BNFL board ensures that all its business activities comply with the United Kingdom's nuclear non-proliferation obligations.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex): Ignoring the anti-American sentiment of the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), does the Secretary of State agree that the coherence that the NATO structure has brought to the command and control systems that have so benefited the defence of this country for many years is in danger of being undermined by a lack of coherence on the part of some of our European partners? Does he agree that the call from Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany and France for a separate defence structure is hugely unwelcome and likely to be very damaging to the coherence of NATO?
Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman is correct, and that is why the Government have made clear our unwillingness to accept the Tervuren proposals, as they are known, and why we have emphasised repeatedly the importance of the primacy of NATO command and control in delivering precisely the benefits to European coherence that were set out by the hon. Gentleman.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston): What assessment does the Secretary of State make of the contribution that the proposed armaments capability agency would make to building capacity in Europe, because the question is not whether we work independently of the United States or not, but what capacity Europe and the UK have to be able to do so?
Mr. Hoon: I have repeatedly made clear the importance to the United Kingdom of ensuring that European allies can contribute effectively, specifically to NATO operations, but also to other European operations where NATO is not engaged. That means developing European military capabilities. The agency is designed to achieve that, to identify existing gaps in capability and to recommend ways in which those gaps might best be filled. That is why the United Kingdom has been such a strong supporter of the agency.
Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk): Whether our armed forces can or cannot operate independently of the United States obviously will depend on our resources. How will the Secretary of State fund the necessary investment required to enable us to operate alongside, let alone independently of, the United States? He talks about the massive amount of investment needed for new technology, but we are now told that the two new carriers will be smaller than anticipated and that there will be a reduction in the numbers of the joint strike fighter aircraft. New Labour, like old Labour, is
basically about defence cuts. Even the Department's own accounts—for the second year running—only receive a qualified certificate from Sir John Bourn, the Comptroller and Auditor General. If they were the accounts of the Secretary of State's political association, it would have called in the receiver by now.
Mr. Hoon: I have made clear to the House repeatedly—I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman seems to have overlooked it—that recent announcements about the amounts available for defence demonstrate that we have the largest planned increase in spending in more than 20 years. The huffing and puffing that he brings to the Dispatch Box might be taken a little more seriously if he and his Front-Bench colleagues were able categorically to state that they would match those spending plans. We have not heard them make any specific contribution to that effect. This is an opportunity for them to say that they will match those spending plans pound for pound.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |