| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend) (Lab): It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire). He is quite right that there is a real debate about resources and their proper application, and he cited the carrier programme as an example of that. I hold a different view from his on the programme, because I think that the Government have essentially got things right, but that does not mean that we should not discuss such important matters on the Floor of the House.
I caution the hon. Gentleman not to put too much confidence in the extra money that the shadow Secretary of State is pledging for defence. If he was listening carefully—I am sure that he was—he would know that the extra money was predicated on savings.
I have to say that we used to say the same thing when we were in opposition. Although it is plausible and gets one out of the difficulties of having to make the hard decisions that confront Governments, the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman did not say whether the new money would be spent once the savings had been made or before. As he knows, if the money is spent before the savings are made, that will eventually be a burden on the taxpayer or come through in inflationary pressures within the UK economy.
Before I say anything more, I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Iain Wright) on an excellent maiden speech. I welcome him as a colleague to the northern group of Labour MPs. I was particularly taken by the tribute that he paid to his predecessor, somebody I liked and admired very much and went drinking with often—Mr. Ted Leadbitter.
I was taken by the fact, and it shows great promise in a new Member, that my hon. Friend was able to list a number of the excellent pubs in Hartlepool and seemed to know them well. There is one habit that I hope my hon. Friend will not take over from Ted. Ted was great company and a very engaging man, but when it came to getting his round in, he was—how does one put it kindly?—not to be found at the forefront. If there was a round of four people, he would be sixth or seventh to get the drinks.
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1095
I welcome my hon. Friend here and I know that others will welcome him for who he is and will also welcome him for who he is not. The maiden speech was an excellent contribution, and he was particularly right to make reference to unemployment. Had that speech been made 10 years ago, or indeed when I at the same age made my maiden speech in 1983, he would have had to speak of the scourge of unemployment and the effect that it was having on our constituencies. The fact that he did not have to do so reflects great credit on the achievements of our Government since 1997.
I want to identify myself with the tributes that have been paid by the Secretary of State and the Opposition spokesmen for the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to our armed forces and their families. I say that on my behalf but also on behalf of the community that I represent. All Tyneside Members know of the close links between our constituencies and the infantry, artillery, marines and Royal Navy.
In the debate we are taking a strategic look at our armed services in the world. I accept that the Secretary of State concentrated his remarks on the Army and the situation in Iraq; it could not have been otherwise. However, he did not refer to our strategic nuclear deterrent, although others have referred to it. I remember arguing the case for and against the Trident programme with the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) as it was being embarked on some 20 years ago. The hon. Gentleman thought that it was a good thing and would defend the country; I thought it was a waste of money then and I have to say that I still think it is a waste of money. Whatever the Trident programme has done to our country, it has most certainly consumed a large amount of money, duplicating a capacity that NATO already had. We should have spent the money on supplementing the conventional forces that are available to NATO. It is the case for conventional defence within that strategic framework that I really want to make. Before I do so, may I endorse something that another Opposition Member said about the middle east peace process?
I believe passionately that we must engage with that process and bring others to do that, too. I mean that generally, but also specifically with regard to the United States of America. If anyone can drive the process forward, the United States Government can. To those who complain about American engagement in the middle east, I gently say that American isolationism would be far worse and mean that we could not make progress.
I support the Government's approach and I especially welcome the renewed naval programme. Now that the costs of building Trident have been met, we can have a naval programme, which sits in the context of what we hope to achieve in the world. It has been well thought through. The carrier programme and the landing ship logistics are right. It is also essential to renew the fleet auxiliaries because some of the ships are 30 years old and older. Renewal was delayed because the money was spent on Trident and there were other, more pressing needs for it. However, it cannot be delayed for long. If we are to play an out-of-region role that relies on ships, the ships must be resupplied, refuelled and re-equipped.
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1096
The programme is so ambitious that it will require all the capacity that is currently available in the United Kingdom. In work load peaks next year and the following year, we will need something like twice our current engineering capacity. After that, as the carrier programme comes on stream, we will need approximately two and a half times our current productive capacity to provide the carriers for the Royal Navy. I believe that they should be provided, but serious issues must be considered.
Let me comment on a matter of detail that is of great interest to my constituents. The Secretary of State has given a welcome pledge that the work will be done in the United Kingdom. In his winding-up speech, will the Minister of State confirm that the assurance extends to fabricated components for the vessels, the military afloat reach and sustainability—MARS—programme and the fleet auxiliaries?
The programme that we have set ourselves poses great challenges to the Ministry of Defence, the departments that deal with procurement and the industry. The Government are feeling their way towards an approach that is called "alliancing" and trying to ensure that the best use is made of all the possible facilities—some are privately owned—in the procurement process.
Getting it wrong would lead to a National Audit Office report that would dwarf previous reports. I asked someone who knows about such matters whether there had ever been a favourable NAO report on a major item of defence procurement. Nobody could think of one but that does not mean that we should continue to repeat the process and have another damaging report.
I urge my Front-Bench colleagues to take a close interest in the public policy issues that surround the important matters that we are considering and ensure that we have an industrial strategy that does more than assume that individual bits of equipment can be bought as if they were regular items that are purchased off the shelf. The huge capital programme needs careful thought and management. I urge a co-operative rather than a confrontational or competitive approach to the industry.
4.48 pm
Pete Wishart (North Tayside) (SNP): This is the first time that I have taken part in a defence debate and I have thoroughly enjoyed it. I greatly enjoyed the excellent maiden speech of our new colleague, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Iain Wright). I do not know if he is especially keen to emulate the colourful career of his immediate predecessor, but he strikes me as the sort of chap who knows the difference between his guacamole and his mushy peas.
I shall confine my remarks to my local regiment, the Black Watch. Our debate is about defence in the world and, after the Secretary of State's statement, it appears that the regiment will undertake much more of that particular task. The Black Watch was founded in my constituency in a little town called Aberfeldy on the banks of the Tay almost 300 years ago. My constituents therefore have a great association with the regiment.
My constituency is one of the major recruiting areas for the Black Watch. Of course, it goes without saying that there is a great admiration and respect for the most difficult task that they do on behalf of all of us
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1097
throughout the United Kingdom. I need not tell the Minister that a great chill will go through forces' homes tonight across Tayside and Fife when the implications of what has been suggested in the statement are worked out later this evening.
There has been a lot of talk about the Black Watch this week. In fact, we cannot escape from it—every time that we turn on a television set or read a newspaper, there is analysis of what the role of the Black Watch will be, where the troops may or may not be deployed and what sort of task they may or may not be asked to perform. At last, thankfully, after a week of speculation, the Secretary of State has had the guts to come to the House and tell it to us straight. We should be grateful to him for that at least.
It has now been confirmed that the Black Watch will be deployed to the American sector. That significantly raises the stakes and our involvement in the Iraq conflict, and it raises questions about what sort of task the Black Watch will be asked to do. To take that decision without the full authority of the House on a substantive debate and vote is entirely wrong. The public expect us to take such a vote; it is what they think we do. When we significantly escalate our involvement in the Iraq war, I am sure that the public would like to think that the House would have a proper debate and vote at the end of the day.
My first and probably only concern is for the brave young men whom we are asking to perform that new and dangerous task. Those young men will now be put at greater risk, but for what? My heart also goes out to the families who have been waiting for news and confirmation of that redeployment for the past week. I want to echo some of the remarks made in the earlier statement. The way that the Government have dealt with the redeployment has been nothing short of scandalous. Forces' families have been waiting anxiously for news about the redeployment, but the Government have used spin and prevaricated on the issue. We all knew what would happen. I knew last Friday night, when I was contacted by the media on several occasions and asked for my response to the redeployment. If the media knew on Friday and Saturday night, someone must have told them—they do not get these things from fresh air—and what I heard on Friday night was almost entirely accurate given what we heard today.
We heard the Secretary of State's non-statement on Monday, which was significant for only one thing: he let the cat out the bag in response to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge). The alarm bells started to ring for me several weeks ago, when forces' families were phoning my office and talking about a further deployment and a further tour of duty for the Black Watch. There were all sorts of sinister rumours then about the Black Watch being deployed to Falluja or central Baghdad, but, thankfully, that has not happened. When I raised those issues, the Ministry of Defence reassured me that nothing was planned for the Black Watch and that its troops would be home in time. Such faith was put into those reassurances that we organised a homecoming parade for the Black Watch in Perth in the next few weeks. It now looks as though we will have to put away the bunting and flags for a few weeks.
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1098
When the Prime Minister rose to his feet yesterday and said that the Black Watch will be home for Christmas, that was a pledge, and we will hold him to that promise. I was disappointed that nothing was mentioned in the statement about when the Black Watch would return. I was also disappointed that no clarification was given: the Secretary of State did not say unequivocally that that would happen. [Interruption.] Does the Minister of State want to intervene?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |