| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex) (Con): I thank the Secretary of State, through gritted teeth, for allowing us sight of his statement every bit of 35 minutes before he rose to make it. I join him in his praise for, and commendation of, the magnificent work done by our armed forces, which does such huge credit and brings such distinction to our country.
We welcome some of the steps that are to be taken in the rebalancing of our forces for the threats and operations of today and tomorrow, and we accept the need for hard choices to deal with some of the legacy issues. We also recognise the importance of network-
21 Jul 2004 : Column 350
enabled capability as a next step in the development of the armed forces. But, however the Secretary of State tries to present it today, this announcement is essentially about cuts. The servicemen and women whose battalions are to be disbanded, planes grounded and ships scrapped are the same men and women who bailed out the Government over their dismal failures and incompetence at the time of foot and mouth disease, and bailed out the Home Office over the fire strike. These are the same people who brought peace to Sierra Leone and Bosnia, saved Sierra Leone from almost certain self-destruction, helped to secure peace and good order in East Timor, brought freedom to Kosovo, helped push the Taliban out of Afghanistan, and liberated Iraq and brought an increasing security to its people. Some of them are fighting a largely unsung battle in Basra today, in a very difficult environment.
These young men and women, at all levels of all three services, will feel themselves to have been betrayed, politically and morally. Today the nation will be dismayed that its armed forces, whom it loves and admires, who have repeatedly been deployed at the drop of the hat all over the world on the Government's instructions, and who have brought such distinction and success to Britons internationally, should be treated in such an underhand way.
Most of the current difficulties in defence are entirely of the Government's making. The promise of a strategic defence review to restructure our forces for the post-cold war world was undermined by a defence budget reduced in real terms. The SDR was never properly costed or properly funded. When the new chapter was written after 11 September, as the Labour-dominated Defence Committee has pointed out,
"ambition continued to run ahead of delivery".
Only a few weeks ago, the Select Committee lambasted the Ministry of Defence for doing away with existing equipment before replacement systems had been procured and tested, failing to tackle manpower shortages, and underestimating the importance of boots on the ground. Does the Secretary of State deny that these latest cutbacks will seriously damage our military capability and our ability to project power for several years, while we await the arrival of largely unproven technology?
Despite all the Secretary of State's extravagant claims to be increasing it, there is in reality a deep crisis in the defence budget. According to the latest report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the defence budget is lower in real terms today than before Labour came to power in 1997. Is it not clear that the defence budget is decreasing, not increasing? If it is not decreasing, why did the Chancellor promise £31.8 billion for defence in 2004–05 in his 2002 spending review, but only £29.8 billion in his latest—a real-terms cut of 6.44 per cent.? Under this Government, the defence budget has sunk so deeply into the red that the equipment overspend is in excess of £1 billion per annum. That is hardly a sparkling example of the efficiency of smart procurement.
Today, is the Secretary of State not taking his most reckless step so far—cutting tanks, ships, aircraft and men to make immediate savings, while making vague promises that new weapons will be delivered at some point in the dim and distant future? Is this not the worst form of post-dated cheque?
21 Jul 2004 : Column 351
The Government parrot the mantra that numbers of platforms do not count, because modern warships are so much more powerful. Yet the same warship cannot be in two places at once, and the fewer the platforms the greater the proportionate loss when one is damaged or disabled. Does the Secretary of State accept that with the cuts in the frigates and destroyers, the fleet will not be able to fulfil the broad range of tasks assigned to it, which it performs so brilliantly with so few ships? How will the minehunters be able to continue the many tasks that they have been assigned? Can the Secretary of State confirm that only one carrier at a time will ever be in commission in future, and that without proper air cover? At the very least, the Government should give the Navy what it wants, serious land-attack capability for the reduced number of Type 45 destroyers, by fitting them with the tactical Tomahawk cruise missile.
We welcome the work that is being done to modernise the way in which the Army organises itself in this expeditionary age in which it has been so regularly and invaluably used. However, we consider the reduction in the size of the Army in general, and the infantry in particular, from a manpower target of 108,500 to the present size of 103,500 and a proposed established strength of 102,000—a cut of 6,500 men—to be extremely unwise. All the evidence and all the experience shows that declining infantry numbers will leave less time for vital training to keep up essential skills and less time for people to spend with their families, and will inevitably lead to an increase in the depressing cycle of overstretch as the infantry struggles with the many tasks that the Government give it.
Superficially, the proposals for large regiments have some logic and may appear attractive. Indeed, there is every reason for the Army to increase its usability, and to modernise the way in which it organises itself in this expeditionary age. My party believes, however, that at the same time we must at all costs retain that which makes the British soldier the extraordinary animal he is. The Secretary of State must remember that in these regiments are some of the qualities that set the British Army apart from all others, and that therefore the significance of the regimental system must be retained in any restructuring that takes place. All that these regiments stand for, and all that they have given over the years in the fighting efficiency of the Army, is not to be lightly tossed away as it has been this afternoon.
Does not the Government's astonishingly keen desire to present themselves as a wholly owned subsidiary of the American armed forces, and their attempt to keep pace with our most regular coalition partner, threaten some of the British military's more excellent traditional strengths? And what about homeland defence? How many civil contingency units are organised, manned, equipped and trained to deal now with a major terrorist incident in the UK?
Does the removal of responsibility for ground-based air defence from the Royal Air Force regiment to the Army not sound the death knell for a regiment dedicated to the defence of valuable air assets? Will not the accelerated scrapping of the Jaguar fleet deprive the Royal Air Force of an invaluable, cost-effective, recently upgraded ground attack aircraft? Over what time scale will the substantial cuts in manpower take place in the RAF and when does he expect to follow up the closure of RAF Coltishall with the announcement of further RAF airfield closures?
21 Jul 2004 : Column 352
However powerful new ships may be, they cannot be in two places at once. However smart new systems may be, they cannot replace troops on the ground. As the implications of what the Secretary of State has begun to announce today sink in, will it not seem extraordinary to the British people that there should be such deep cuts across the board when our armed forces have never been so busy or in such demand, and at a time of such an accelerated threat?
The incoming Conservative Government—[Interruption.] The incoming Conservative Government will fully fund and equip our armed forces to carry out their agreed tasks and commitments. We will see to it that order and competence are restored to the management of defence and particularly to the business of procurement and logistics. If we are required to increase our defence spending, increase it we will.
Mr. Hoon: I am delighted to see from his closing observation that the hon. Gentleman has not lost his sense of humour. What he has lost in the course of his remarks today is any credibility. If he is going to challenge the Government's spending plans and how those plans will meet defence needs in future, he has to say how he will fill the hole in spending created by his shadow Chancellor, who has made it clear that the Conservative party's spending plans involve a freeze in defence spending. Under its plans, by the time the substantial increase that the Government will commit to defence expenditure reached its conclusion, there would already be a gap of £2.6 billion.
From the hon. Gentleman's comments today, and earlier today on the radio, it seems that he is committed to reversing all the adjustments that we propose to make in defence capabilities. How much will that cost? What kind of calculations have the Opposition done on those arrangements? If he is to talk to the men and women of the armed forces about their future, he has to explain where the money is coming from. He has to explain to his shadow Chancellor what it means exactly to freeze expenditure—not the substantial increase in spending that the Government propose.
That is a serious problem for the hon. Gentleman. His own leader, when asked how much he would spend on defence, said:
"I can't tell you how much we will be spending on defence".
He did not know. The shadow Chancellor says that there will be a freeze in defence spending. What has been the reaction of the hon. Gentleman? He says that the plans are outrageous. What is the policy of the Conservative party? What exactly is it saying to the men and women of Britain's armed forces?
It is no good Conservative Members coming here and ritually saying how much they support the men and women of the armed forces. They have to explain how they are going to achieve that. The men and women of the armed forces live and operate in the real world. They have a real job to do with real equipment. It is no good coming along with fantasy figures, pretending that all these things can be restored, when there is a huge hole in Conservative spending plans.
21 Jul 2004 : Column 353
I would have hoped that, after three years as Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Gentleman realised the difference between out-turn spending in defence—the money that has been spent on operations—and planned expenditure. I would have thought that, during those three years, the excellent civil servants in the Ministry of Defence would have explained that to him but unfortunately he did not appear to have learned the lesson.
One of the difficulties for Conservative Members is that, if they attack the proposals for restructuring our armed forces, they are attacking the Army board's proposals. I accept responsibility for these changes. I think that they are good for the men and women who are serving in our armed forces, but those who are tempted to attack the proposals need to explain to those men and women why the Army board has recommended those proposals, in the interests of the men and women of the armed forces and their families. That is vital to future capability—not dwelling in the past, not existing in some idyll of the past, which Conservative Members seem to believe is appropriate in respect of defence, but working out what is important for the future of the men and women in our armed forces.
The same arguments apply to each of the points that the hon. Gentleman made in relation to the Royal Navy. The proposals are strongly supported by the First Sea Lord, who recognises the importance of modernising our armed forces. There are similar changes in relation to the Royal Air Force.
The hon. Gentleman has come to the House over and over again and talked about overstretch of the infantry, but the pressure points in relation to our Army personnel are precisely in the areas that we intend to strengthen. We have a reduced requirement in Northern Ireland for four infantry battalions. We will use those posts to reinforce existing infantry units and to ensure that the logisticians, the engineers, the signallers and the intelligence people, all of whom have been under huge pressure in recent years, have more resources at their disposal. That is an entirely sensible arrangement. For him to talk about cutting infantry battalions as if that will add to overstretch is nonsense. If he thought about it for half a second, he would realise that.
What we see here is a feeble Opposition. If they ran our armed forces, they would end up sailing wooden ships. We would have squadrons of Sopwith Camels. Frankly, we would still have the cavalry. Those are the kinds of armed forces that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would visit upon his country.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |