| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Jeremy Corbyn: The next Parliament will be faced with the question of the future of Trident nuclear missiles and their replacement. Next summer, the non-proliferation treaty review conference will take place in New York. What is the view of the Conservative party on the replacement of Trident or on making a statement about nuclear disarmament to the NPT conference as a way of bringing about global nuclear disarmament?
Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman can forget the latter proposition. Looking at the future, it is unlikely that Britain would not wish to retain some form of independent nuclear deterrent. That heavy decision will fall on the present Administration. Important decisions will have to be taken over the next year or two as to how they will handle that matter and we shall follow it with interest.
Llew Smith:
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if nuclear weapons are a deterrent, they must by definition deter, and that they can do so only if the so-called enemy
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1067
believes that we are actually going to use them? In what circumstances would he be willing to press the nuclear button?
Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman will have to acknowledge the fact—although he will not want to—that Britain's independent nuclear deterrent has served us, and the world, extremely well.
So, ladies and gentlemen—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear".] I cannot for the life of me remember which Conservative branch I am addressing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I can tell you one thing—they will be getting the same speech.
As I was saying, I find myself in profound but respectful disagreement with the Secretary of State on the question of numbers. Despite the Treasury's insistence, numbers remain, in my view, the crucial issue. Which plane, which ship or which brigade can be in two places at once?
Pete Wishart (North Tayside) (SNP): Can the hon. Gentleman clarify something for me? When the Leader of the Opposition said during the Conservative party conference that he would definitely reverse any decision to cut a Scottish regiment, was he correct? The very next day, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) said on BBC radio that such a reverse could not take place. Who was correct?
Mr. Soames: As is so often the case when something concerns the leader of one's party, we are both correct. What I said and what my right hon. and learned Friend clearly said, too, was that when we come to power next May we will undo the deplorable proposals to amalgamate the King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Royal Scots, and we will ensure that the four regiments of the line are not disbanded. That remains our position.
If, due to a disappointing judgment by the electorate, we were unfortunately not in a position to undo what had been done, we would not be able to carry that out, but if the amalgamations had not taken place, they would not take place under us. As a matter of recorded fact, it is impossible for a regiment to be un-amalgamated after it has been amalgamated.
Can the Black Watch really be in both Basra and Iskandariya? Does not the Secretary of State agree that given the astonishing demands that are being made on our armed forces at this time, any reorganisation must be balanced by the retention of a genuine capability to cope with the unexpected, which history teaches us always happens?
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): Before my hon. Friend moves on from the question of platform numbers, does he agree that it is curious that a Government who are emphasising high technology and reducing the number of Type 45 destroyers that they propose to build are nevertheless refusing to put tactical Tomahawk missiles on those destroyers, despite the fact that all our Navy chiefs are unanimous that we need that for force projection purposes?
Mr. Soames:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is sad that he is not on the Front Bench with us for such
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1068
debates and we miss him a great deal. I cannot remember what he asked me, but if it was about Tactom, I agree with him entirely. It would be more than an aspiration for us to get Tomahawk on the new batch of Type 45s because that would create a formidable piece of kit.
Harry Cohen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Soames: No—[Interruption.] Oh, Harry; of course!
Harry Cohen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he confirm that in the awful event of the Conservative party gaining power at the next election and him becoming Secretary of State for Defence, his Department would not contribute anything towards tax cuts?
Mr. Soames: I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman, but he and I have been friends for many years, so in any event I am sure that what he says is nearly right.
What lessons has the Ministry of Defence learned from the operations in the Balkans, Afghanistan and especially Iraq? What lessons has it learned from the excellent work of the Select Committee on Defence? I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who has served on the Committee for a long time and knows the matter inside out. He summed up the feelings of many of us about cuts to the infantry regiment when he asked on the Floor of the House what idiot had dreamt up this plan.
The Secretary of State should have learned the lesson that numbers matter, especially numbers in the infantry. At a time when there is a considerable danger of terrorism at home and abroad and major military deployments overseas, there can be no military logic or sense in cutting infantry or manpower numbers. It makes no sense to Conservative Members to reduce the number of regular soldiers given that the Army has to be constantly reinforced on operations by an increasing number of our remarkable Territorial Army soldiers—they deserve huge credit, as do their employers. All three services are badly overstretched, and the Secretary of State's proposals can only make matters worse.
Mr. Hoon: I would not want the hon. Gentleman consciously or unconsciously to mislead the House. I made it clear that the manpower of the four infantry battalions will be redistributed in the parts of the Army that are most stretched. I am sure that he did not intend to say that there would be a reduction in numbers, but if he did, he should explain why.
Mr. Soames: There will be manpower reductions in the infantry under the Secretary of State's proposals. He does not understand—I do not know what it is about his make-up that makes him some sort of desert in this regard—that he might find it slightly tricky to persuade loyal people who have adored their lives as infantrymen to transfer to a different arm.
Mr. Soames:
The right hon. Gentleman said that he would transfer people out of the infantry regiments that
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1069
he will foolishly cut so that they become logisticians, sappers or intelligence people. He might well find that they will vote with their feet.
It makes no sense to any of us to reduce numbers at this time. As recently as 7 October, our hyper-interventionist Prime Minister again increased British military commitments by announcing that British troops will form part of a European rapid reaction force to intervene in conflicts in Africa. We look forward to seeing which troops will be sextuple-hatted by taking on that job.
We are in favour of scrapping the arms plot, and we certainly agree unequivocally that there is a need to rebalance so that we can meet the demands of likely operations. The armed forces need to be made more usable, but they must retain their traditional and irreplaceable skills that make them able to fight the high-intensity battle and revert almost immediately to a peacekeeping role. Reducing the size of the Army is deeply foolish and wholly unwarranted.
The cuts will undermine not only the Army. The Chief of the Naval Staff, Admiral Sir Alan West, recently outlined his concerns, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) for highlighting these matters to me when he was dealing with the Navy brief. Alan West said:
"People should be under no illusion . . . with only 25 destroyers and frigates we will be close to the cusp . . . . The reduction in"
"numbers will demand a commensurate reduction in commitments to direct tasks."
The Royal Navy has been bullied into compliance for fear of losing the commitment to build two future aircraft carriers, the Queen Elizabeth and the Prince of Wales. The professional head of the Royal Navy says that
"we are taking risk on risk"
by doing that. I have to tell the Secretary of State that the Government have engaged in a barefaced deception of the British people by falsely claiming that cutting the numbers of ships in the Royal Navy would present no risk.
The proposed cuts to the Royal Air Force will lead to a smaller RAF that is able to deploy ever fewer aircraft from fewer bases. Rather than making the RAF more expeditionary, which I agree is absolutely necessary, the changes, if implemented, will result in a Royal Air Force with a reduced reach arising from dangerous gaps in essential capabilities. How does that fit with the White Paper proposals to create modern expeditionary forces?
The Government are destroying our ability to act with any degree of autonomy in a future conflict. They are gambling on us always having allies to fill the gaps in our defences. They are refusing to recognise the unpredictability of future threats and failing to pay the premium on the most important insurance policy that our country can have: the policy that enables us to deter or defeat those dictators and fanatics who wish to do our country harm.
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1070
Given the increasing frequency with which British troops are called upon to engage in military operations, we owe it to them to ensure that they are properly funded, well trained and fully equipped. However, with all the operations that the armed forces are undertaking and with all the deployments required of them, they are today significantly undermanned, severely overstretched and underfunded.
I shall now turn to funding. I know that the Secretary of State finds the concept of expenditure difficult to understand and a good deal harder to explain. I know that he has had the most profound differences with those in the Treasury—he should not worry about that; they work for the Russians. It is right to put on record my party's spending plans on defence. Under my agreement with the shadow Chancellor and the leader of my party—I am grateful to both for their understanding and support—the next Conservative Government will spend £2.7 billion more on front-line defence than this Government.
The £2.7 billion is made up of £1.1 billion of the cash released by efficiency savings from other Government Departments and £1.6 billion of cash savings from out-sourcing and procurement activities within the Ministry of Defence. Those plans will result in extra cash expenditure of £441 million in 2006–07, £631 million in 2007–08 and enough to allow the reversal of the most debilitating and foolish of this Government's cuts.
The number of operational tours that soldiers are now expected to carry out has had a serious impact on training. That, together with overstretch and undermanning could lead and will lead sooner or later to serious problems in all three services. I should be grateful if the Minister of State, who takes these matters seriously, would tell the House what plans he has to restore the training programme so that the tempo of training, which has enabled our servicemen to perform so well is not in any way diminished.
Both the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Defence have been severely criticised by the Defence Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office for persistently ignoring the lessons learned in previous operations and for unforgivably failing to address serious shortcomings in equipment, procurement and logistics. In particular, the Secretary of State stands guilty of not ensuring that personnel received the equipment that they needed on operations, including in Iraq desert boots and combat gear, flak jackets and, most shamefully given the threat, adequate chemical and biological protection equipment and other critical items. When will the Secretary of State introduce an asset tracking system and what plans has he to improve the performance of the Defence Logistics Organisation and the Defence Procurement Agency? What plans does he further have to deal with the astonishing waste reported in his annual accounts?
Throughout 2002, the Secretary of State blocked all debate about the possible upgrading of the missile tracking station at Royal Air Force Fylingdales, claiming that no request for upgrading had been received from the US Defence Secretary. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) for his help and guidance on the matter. Only when the Secretary of State had received that request did he agree to discuss it, but as with this week's announcement in respect of the US request to provide a
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1071
battle group to reinforce US forces, the Government's response was of course a foregone conclusion. At the time, he said:
"Mr. Rumsfeld's letter contains the undertaking that, if Fylingdales were to be upgraded, and should we desire it, then the US would be prepared to extend missile defence coverage and make missile defence capabilities available to the UK as the evolution of the US system permits, subject to agreement on appropriate political and financial arrangements."—[Official Report, 17 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 46WS.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) in this very debate in January last year specifically raised the question of missile interceptors, seeking to establish whether the Government were prepared to agree to those being stationed on UK soil. The answer was no; that it was too early to discuss the issue. Well, if weekend press reports are correct, the issue is now being actively discussed between London and Washington. We ask the Secretary of State to come clean and tell us where the Government stand. Are they in favour of interceptors being stationed on UK soil or not? If not, why not? If so, what is the state of the negotiations?
It is perhaps a complete coincidence that on Tuesday this week the Secretary of State placed in the Library of the House an annexe on research, development, test and evaluation of ballistic missile defence capabilities and systems to a US-UK memorandum of understanding dated 12 June 2003 regarding ballistic missile defence. It is a cracking good document and I suggest that the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) hurry along there and read it.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |