Select Committee on Defence Minutes of Evidence


Examination of Witnesses (Questions 180-194)

31 MARCH 2004

RT HON GEOFFREY HOON MP AND SIR KEVIN TEBBIT

  Q180 Mike Gapes: May I ask you about strategic deterrence, Trident and missile defence? First of all a point of clarification. The wording of the strategic defence review says that our aim is a safer world in which there is no place for nuclear weapons. But the wording of the White Paper in paragraph 3.11 says that our aim is a safer world in which there is no requirement for nuclear weapons. Is there a difference between those two? Is there a reason why the wording has changed?

  Mr Hoon: I have not thought of one.

  Q181 Mike Gapes: It just struck me that the wording had changed. If there is no reason, then perhaps you can reassure me in writing.[2]

  Mr Hoon: I cannot think of any underlying policy difference we were intending to make.

  Sir Kevin Tebbit: The conditions for complete and general global nuclear disarmament are not yet met. That is what the Secretary of State usually gets me to say.

  Q182 Mike Gapes: We have in-service Tridents from 1998 and we have an understanding that it is intended to remain an effective deterrent for up to 30 years. The White Paper says that decisions on Trident's replacement are not needed this Parliament, but are likely to be required in the next one and that a "range of options" is being kept open until that decision point. Could you say something about what those options are and when the decision is likely to be taken on which of those options, if any?

  Mr Hoon: No.

  Q183 Mike Gapes: You do not know what the options are?

  Mr Hoon: Yes, I do.

  Q184 Mike Gapes: You do know what the options are. At this point is there anything you would like to say about what those options are?

  Mr Hoon: No.

  Q185 Mike Gapes: We are not going to get very far on that, are we? May I ask whether you have any indication as to whether this might be an international option or a European option rather than a national option?

  Mr Hoon: I do not think that we need discuss anything other than a national option.

  Sir Kevin Tebbit: I was just reflecting to myself that there are obligations which would preclude technology transfer of that kind anyway.

  Q186 Mike Gapes: Do you mean the agreement with the United States?

  Mr Hoon: The non-proliferation treaty.

  Sir Kevin Tebbit: The non-proliferation treaty.

  Q187 Chairman: I hope the cameras are picking up your extreme discomfort over the last few minutes. They certainly ought to reflect it.

  Mr Hoon: I am trying to decide whether the European Convention on Human Rights applies to people who have been here for two hours and fifty minutes.

  Q188 Mike Gapes: In terms of missile defence, the White Paper lists missile defence technology as a growing area of interest and states that "active missile defence could provide an option for meeting the threat from weapons of mass destruction and its means of delivery". It also makes clear that work is continuing on protection for deployed forces from ballistic missile threats and the NATO feasibility study is expected soon. When might the UK or deployed UK forces benefit from the protection of an active missile defence system?

  Mr Hoon: We have absolutely no timescale for that. There is work under way, we are discussing that with partners, clearly there is a threat to deployed forces and we will need to consider how soon that threat would emerge and how long we would have to get such a system in place if by then we still needed it. There is still fairly basic thinking going on about what kind of system will be required and in what timescale.

  Q189 Mike Gapes: Clearly the issue of ballistic and cruise missile technology and the proliferation of missiles is a matter of serious concern. What steps are you taking to protect deployed UK forces, in the Middle East, for example, or in Afghanistan or wherever else our forces might be deployed, from those technologies and the weapons they might deliver?

  Mr Hoon: We would still, for the moment at any rate, if we were talking about longer range strategic missiles . . . I am not sure I anticipate any particular threats to our forces in Afghanistan at the present time.

  Q190 Mike Gapes: But there are potential proliferators with long-range missiles. We know the North Koreans have them, we know the Iranians have missiles of some length, we know that Libya was trying to develop such a programme and of course there was the Iraqi's programme.

  Mr Hoon: I was about to make the point that the action we may take may be more in the political than in the military field and dealing with proliferation in the way we did as far as Libya was concerned was an outstanding success and reduced the risk of what you are describing.

  Q191 Mike Gapes: The Americans have got their programme to move towards their own deployment at some point. Are we closely engaged with them on that? They were talking at one point about systems based upon ships, the Aegis class and various other developments. Are we looking closely at that at the moment?

  Mr Hoon: The US is developing what they describe as a test-bed. The Committee will be aware of the decisions the UK have taken to make Fylingdales available for assisting in that process. It obviously gives us some insight into American thinking.

  Q192 Mike Gapes: You do not expect any imminent developments?

  Mr Hoon: This is a test-bed, it is a process by which the Americans are satisfying themselves that their theoretical judgment about making missile defence work in practice is justified. We believe that it was right we should play a part in assisting that testing process and it has not gone further than that at this stage.

  Q193 Rachel Squire: My question concerns the role of international organisations, particularly the UN, which is another area where we could spend two hours fifty-five minutes alone. The Defence White Paper says we support efforts to improve the UN's performance in peace support operations. However, we need to be realistic about the limitations of the UN and the difficulties of translating broad consensus on goals into specific actions, particularly where proactive military intervention is concerned, like the rapid operational readiness that we recently saw with our forces in Kosovo for instance. There appears to be a bit of a difference between the MoD's view on the role of the UN and the Foreign Office view, which seems to place the UN at the heart of an effective system of multilateral co-operation and says that the UK priority will be to improve the Council's ability to act promptly and effectively to maintain international peace and security". Do you agree or is that just a difference in words?

  Mr Hoon: I do not think there is any discrepancy between the two departments. What the Foreign Office are emphasising is likely is the legal responsibility that the UN has, its political primacy in discussing the appropriate international response to a crisis. What we are saying is that we would certainly like to see its ability to manage those crises in terms of the supervision of armed forces, for example, enhanced. I do not think anyone, even in New York in the United Nations, believes that the mechanisms in New York for doing that today are as good as they should be. That is why, on a number of operations—Afghanistan is perhaps the best illustration—what we have is an overall UN responsibility, political supervision if you like, as a result of the UN mandate, but the actual delivery on the ground of military effect has been left in the hands of the willing coalition. That seems to me, certainly for the moment, unless there is some significant change in the way in which the UN operates, to be a highly desirable outcome, because it leaves those who are responsible for directing forces to do that in difficult environments and avoids—something I discussed with UN officials and they would agree with—the UN trying to second-guess those decisions at a great distance without necessarily having the operational mechanisms to do it properly.

  Q194 Rachel Squire: So you see the UN's role as continuing to be one where it decides whether or not it gives its stamp of approval.

  Mr Hoon: That is enormously important. The UN is a forum for a discussion about the appropriate response that the international community should make. Thereafter it is much better that the UN invites willing states, which is precisely what happened in the conversations I had with Kofi Annan about Sierra Leone for example. He wanted capable western forces available in Sierra Leone to support what was a failing UN military operation and we were able to do that.

  Chairman: Spot on. Brilliant. I must say, Mr Hoon, had you given a two-sentence introduction we would have been away at a quarter to six. However, it was a perfectly acceptable initiative to have a long introduction and I thought the session was most interesting. I thank you both for coming.





2   Ev 83 Back


 
previous page contents

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2004
Prepared 1 July 2004