| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1 May 2007 : Column 421WH—continued
There is an important decision facing the people of Scotland, which has wide-ranging ramifications not just in Scotland and the United Kingdom but around the world. There could not be a more important decision. The debate this morning has been a microcosm of the entire election debate. When any difficult or detailed policy question is put to those who advance the idea of taking Scotland out of the UK, answer comes there none. Instead, those who advocate breaking up the United Kingdom wrap themselves in the Saltire, close their eyes, and say, “If you just love
Scotland enough, everything will be fine.” Well, it will not. That simply will not do.
When there are important questions on fiscal policy to be answered, why is the Scottish National party not to update its anticipated revenue from North Sea oil until July? It is an insult to the people of Scotland to go to the polls without giving them any idea about how much the SNP thinks it will get in oil revenue. That is calculated deceit of the people of Scotland, and the SNP should be ashamed of itself.
As for monetary policy, when serious questions are put about who would set interest rates for an independent Scotland and what prevailing economic conditions would be taken into consideration in the setting of an interest rate, no answer comes from the SNP. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North (Ann McKechin) set out the questions eloquently, but no answers have come from the SNP either in this debate or the four or five weeks of the election campaign.
Pete Wishart: Will the Minister give way?
David Cairns: No, but I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman so that he can explain this: why should an independent Scotland, with a separate Scottish economy and separate prevailing conditions for growth, gross domestic product and unemployment, have its interest rates and monetary policy decided by a foreign country?
Pete Wishart: Yesterday the Chancellor was in Scotland and he said in a radio interview that he would not be prepared to work with an SNP First Minister. What did he mean by that?
David Cairns: No answer. Not only is this hour-and-a-half debate a microcosm of the election campaign, but so is this one exchange. There are no answers on fiscal or monetary policy.
I asked the simplest question about council tax policy. I did not ask for the entire projection of all revenues across Scotland, or what the impact on services would be. I asked the simplest question: how much will a two-income couple in a band D household have to earn before they pay more in local income tax than they do in council tax? The hon. Gentleman completely failed to answer the question. I shall give him an answer: about £34,000. If he disputes that or thinks that my sums are wrong, and that a couple living together and each earning £17,000 will pay less under his policy, let him tell us. He cannot do it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire, North (Jim Sheridan), whom I belatedly congratulate on securing the debate, set out detailed points about defence procurement. When 20,000 Scottish jobs rely on the defence industry in Scotland, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) did not even have the courtesy to give an approximation of the number of those jobs that would be retained in an independent Scotland. It is an insult to the people who work in those defence-related jobs and to the people of Govan, whose local industry is so dependent—
John Robertson: And Scotstoun.
David Cairns: And, indeed, Scotstoun; perhaps my hon. Friend will forgive me if I focus on Govan for a second. Local industry there is so reliant on the massive number of jobs in the shipbuilding industry secured by the Government, that people there will want an answer to the questions my hon. Friend put. It is not good enough to be told that if they wrap themselves in the flag and say they love Scotland, everything will be fine. That is an insult to the people of Scotland.
I have been in Scotland taking part in the election campaign, and when I saw the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire here today I wondered why he has not been there doing the same. Now we know. They dare not let him. His speech was a gaffe-strewn disaster, a one-man Sheffield rally. The message has not got to him that he is not supposed to be gloating or cracking open champagne bottles before even one vote is cast. He is showing ugly arrogance taking the people of Scotland for granted, and the smirk will be wiped from his party’s face when the people of Scotland go to the polls in 48 hours.
The mask slipped from the Scottish National party during the hon. Gentleman’s speech. It has been sweetness and light during the campaign. Mr. Salmond, or rather the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)—he is standing in Gordon, he is standing in the list, and he wants to be an MP in Westminster, so I can be forgiven for forgetting what title to refer to him by from time to time—has been going around saying, “Gloat, me? Smarmy, moi?”—in no circumstances would such a thing cross his mind. However, today we see the true face of Scottish National party triumphalism—the utter contempt in its treatment of the people of Scotland, in presuming to know how they will cast their votes in two days’ time. I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman will repeat his performance in Scotland, so that more people can see the ugly arrogance of a party that thinks that it has the voters in its pocket.
In the few minutes that I have left I want to deal with key issues, and perhaps I can draw together some of the comments that have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton, East (Mr. Hood) set out in incontrovertible detail the point that if Scotland secedes from the United Kingdom, it leaves the EU. That is a fact. If it wants to get back into the EU it must reapply. It must join a queue, behind Turkey
and other nations, and there would have to be an enlargement treaty. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire shakes his head, but if he has any facts to disprove that, let him state them.
However, Scotland would not only be out of the EU, with the disastrous ramifications that that would have for Scottish jobs, industry and inward investment. An independent Scotland that left the United Kingdom would also leave behind the G8, permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council, and NATO. What other country is leaving NATO when others around Europe are lining up to join it? That is the vision of the SNP for Scotland: isolated, irrelevant and defenceless. It is not my vision for Scotland, and it is not Labour’s.
We have today seen the duplicitous way in which the SNP turns every criticism of it into criticism of Scotland. I am here not to criticise Scotland, but to criticise the SNP and its ruinous vision for Scotland, which would destroy jobs and put our monetary policy in the hands of a foreign country, and which has no credibility in fiscal policy. Our vision is of a Scotland that will, within a dozen years, have the best education system in the world, because in the knowledge-based economy of the 21st century the investment that we put into people by way of education, skills, learning and training will bring us to pre-eminence. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire is now chuntering away from a sedentary position. We are now fourth best in the world; we are in striking distance of being the best-educated country in the world, and we have set ourselves the target of doing it in a dozen years.
We will achieve that under Labour, but if we spend the next three years in turmoil and instability, telling any potential investors, “Do not come to Scotland, because we do not know what our currency will be, whether we will be in the EU or what our monetary or fiscal framework will be,” how on earth will we attract the brightest and best to come and stay in Scotland? How can we continue to reverse the brain drain, as we are now doing? Just last week, we learned that the population of Scotland has increased for the fourth year in a row. That is a tribute to the success of the Labour-led Scottish Executive, and I am convinced that people will see that and vote for education and not separation on Thursday.
UK Armed Forces (Operational Direction)
12.30 pm
Ann Winterton (Congleton) (Con): I have been applying for this debate for several months, so it is somewhat ironic that I have secured it so soon after Thursday’s debate in the House on defence in the United Kingdom. That is, however, extremely convenient, because it enables me to enlarge on what I have said previously about the war on terror and how the UK is dealing with insurgency. We should not doubt that our troops are engaged in two of the most difficult and deadly wars against ruthless enemies. We all regret the loss of life in those wars, but we support fully the people who serve in those theatres on the UK’s behalf.
It is a great pity that a debate on such an important issue should be held in Westminster Hall rather than in the main Chamber with many Members of Parliament present. However, as a Back Bencher, I have to use any means in my armoury to draw attention to these vital matters. It feels quite lonely to be standing here with just the Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary present, but, never mind; we shall fire on all cylinders none the less. Having been briefed twice by the Ministry of Defence in recent months, I know that the Minister and his team take these debates seriously.
In military procurement terms, the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989 and the collapse of the Soviet Union were not so very long ago. Much of our military hardware was designed for that era when the battleground was northern Europe and wars would be short, sharp and fought over limited distances, leaving our forces either defeated or victorious. Army vehicles, in particular, were never intended to travel vast distances in inhospitable conditions where constant maintenance is required, consequently imposing a heavy demand for spare parts.
Our troops today, particularly those in Afghanistan, operate with equipment that was designed for use in northern Europe in another age but that is now expected to fulfil a different—indeed, contrary—role to that for which it was originally destined. All the nations operating in Afghanistan are finding the maintenance of equipment and the supply of spares to be a nightmare. Surely, what is required is equipment that is not too technical, that can be maintained and repaired in the field and that can stand up to the rugged terrain and extreme temperatures. It is no good having manpower tied up in the field with equipment out of action because of problems with supply and spare parts.
With the future rapid effect system programme, about which I have serious misgivings, considering armoured vehicles, the powers that be should bear in mind that what is required is basic, practical, simple and rugged equipment for which maintenance costs will not be greater than acquisition costs. I trust, too, that European Union health and safety laws, emissions standards and the like will not apply to military vehicles. The authorities must understand that the Ministry of Defence is not social services, but has two wars on its hands that must be won.
In the past two decades, military thinking on procurement has been split between the integrationist European Union approach to defence and our link with the United States of America. As a result, billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money have been wasted by
this and previous Governments on projects such as the joint US-UK TRACER-FSCS programme to develop a tracked armoured reconnaissance vehicle to replace the British Army’s ageing Scimitar. The MOD pulled out of that project in 2000, before the first prototype was ready, in order to pursue a European project, losing at least £131 million for absolutely no gain.
Another example of waste concerns the Italian-built future command and liaison vehicle, the Panther, which costs £413,000. Those vehicles were supposed to carry out some of the roles of the TRACER, but are useless for patrolling or undertaking other functions in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Their cost—£166 million for 401 vehicles—is therefore dead money.
The German-built Cobra anti-battery radar is high-tech equipment made to detect the source of artillery shells, mortars and rockets. Ten sets were procured at a cost of £17.8 million each, but US-built Firefinder systems could have been bought at less than £10 million each, which would have saved £82 million and would have given the Army a perfectly acceptable anti-artillery capability.
The TRIGAT projects on medium and long-range anti-tank missiles are yet another case in point. British participation in those European projects, which were appropriately developed by Euromissile, cost the UK more than £314 million before we had to pull out when the systems failed to deliver. That money was a total loss and the MOD had to make a rushed purchase of US-built Javelin missiles to equip the Army.
Another example is the multi-role armoured vehicle project, the Boxer. The MOD pulled out of that joint German, Dutch and British venture, which was managed as a European project, after the vehicle proved to be too big and heavy for the RAF’s fleet of Hercules transporters, with a total loss to the defence budget of £48 million.
The MOD has either spent or committed to spend £1.045 billion on developing unmanned aerial vehicles—first with the Phoenix, on which £345 million was lost, and now with the Watchkeeper, which is to be built by the French-owned company Thales. Despite that extraordinary expenditure, however, the MOD has no UAV capability in theatre other than the Desert Hawk, which is a mini-UAV, and is having to spend more than £60 million on buying or leasing US Predator UAVs. Had the UK bought that system in the first place, it might have saved more than £400 million.
The MOD has already bought 22 Westland-Agusta Merlin HC3 transport helicopters and will now buy another six. Working out their purchase price is well nigh impossible, but given that they are estimated to cost £30 million each, US equivalents would have been less than half price. Alternatively, the RAF could have bought Chinooks at £25 million each, thus saving £110 million and considerably more on maintenance. I am sure the Minister will know that the Merlins are currently exceeding expected maintenance costs by more than 200 per cent.
The Eurofighter aircraft, which cost more than £60 million each, are an acknowledged cold war relic. Although they are rated highly as interceptors, current versions have no ground-attack capability. The US-built F-16s are adequate fighters with proven ground-attack capability and would have cost about £20 million each. With 232 notionally on order, the MOD could have saved more than £10 billion.
Money has also been wasted on weapons. The European designed Storm Shadow air-launched cruise missiles cost an amazing £1 million each—yes £1 million—for what is effectively a 1,000 lb bomb. The MOD has bought 900 of them, but it could have saved more than £830 million if it had bought the US equivalent, the joint air-to-surface stand-off missile. The Eurofighter is also to be equipped with European-designed air-to-air missiles that are known as Meteor. Given the total costs of more than £1.4 billion, purchase of US-designed Raytheon missiles, which have been bought anyway as a stop gap until Meteor is ready, would have saved the MOD a cool £900 million.
Then, in the rush for harmonisation, the MOD joined the French and Italians on the Horizon programme for a common frigate, which was formalised in 1992. The UK eventually pulled out of it in April 1999 after failure to agree a common specification and amid complaints of “unfocused management”. The estimated loss was £537 million, and the French and Italians were left to continue with the project—I hope that they can afford it.
Co-operation did not end with the Horizon project. Although the MOD decided to go it alone, with the platform emerging as the Type 45 destroyer, the ship is largely equipped with European-designed missile launchers and missiles. They largely account for the huge cost of £1 billion per ship, which is some £400 million more that the Australians were considering paying for the more capable US-designed Arleigh Burke class missile destroyers. I understand that the Australians are now considering a version of the Spanish Fl00 air defence destroyer, thereby shaving another 1 billion Australian dollars off their projected costs. As five ships are planned for the Royal Navy, the UK could have saved at least £2 billion had it followed a similar path.
For the Type 23 anti-submarine frigates, the UK developed its Type 2087 sonar, at £9 million per set. The development costs were an additional £300 million, given virtually as a free gift to the French company that bought the UK manufacturer, leaving it free to sell cut-price versions to the French navy. Had the UK bought from the Americans, it could have saved that £300 million.
Finally, I turn to the EU’s Galileo satellite navigation system. By the time that that is fully operational, the UK will have paid £400 million towards its development and commissioning costs. The system is then to be used to underpin the European rapid reaction force. However, the US Navstar global positioning system is already available and is totally free of charge, thus the £400 million is a total waste of money for what is merely a duplicate system.
Pulling together all these costs, excluding those of Eurofighter, which is a special case, the excess payments amount to £8.8 billion, and that, I repeat, for no gain whatsoever. That is considerably more than is spent in one year on procurement and, to put it in context, would buy 35,000 RG31 mine protected vehicles or 350 Chinook helicopters and goodness knows how many Hueys—the Bell 212 aircraft.
That is the measure of the waste of valuable resources on defence projects and those figures make a
mockery of those who say that the military is underfunded. When the Prime Minister called for a debate on defence, like many others I welcomed the suggestion, because the direction in which the UK is heading clearly needs to be defined. It is, for example, simply no good having equipment to wage war in the future when that equipment is not compatible with that of the Americans. The UK as a nation has neither the financial nor the military capability to divorce itself from reality. If we believe that the war on terror is our most serious threat, the MOD should be planning to procure the right equipment for our troops, rather than throwing them into situations where they have not been best served by their kit.
In last Thursday’s debate, I tried to drive home the fact that technology can be of great assistance, but simple platforms are often the best for delivery. They are easy to maintain and they save on non-combatant manpower and spare parts, thereby proving not to be horrendously expensive. A good example of that is the Iraqi air force Sama light aircraft, which is doing the same job on surveillance as the Future Lynx helicopter will do. The RAF has as its trainer the Tucano T mark 1 aircraft, and there is now a ground attack version ideally suited for the extreme hot and cold conditions in Afghanistan. It could give all-round close air support to our troops, as opposed to the present situation in which an aircraft has to be called up, possibly even has to take off, arrives too late in theatre and then is unable to deliver because of the close proximity of insurgents. We should perhaps recall the hard-won lessons of Vietnam and Korea, and of even the second world war: it is a fact that the smaller the fixed-wing aircraft, the less likely it is to be shot down.
There should be a complete rethink about how we approach such operations. Overspending can create a problem by providing over-complicated pieces of equipment. The MOD and the military chiefs need to get back to the basics. To prove the point, I should ask, tongue in cheek, whether the Minister can tell me how many pack animals are being used in Afghanistan—after all, one cannot get more basic than that. It gives some idea of the type of terrain faced by our troops serving out there.
I welcome the recent announcement on, of all places, the European Defence Agency website, of 180 medium protected patrol vehicles for delivery in 2009, the contract value of which will be in the region of £20 million to £100 million. Will the Minister tell me when the actual order will be placed, and why the announcement was not made on the MOD website? It is not one of the most brilliant websites, but it would have been considerably enhanced by this news. Surely that is where any announcement should first be made; after all, the Minister is not trying to bury bad news, but to give some rather encouraging and welcome news for a change.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |