Examination of Witness (Questions 180-188)
MR JOHN
HUTTON MP
12 NOVEMBER 2008
Q180 Mr Havard: Can I ask you one
question in relation to this? You are quite right about the strategic
defence review, it is a much longer thing. However, the Armed
Forces minister in June said that the planning assumption review
that was taking place which would be informed by the equipment
review will be a ten year look at planning assumptions for the
future. Is that still the case?
Mr Hutton: I have not seen any
work on the planning assumptions on that basis, no. Maybe I need
to think about that.
Q181 Mr Jenkin: Just before we leave
Snatch, I understand you have received a letter from the solicitors
representing the families of the victims, those who have died
in Snatch Land Rovers, requesting that you instigate some kind
of inquiry that would be beyond the scope of a coroner's inquest.
Would you consider holding such an inquiry—I am not suggesting
it need be a public inquiry—chaired by a senior retired
armed services chief and perhaps some privy councillors taking
part to demonstrate that the equipment being provided to the frontline
is what we really need? There is obviously a crisis of confidence
amongst many of the Armed Forces and certainly in the public about
this matter.
Mr Hutton: I would be prepared
to look at that. I have to say, I have not had that letter drawn
to my attention so I have not seen this correspondence yet. Obviously
I would look very seriously at that, yes.
Chairman: We will move onto the issue
of Afghanistan and Iraq, the helicopter issue that you were talking
about earlier, Secretary of State. Adam Holloway?
Mr Holloway: Sorry, I am totally off
the ball today. Where are we?
Chairman: We will move further on because
I think actually you have answered that question. Let us move
onto the issue of NATO.
Q182 Mr Hancock: The MoD hosted a
formal meeting in September focussed on the modernisation of NATO.
We ourselves have done a report on the future of NATO. What issues
were discussed and in what ways do you believe that NATO has to
change to become more efficient and more effective in what they
can and what they are prepared to do?
Mr Hutton: I think it has to change
in two fundamental ways. It has to become far less bureaucratic
because it is far too bureaucratic at the moment. I think there
are over 3,000 committees involved in the work of NATO. I might
have added a digit to that, someone can correct me in a minute,
but there are hundreds and hundreds of committees. That is just
not viable. We have to streamline the headquarters function of
NATO. We have to make it more effective and efficient as a planning
entity. Finally I think we have to focus on perhaps the most important
issue of all, we have to work with our NATO partners and allies
to improve the levels of deployability of NATO forces because
the nature of the new security challenge is different to the old
one. I think there is precious little point in having 80 or 90%
of our forces positioned in static places pointing at the Russians;
I do not understand that.
Q183 Mr Hancock: Some of your predecessors
have indicated the view that NATO partners had to change their
opinion on things, particularly their willingness to share the
real burden when it comes to war fighting. Are you optimistic
that there is going to be a significant change within the idea
that you can buy into NATO collectively but you can be selective
in what you actually put your forces to as being a thing of the
past and they need to be more realistic now to say that it cannot
always be the same half a dozen countries who put their troops
on the line time and time again?
Mr Hutton: Am I optimistic? I
have attended one meeting of NATO Defence Ministers and I think
I am going to reserve judgment about whether I am optimistic or
pessimistic about this. What I do believe very strongly is that
NATO membership brings with it some pretty full on obligations
and it is not a pick and mix menu; I do not believe that that
is what NATO membership involves. On burden sharing, I think we
have to respect some important constitutional issues that some
members of NATO have to carry and work under, about the extent
to which operational forces can be deployed in a context and I
think we have to respect that, in which case we need other types
of help and other types of support. There cannot be a general
get out clause to do nothing. I think we have to work at this,
we have to build alliances and I think it is very important that
we retain NATO unity as we set about doing this re-organisation.
I do not think it is going to help me; it is not going to help
us in Afghanistan if it looks like a bun fight around the NATO
Council Chamber. That is not a good idea. I think we are going
to have to work with our friends and allies and these are our
closest friends and allies, we should never lose sight of that
fact although sometimes it is easy to do that. These are our closest
friends and allies. We share a very strong agenda with many of
them to shake up NATO, to get it better aligned to the modern
world, not least of which is the United States which shares our
view about these things. So let us work and try to get the change.
I do not know how long it is going to take us, but we have to
keep focus on it.
Q184 Mr Hancock: Could you give us
your view of what the nature and the quality of NATO's commitments
to both Georgia and the Ukraine are?
Mr Hutton: I think they were set
out pretty clearly at Bucharest, that they will become members
of NATO.
Q185 Mr Hancock: Do you believe,
at this moment in time, that there is a commitment from NATO to
protect and look after them?
Mr Hutton: Article five will extend
when they become members of NATO.
Q186 Mr Hancock: At the present time
do you believe they are mistaken in their belief that that commitment
is already there?
Mr Hutton: Yes. There is no Article
five commitment to countries that are not members of NATO.
Q187 Linda Gilroy: What do you think
the prospects are for working with EU partners to achieve better
alignment of some of the capabilities to enable them to step up
to the mark alongside us?
Mr Hutton: I think the prospects
are good and I think the Somalia mission will be the first maritime
mission under the ESDP banner. That will be a good thing. I consider
this to be a genuine additional resource that is becoming available
to deal with the problem of piracy off the Horn of Africa. I think
the prospects are good but, as I have been trying to say, we have
to be pragmatic about this and not theological. I think we should
look to build these alliances where they are going to add value,
where they are going to add to UK national security interests
and that is the way we should focus on it. Just to correct some
of the stories, I am not in favour of a European army; I think
that is a barmy idea and if ever it was it would get pretty short
shrift.
Q188 Chairman: Would I be right in
thinking, Secretary of State, that some of your remarks were over
interpreted and what you were saying was that where Europe can
add defence value that is to be welcomed?
Mr Hutton: That is what I was
trying to say. The other thing I have learned since I came into
this job is that every word counts. I am trying to be a bit clearer
today about my intentions in this regard. The questioning, as
I remember it, was about the ESDP; it was not about a European
army. My comments about being pragmatic and looking at things
that would work were in the context of the European Security and
Defence Policy and not in the context of some notional argument
about whether we should have a European army.
Chairman: Secretary of State and to the
Committee, I would like to say thank you to both of you because
the Committee has been disciplined and, Secretary of State, so
have you. You have come to the end before 16.18 when we are just
about to have some votes. If I may diffidently say so, I thought
that was an extremely impressive first outing in front of the
Committee alone. There will be things no doubt that we will want
to ask you questions about. I would like to end with an apology
to Adam Holloway because I gave the impression that he had missed
a question about helicopters when actually the person who had
missed the question about helicopters was me. That is the end
of the session. Thank you very much.
| 
