| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram):
In opening this debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State highlighted the invaluable contribution of our armed forces in helping to make this a better and more secure world. In recent times, they have served with distinction, often with civilian colleagues, in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, and west and central Africa. Despite the wide-ranging views that we have heard this afternoon, one thing is abundantly clear: the whole House is at one in admiring the skill, dedication and sheer professionalism of our servicemen and women. Everyone who has contributed has made that point, and rightly so. We owe all our servicemen and women a debt of gratitude, and our thoughts are with the families of those who have given their lives.
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1112
As my right hon. Friend said, the White Paper that we published in December last year set out our assessment of the security environment and identified the three key challenges that face us in the world. The first is international terrorism, which presents an immediate and very real threat. There may be a range of views as to how we should respond to that threat, but what is not for debate is the fact that the threat exists and the barbarism of the individuals and groups involved.
The second key challenge is the recognition that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, as well as the illegal trade in their associated technology, cannot do other than pose a further threat to global security. It is naive in the extreme, and dangerous, to ignore that reality. The third is the challenge presented by failed and failing states. Those states, characterised by political mismanagement, endemic corruption, economic collapse, and ethnic and religious tensions, have the potential to create desperate humanitarian crises, as well as providing bases and recruiting grounds for terrorism. We should not forget that it was the failed state of Afghanistan that harboured those who carried out the evil attacks on Washington and New York on 11 September 2001.
In July this year, our White Paper set out the future capabilities and reformed force structure that we need to meet the changes in the security environment and threats that we now face. We are determined that we shall continue to have armed forces of the right size and shape, and with the right equipment, to meet the challenges of the future. That is a considerable challenge, but it is a challenge that this Government are determined to rise to. The defence budget is increasing by £3.7 billion over the next three years. That is the longest period of sustained growth in defence spending for more than 20 years. We are committed to investment that takes forward the much-needed modernisation of our armed forces. That is the context in which this debate is set. Let me now deal with some of the points raised today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen) named two serving officers, Colonel Terrington and Colonel James, and said that they were embedded at the Abu Ghraib camp and were responsible for interrogation. I have made it consistently clear that no British personnel were involved in, or had knowledge of, the abuses at Abu Ghraib. I wish that my hon. Friend would take more care before peddling such allegations, which are not based on any fact. From my experience as a Northern Ireland Minister, I know that when names of serving officers, soldiers and other personnel are bandied around so carelessly—even when the allegations are refuted—their lives can be put at risk. Some care is necessary. The facts were reported in Hansard in a response to the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Adam Price) on 14 September. I ask my hon. Friend not to repeat his remarks.
Harry Cohen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Ingram:
No, my hon. Friend has made his point. I hope that he heeds my message.
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1113
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the new Member for Hartlepool (Iain Wright). I worked with his predecessor—
Mr. Ingram: The latter one. I worked with him before he entered the House and when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I had a very high regard for what he did to help my party to become electable again, and for the contribution that he made in Northern Ireland.
My former right hon. Friend's constituency is in very good hands. As the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), who summed up for the Opposition, said, it will be good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool at defence debates in the future. There is an old Scottish phrase, "Will ye no' come back again?". I really hope that we see more of him in such debates, as he will certainly add strength to them.
The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) made an entertaining speech. I have never attended a Conservative constituency event before, but I ask him not to invite me back; it was not particularly riveting.
The hon. Gentleman made a number of points. He recognised the need for reorganisation and transformation of the armed forces. So he should. None of the armed forces of our NATO allies has not gone through such reorganisation and transformation. His record, when he served in the last Conservative Government was, of course, the contraction and amalgamation of regiments—[Interruption.] Regiments were amalgamated during his tenure. I shall not go into details—[Interruption.] Okay. the Highlanders Regiment was formed through amalgamation with the Queen's Own Highlanders. The Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment was formed from the amalgamation of the Gloucestershire Regiment and the Duke of Edinburgh's Royal Regiment. The fleet was reduced in size; the number of submarines fell from 18 to 10—45 per cent. The number of frigates fell from 22 to 19, and the number of naval personnel was cut by 10,000. During the 1992 to 1997 Tory Government, the number of RAF squadrons fell by 15 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned funding and gave us a great presentation to show that the Secretary of State did not understand budgets and could not explain them very well. However, I know how well my right hon. Friend understands all those things, so I did not recognise the description. I think it is more attributable to the hon. Gentleman. He glibly said that there would be a £1.1 billion cut from other Departments, but he did not tell us which ones. He just plucked the figure of £1.1 billion out of the air. He went on to say that £1.6 billion would come from defence efficiency, forgetting that we have already embarked on a £2.8 billion efficiency programme. He was thus telling us, in effect, that the amount would be £4.4 billion.
The hon. Gentleman must tell us what he intends to cut. I head several Ministry of Defence committees dealing with the major transformation of the Defence Logistics Organisation. That is a very big machine, formed under the strategic defence review; it has some way to go but it is beginning to deliver. At a later stage, it may be worthwhile to brief the hon. Gentleman about the transformation process, but I can tell him now how difficult it is. The minute we announce any change
21 Oct 2004 : Column 1114
whatever, his hon. Friends oppose it—it does not matter what we seek to do or whether it is for greater efficiency—and I suspect that his £1.6 billion cuts would be treated in the same way. His speech did not add up to much of a commitment on defence spending.
Let me deal with the Liberals, whom I find it increasingly difficult to take seriously on defence matters. They are prepared to exploit the anti-war sentiment in the country for short-term political advantage. They are unclear about what they want our troops in Iraq to do—they never spell it out, as yesterday's exchanges at Prime Minister's questions proved. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) exposed those attitudes again today.
The leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), says on the one hand that we should commit troops only on sound operational grounds; yet when that has to be done, he suggests that the Prime Minister and the Defence Secretary should override military operational advice and impose a political direction. That is just another example of "Charlie-facing-two-ways".
There is further evidence in Liberal Democrat contortions over the justification for deploying our troops against Saddam Hussein. Let us consider two statements about that. The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who is after all a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament, said:
"Does the Prime Minister understand that he enjoys Liberal Democrat support for the action that he has taken in deploying British forces against Saddam Hussein?"—[Official Report, 17 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 1104.]
Mr. Keetch: What date was that?
Mr. Ingram: I shall come on to that.
On the same day, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesperson in the other place said:
"I rise to support the Statement on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches. In the circumstances, it was unavoidable that Britain should take action with the United States. Clearly, Saddam Hussein has broken all the terms of the UN conditions attached to his regime. Under those circumstances, we had no choice but to intervene."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 December 1998; Vol. 595, c. 1528.]
Those significant comments were made on 17 December 1998.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |