| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Blunt: I have served under the right hon. Gentleman's chairmanship of the Defence Committee, and the document to which I put my name does not quite bear out his suggestion that it is largely supportive of the White Paper, given that it states:
"We are disappointed that a policy document that could have far reaching implications has been presented with little or no detail . . . We are not convinced that an essentially reactive approach to the defence of the UK homeland is satisfactory . . . We are left wondering whether the Defence White Paper is properly set in the strategic context of Britain's security circumstances".
Given that it contains those sentences, the right hon. Gentleman is a little over-kind to the Ministry of Defence. Our document merits a better and closer reading than the document that first generated it, the defence White Paper itself.
Mr. George: Yes, I thank the hon. Gentleman. May I say how distressed I am that he has now left the Defence Committee?
Mr. Blunt: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that it would be reasonable to draw the House's attention to the fact that I have not left the Defence Committee. That is a matter for the resolution of the House. Such a motion may be tabled in the next few weeks because of the responsibilities that I have taken up as an Opposition Whip, but that is, of course, a matter for the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair or a point of order.
Mr. George: Which Chair are you referring to, Madam Deputy Speaker? All I can say is that I believe that it is incompatible to be a member of the Whips Office and a member of the Select Committee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, having served on the Committee for some time, will look for pastures new and allow those who can devote all their energies to the Defence Committee to take his place.
Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West) (Con): Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There were two Parliamentary Private Secretaries—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I remind hon. Members that the debate is time-limited and that many hope to catch my eye?
Mr. George: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The point that I would make to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) is that I was four and a half minutes into my speech and I was about to unfold the other, more critical arguments, but his eagerness and hostility to the Government were so overwhelming that he was not prepared to wait. The idea that I have been nice to Defence Ministers is a matter of amusement to me and, I am sure, to the Minister of State.
In the Committee report, we considered two themes that run through the White Paper. I shall come later to how the armed forces contribute to the Government's broader political objectives and how the rest of the Government support the armed forces, but I want to consider first how we discharge our responsibilities to equip and resource our armed forces for the task that we expect them to do. I am conscious of the fact that we are debating defence in the world and not procurement, so more about that later.
We are concerned about the procurement process and the failures in procurement that the National Audit Office regularly details. Its report vindicated what we said a week ago, and I received the full venom of the counter-attack from the Ministry of Defence. We are right to invest in high-tech equipment for the future, but I am a civilian who believes that boots on the ground are
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1077
absolutely necessary. The Committee truly believes that there is excessive devotion to equipment and the tail of the military. Yes, we need cooks and logisticians, but the idea that we can have an army with about 25,000 infantry given all the commitments that we are obliged to undertake is something that I find weird.
I will take no advice from the Conservatives on how to cut regiments, having gone through the process of "Options for Change" and written a book on how my regiment—the Staffords—survived the Conservative Government. The idea of merging battalions, whichever Government created the famous M4 regiment of amalgamations, disqualifies anyone who sits on the Conservative Front Bench from pontificating too strongly.
I can criticise the Government, and I will, but it is disingenuous of the Opposition to do so.
It is bonkers to eliminate regiments. It must not be done, and surely it is within the wit and the intelligence of the Ministry of Defence to say yes to our request. I sense that the Secretary of State is moving towards retaining a regimental tradition that goes beyond allowing regiments just to produce a magazine and have a cap badge to having something that is identifiably and seriously regimental, within the framework of a broader organisation. If that can be done, some of the criticism will be reduced.
Patrick Mercer (Newark) (Con): Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge the outstanding example of the five regiments of foot guards that have served the Crown loyally for 300 years, which will be allowed to retain their identity within the overall formation of the Brigade of Guards? Does he agree that regiments like his and mine, the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment, should be allowed to copy such an example?
Mr. George: I asked the Ministry of Defence to tell me the regiments and the units to which the Army's decision makers belong. I want to be sure that no special favour is given by the great and the good to their regiments. There is no reason why anyone should feel upset. Why bust two battalions in Scotland? They could be added to a Mercian regiment because far more Scots live in England than in Scotland. I do not want any regiment eliminated. It is possible to reach a compromise, and I hope that the Ministry will do that.
We have done much and there are many things that the Ministry is working towards, much of which I applaud, but people do not have to listen to me to find out what is happening. All they have to do is read the report. If the hon. Member for Reigate does that, he will see that we have been critical, and I remain critical. When I was a given a little—what is it called?—interview without coffee—
Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk) (Con): A bollocking.
Mr. George: Yes, a polite talking to. No names mentioned—
Madam Deputy Speaker:
Order. The right hon. Gentleman's time is up.
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1078
3.37 pm
Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford) (LD): It is a great honour to follow the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), the Chairman of the Select Committee. I am sure we will go to bed tonight wondering how his story ended.
Mr. Bruce George: I was about to say that it was not my job, or the Committee's job, to make life happy for Ministers. Our job is to call it as it is, not as they would like it or necessarily how we would like it.
Mr. Keetch: I am grateful to the Chairman for that.
I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the members of our armed forces who serve us so well throughout the country and, of course, their families, both at home and abroad. We have heard much about the history of the various Army regiments, but I want to mention something about the Royal Navy.
Today is Trafalgar day. It is 199 years ago today that the British fleet saw off the French and Spanish fleets off Cape Trafalgar. Today I was privileged to spend time with members of the Trafalgar weekend celebration committee. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and Bruno Peek, who are planning next year's events to mark the 200th anniversary of that important date in our history.
I cannot go further without commenting on what the Secretary of State for Defence said in his statement concerning those of us who oppose the war. Although we accept that the Chamber is political, he appeared to be saying that the Liberal Democrats, his right hon. and hon. Friends, a number of Conservative Members and the millions upon millions of people in this country who did not support the war wanted Saddam Hussein to remain in power. That is outrageous.
I remind the House of what the Prime Minister said just a few weeks before the vote that took us into war when he said that Saddam Hussein could stay in power. He said:
"I detest his regime—I hope most people do—but even now, he could save it by complying with the UN's demand. Even now, we are prepared to go the extra step".—[Official Report, 25 February 2003; Vol. 400, c. 124.]
In other words, the Prime Minister accepted just a few weeks before the campaign started that he was prepared for Saddam Hussein to stay in place as leader of that country. I hope that when the Secretary of State reads his remarks in Hansard tomorrow, he chooses to apologise to me, my leader and the millions of people whom he insulted.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |