| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
SaBRE Project
4. Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore): If he will make a statement on the work of the SaBRE—supporting Britain's reservists and employers—project in Wales to secure the release of employees for service in the reserve forces. [135546]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): The supporting Britain's reservists and employers campaign has been vigorously pursued in Wales. Approximately 500 employers have been contacted and presentations have also been made to the Welsh Assembly, the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and the Chartered Management Institute. During this first year, the SaBRE campaign team has been able to answer employers' questions and concerns and has established a help line to offer advice to employers, who can also make contact via the internet, on www.sabre.mod.uk.
Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore): I thank my hon. Friend for his response and for the specific interest that he has shown in the work of SaBRE in Wales. I need not remind him that south Wales has been fertile ground for recruitment to the regular armed forces and the recruitment of reservists; as such, there is a particular draw upon the reserves and resources of families and employers. Will he join me in congratulating the excellent work of employers throughout south Wales? I look forward to welcoming my hon. Friend to Ogmore and Bridgend to see examples of that work.
Mr. Caplin: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his relationship with employers in his constituency both large and small, particularly Sony and Ford, which have made a considerable contribution to our reservist force. I am indeed looking forward to going to Wales later this month.
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury): I congratulate the SaBRE project in Wales, but does the Minister accept that one of its advantages is that a fully formed unit—the Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers—has been sent from Wales, because when soldiers are with a
formed unit, with their own officers and senior NCOs, not only are the soldiers happier, but the community is better able to support them? Another example of that is the formed platoon of the 3rd Battalion, Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment in my own constituency. Does the Minister accept that the lessons of such examples are that we do not have enough territorials, and that if the Government want to go on using more and more of them, they will have to expand the Territorial Army again?
Mr. Caplin: Two things occur to me about the hon. Gentleman's question. He is right to say that the preferred option would always be to send a full brigade—but the reservists and the Territorial Army make a significant impact on the specialities that our armed forces require, and that will be the case for some time to come.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex): Reservists depend on a measure of Government expenditure, so will the hon. Gentleman invite his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to correct the record? The one spending programme that we have pledged to match is defence spending, and he should put that right before he says anything else to the House. Secondly, Army overstretch means that many employers are fed up with the frequency with which their Territorial Army employers are called up; some are even making membership of the TA or the reservists a bar to employment. The full-time reserve service therefore plays a vital role. Why, then, have the Government frozen recruitment of full-time reservists at just over 1,000, when the Regular Army trained strength is short of more than 3,800 people, and thousands more are unfit for deployment? Is that not another example of emergency in-year cuts as the Minister's Department is gripped by a financial crisis, with defence commitments outstripping resources, and Labour failing the armed forces?
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): He'll be a reserve next week.
Mr. Caplin: As always, my hon. Friend has beaten me to it.
I very much enjoyed the contribution of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) today, and I hope that he will be able to make a similar contribution from the Dispatch Box in a month's time. But how can he say what he has just said? He has told the House that he wants to support fully the defence programme that this Labour Government have set out, but he said nothing about any of the other programmes, and he said nothing about that in his speech to the Tory party conference. [Hon. Members: "Read it out."] I have to watch these things, you know—[Interruption.] I watched the hon. Gentleman's speech with interest. On the other point that he raised, it is short-sighted if employers do not want to employ reservists. I find that idea astonishing, and I have spoken to a number of employers in the past week, and will be seeing a number of others in the coming weeks.
European Security and Defence Policy
6. Mr. Andrew Rosindell (Romford): When he last met the US Defence Secretary to discuss the European security and defence policy. [135548]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I last met the US Defence Secretary at the NATO ministerial meeting on 7 October, when we discussed a number of defence issues including European security and defence policy.
Mr. Rosindell : Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the vital role that the United States has played in the defence not only of the United Kingdom but of the whole of western Europe? Does he not agree that in the long term, the efforts, finance and energies that we put into the European defence and security policy can only detract from the support that we have received from the United States, particularly the NATO alliance?
Mr. Hoon: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's first proposition but not with his second. There is no reason why support for NATO and support for the European defence policy need be mutually inconsistent. Indeed, as the United States has recognised in its approval of the Berlin plus arrangements, the two are complementary: by improving European defence capabilities, we are also improving the ability of European nations to contribute to NATO—something that the United States would like to see.
Mr. John Smith (Vale of Glamorgan): My right hon. Friend is of course right—the US Defence Secretary supports a European security and defence policy, as does every other NATO country. In fact, the only mainstream political party within those countries that sees the ESDP as a threat to NATO is the crazy lot on the Opposition Benches. Our defence is not safe in their hands, until they give up this obsession with bashing Europe.
Mr. Hoon: I am reluctant to disagree with my hon. Friend, but I am sure that there must be an obscure political party somewhere in western Europe which, having lost two general elections and had a succession of leaders, takes the same view as the British Conservatives.
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde): On the matters that the right hon. Gentleman discussed with the American Defence Secretary, can he enlighten the House as to the progress made on the release to the United Kingdom of the full technology underpinning the joint strike fighter, and did they discuss the outcome of the Rand Europe report, which illustrated the feasibility of building that aircraft in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Hoon: We certainly discussed the joint strike fighter and the importance of a full mutual exchange of information on its development. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that those discussions continue.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud): Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, when he meets the US Defence Secretary, he will take up with him the continuing use of British bases, so that we are absolutely clear about the Americans' future plans for those bases? In particular, we must ensure that both countries work together, rather than their not being entirely of one voice, as seemed to happen during the last conflict.
Mr. Hoon: The subject of US bases in western Europe was discussed at the NATO ministerials.
Surface Fleet
7. Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): If he will make a statement on the future of the surface fleet. [135549]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The Royal Navy surface fleet of the future will continue to make an effective contribution towards the United Kingdom's defence mission. We continue to modernise our armed forces in response to the changing strategic environment. The Royal Navy is receiving significant investment to enhance capabilities.
Mr. Heath : Part of that significant investment is the two carriers that form a key part not only of the fleet's future, but of the Government's expeditionary strategy, yet we are told that they are under threat. Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that budgetary insufficiencies will not reduce the role, effectiveness or specifications of either, or both, of the new carriers?
Mr. Ingram: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets the idea that the carriers are under threat. We have begun the third stage of the assessment phase, which is excellent news for the Royal Navy and for the UK shipbuilding industry. The programme remains on course, and the maturity of design and the capability that the carriers will deliver form part of the overall evaluation. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman awaits the next phase, reads what we have said about the current one and sees how matters develop. In terms of the naval programme, a little mature thinking on his part and that of his party would not go amiss.
David Cairns (Greenock and Inverclyde): I welcome that answer from my right hon. Friend. The news that this very important contract is going ahead will go a long way towards allaying some of the fears of my constituents who work in shipbuilding on the Clyde. Does he agree that through this contract and the Type 45 orders, this Government have not only established the best possible defence for the country, but given British shipbuilding, which has suffered for many years, the best possible news?
Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. In the next decade or so, the Royal Navy will take delivery of two new aircraft carriers and associated aircraft, several new assault ships, a new class of fleet submarines within the Astute class, highly deployable Type 45 destroyers, new survey ships and much
improved support shipping and strategic lift capability. That is good news for the Royal Navy and the other armed forces, and for our shipbuilding industry.
Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West): Does the Minister agree that the fact that we go on renewing and replacing our surface fleet should not be news? Can he give us an indication of the costs of the carrier programme, and can he say whether the Anglo-French carriers were built to take French planes as well as British planes when in operation?
Mr. Ingram: I pointed out in my earlier answer that the design relative to the capability that is required in the programme evolves, and I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be only too well aware of that. As to the relationship with the French, if we can deliver a design in which France is also interested, we can join with them to ensure that their capabilities improve to the same extent—and strength—as ours.
Rachel Squire (Dunfermline, West): Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have delivered the largest warship-building programme for more than 30 years? Does he also agree that the Rosyth dockyard has delivered, to high standards on cost and on time, the refit and repair of our current surface fleet, and that maintaining such skills is a vital asset to this country? Will he do his utmost to ensure, particularly with respect to the future aircraft carrier, that there is no delay to the commencement of the work that is vital to Rosyth's future?
Mr. Ingram: I agree with my hon. Friend about the role of Rosyth, which has provided tremendous service to this country's armed forces, particularly the Royal Navy, over many years. I am sure that that will continue in the years ahead. I understand the concerns about the need to remain on programme in respect of the development of the carriers. All the partners involved in the design, structure and build programme will be all too well aware of the way in which the process works. I cannot give the absolute guarantee that my hon. Friend requests, but I pay tribute to the Rosyth dockyard for all the work that it has done in the past.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East): Is it not a fact that the size of the new aircraft carriers is going to be reduced by between a third and a half; that the number of Type 45 destroyers is going to be reduced on the planned programme; that the number of Astute submarines will be reduced; and that in future the number of Royal Fleet Auxiliary replacement vessels that are supposed to support the carriers will also be reduced? Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State told the Royal United Services Institute in June that the number of units and platforms that the armed forces had was no longer significant? That sort of spin might be acceptable in political campaigning, but it is surely unacceptable in military campaigning where our servicemen's lives are on the line.
Mr. Ingram: Nice rhetoric, but rather removed from the truth. What my right hon. Friend said in his speech earlier this year was absolutely accurate. It is all about capability and effect. That is where we seek to deliver,
and we define those concepts on the basis of the best military advice. Ministers do not deliver it in the way implied by the hon. Gentleman: we have to examine the size of the programme, look where the capability lies and then match the two. No Government operate any differently from that—and previous Conservative Governments, of course, operated in exactly the same way. We have to define capability in the light of the new emerging threats. We debated all that only a few days ago, and the sort of questions that the hon. Gentleman has just asked were all dealt with then.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |