SECOND DAY

§ Mr. Speaker

I hope that I may be able to call more hon. Members in this important debate. No fewer than 44 hon. Members have written in and hope to be called today. I therefore propose to put a 10-minute limit on speeches between 6 and 8 o'clock. I hope that those who are called before and after that time will bear the limit in mind.

§ Mr. John Browne (Winchester)

) On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last night you witnessed about 500,000 signatures being presented to the House before the Adjournment debate. They reflect just the tip of the iceberg and the very deep feeling that the Government have got the defence cuts wrong.

§ Mr. Speaker

Order. That is a matter of argument; it is not a matter of order.

§ Mr. Browne

rose——

§ Mr. Speaker

I know what the hon. Member is seeking to do. I called the hon. Member in the debate in July. I say to him and to the other hon. Members who were called in that debate in July, which was on the same subject, that I cannot, in all fairness to their colleagues, call them again today.

§ Mr. Browne

That was not my point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand that and I accept that, although I have tabled an amendment, I will not be called. I accept that. The amendment that you have chosen comes from a position of less integrated defence, whereas the great feeling in this country is that there should be sufficient defence to be sure that we do not have a return to the high-risk defence policy of the 1930s. Would you please reconsider your decision to accept other amendments which demand less high-risk defence than the Government are offering?

§ Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman has been here quite a long time now. He should know that my hands are tied. I can select only one amendment other than in a debate on the Queen's Speech and this is not the Queen's Speech.

§ Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have just said that you have received 44 requests to take part in the debate. [Interruption.] I have perhaps ruined my chances, but is it possible to bring forward to 5 o'clock the time at which speeches can take just 10 minutes?

§ Mr. Speaker

That can be done only informally. I hope that the Front-Bench spokesmen—I do not know whether they can keep to 10 minutes—will be brief and that other hon. Members will bear that limit in mind.

§ The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark)

Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the changes in the international political and military climate since we last debated this subject. But against the theme of ever more harmonious relations between east and west, there remains the risk of destabilising conflict in the third world—and closer to home. We have taken careful account of this in reaching decisions on restructuring our armed forces and I should like to address some of the implications of these decisions for the equipment programme. I shall also respond to some of the points that were raised last night about the size and shape of the Army and shall also refer to the important subject of defence research and development in the future.

First, the United States and Soviet statements that they are prepared to reduce their nuclear arsenals—welcome though they are—do not affect our own intention to maintain a minimum nuclear deterrent as the cornerstone of our defence. But as the immediate threat of nuclear confrontation recedes, public attention in the western democracies has increasingly and quite rightly begun to look on the safety and security of the weapons. Last year a major review of nuclear weapon safety in the United States was carried out by Dr. Sidney Drell. In the United Kingdom, we have every reason to be confident that our stringent safety standards, exhaustive trials, and con-tinuous review and independent scrutiny ensure the safety of our weapons. Indeed, Dr. Drell recommended certain of our arrangements as a model for the United States to follow. But I have nevertheless invited the Department's chief scientific adviser to lead a small working group to examine the safety of United Kingdom nuclear weapons. The group includes a number of distinguished experts drawn from both inside and outside government. They have already started work and have been asked to report by the end of the year. Although their report will, inevitably, be classified, we shall make public a statement of its conclusions.

In the field of conventional naval equipment, we intend to maintain the Royal Navy's lead in anti-submarine warfare capability. We have announced the award of the prime contract for Merlin, the anti-submarine warfare variant of the EH101, which will replace the Navy's Sea King helicopters. Three of the new Duke class type 23s are already in service. Seven more are currently on order. Invitations to tender for up to three more type 23s were 173 announced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) in June, and a further announcement on this will be made in the spring.

The three aircraft carriers will be retained. Their Sea Harriers and Sea Dart missiles provide a powerful air defence to complement the ASW capability provided by their helicopters. We have begun studies into an anti-air warfare frigate to replace the type 42 destroyers.

§ Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Bristol, East)

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and will be brief. Is he now satisfied that the command and control system for the type 23 frigate will fully integrate all the weapons systems for that ship, or are there still worries on that score?

§ Mr. Clark

It is absolutely essential that the integration is complete and, because they are inseparable systems, that it applies to the Merlin EH101 helicopter. As my hon. Friend knows, the whole point of the contract negotiations to establish a prime contractor for the Merlin project was that the prime contractor should be completely responsible for the integration and effectiveness of the system. I am satisfied that he is bound to that by the contract.

§ Dr. Godman

With regard to the contract or contracts for the three type 23 frigates which I believe that the Minister said would be announced in the spring, may I point out that it would make very good sense for those vessel orders to be given to Yarrow on the upper Clyde? That shipyard employs hundreds of my constituents and is in dire straits.

§ Mr. Clark

I am a little reluctant to give way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because so many hon. Members wish to speak. It is unfair of hon. Members to make interventions such as that, which simply made a constituency plug, instead of making a positive contribution to the scale and nature of the debate.

The House will recall that we envisage a submarine fleet of about 16 boats, about three quarters of which will be nuclear powered. We are evaluating designs for a new class of nuclear-powered submarines—based on the Trafalgar but incorporating the latest enhancements in combat systems. The last of the current Trafalgar boats, HMS Triumph, is due to enter service this year. A new class of conventional submarines, the Upholder, is also being introduced to replace the Oberon class. The first, HMS Upholder, is already in service, to be joined soon by HMS Unseen; two further vessels are under construction.

As the Army reduces in size over the coming years, we will be phasing out older equipment wherever possible, and introducing a higher proportion of newer and more capable systems.

In June, I announced that our two remaining regiments of aging Chieftain tanks will be re-equipped with Challenger 2. The Challenger Is will be the subject of an extensive upgrade, including the fitting of a new, more powerful gun. Within four years every armoured infantry battalion will be equipped with the Warrior fighting vehicle which proved so capable in the Gulf. We will be providing three artillery regiments with the multiple launch rocket system and all other front-line self-propelled artillery units will be given the AS90 155mm howitzer which will provide a 30 per cent. improvement in range.

174 Short-range air defence will be enhanced by the introduction of the Starstreak high-velocity missile. Starstreak's laser guidance system should make it almost invulnerable to counter-measures. In addition, the new Rapier field standard C will provide the capability to engage multiple targets simultaneously. Both of these systems are nearing the end of development.

The Army's anti-tank capability will be further enhanced towards the end of the decade when we plan to introduce a dedicated attack helicopter to replace Lynx in the anti-armour role.

§ Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside)

I appreciate that the Ministry of Defence has been thinking for the past 10 years about a dedicated attack helicopter. The Lynx is doing its stuff, but it is a soft-skinned utility vehicle with strap-on Missiles, so if it had come up against heavy fire in the Gulf it might not have performed as successfully as it did. Would my right hon. Friend consider buying an off-the-shelf helicopter such as the Apache from McDonnell Douglas as one of the options? Otherwise, how are we to fulfil our commitment to the new NATO rapid reaction corps, which Britain is meant to lead, without proper attack helicopters?

§ Mr. Clark

Yes, my hon. Friend is perfectly right. We expect to invite tenders for that requirement in the spring. I know what my hon. Friend means by off-the-shelf, but it would be perfectly proper to include, and I should like to see as part of the tender, suggestions for offset and for British industry to participate. I am sure that on reflection my hon. Friend would share that view with his constituency interests.

The importance of support and logistic vehicles is another lesson learnt—or I should say re-learnt—in the Gulf. The DROPS load-carrying and transport system was available in time to deploy the first vehicles to the Gulf where they performed extremely well. Deliveries will continue over the next few years.

As the Defence Select Committee has observed, the effect of those plans is to create a "strikingly well-equipped Army". Indeed, we estimate that our plans for re-equipping 1st Armoured Division will increase its capability by some 25 per cent. by the middle of this decade and by more than one third by the year 2000. That makes it clear that our aim of smaller but better forces is taking shape.

§ Mr. John Browne

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Clark

I am sorry, but I cannot give way to everyone. I think that the House has heard quite enough from my hon. Friend to last it a couple of hours, although that is entirely a matter for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I was aware of considerable anxiety in the House last night about the Army. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the distinction between the size of the Army and the identity of particular units. Of course, the size of the Army is a matter for Ministers to determine. But the identity of the units and how this was ordered was a matter for the Army to make recommendations on.

The fundamental point in considering the shape of the Army was that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). He asked whether we could today, and as our plans develop, still mount the type of operation which we did so successfully in the Falklands and again in the Gulf. To me, that is the core of the way 175 in which the "Options for Change" exercise should be evaluated. I assure my right hon. Friend, as one who has been intimately associated with these changes as they have taken shape since their inception, that I have always had that very requirement in the forefront of my mind. I can say categorically that we could mount such an operation. I am entirely satisfied that we could do so now and in the future.

Of course, we cannot fight more than one high-intensity conflict simultaneously. That is something which only a superpower can do. The United Kingdom does not have the economic or the basic capability and could not do so without distorting our budgetary provision. But I am entirely satisfied that if we were challenged again in contexts such as my right hon. Friend identified, we could meet that challenge, we could fight, and we would win.

§ Mr. Mark Wolfson (Sevenoaks)

While I accept that my right hon. Friend has dealt fully with the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) yesterday, may I put it to him that that is not the only key question. So much of the anxiety expressed in the House yesterday was about the Army's continuing commitments, as well as those which could erupt through conflagrations such as those which occurred in the Gulf and the Falklands.

§ Mr. Clark

That is perfectly true. Our peacetime commitments are another subject. We carry those commitments fully in our mind. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to them yesterday. The atmosphere is more gentle when fulfilling our peacetime commitments. They are matters which we can approach piecemeal. We can adjust and be flexible as they emerge. But the important factor is the crisis factor. Can we respond to a major crisis of the type identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion? That is the test of whether a defence policy is effective and working.

§ Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

Will my right hon. Friend give way'?

§ Mr. John Browne

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Clark

I am becoming reluctant to give way because we are eating deeply into the time for hon. Members' speeches. I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).

§ Mr. Marlow

My right hon. Friend has been subject to a great deal of inaccurate howitzer fire from old soldiers. Could he confirm that the military advice from those serving on the Army Board at present is that under "Options for Change" there will be an adequate number of infantry battalions to secure the commitment in Northern Ireland under foreseeable circumstances and that that could be done without overstretch and with an adequate period between unaccompanied tours?

§ Mr. Clark

That is the whole object of the way in which the structure has been reordered. I am entirely confident that we can.

§ Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

I appreciate the Minister's courtesy. It must be difficult for him when he gives way so much. One point which was not mentioned in the Secretary of State's speech last night was the future commitment that the British Army may have to United Nations peacekeeping forces. I ask about that 176 because if, as we all hope, the middle east peace conference gets under way, the United Nations peacekeeping force could be on a far greater scale and have far more authority than before over a long period. Do we intend to make a contribution to that and, if so, will not our numbers need to be greater than is planned?

§ Mr. Clark

At this stage, that point is rather too hypothetical for me to give the right hon. Gentleman the type of detailed answer that he might wish. But we have always managed to contribute successfully in the past. I am satisfied that our general position of reserve will be such that we could contribute to such a force. The right hon. Gentleman looks far into the distance. Of course, if the scale of such a force were enlarged massively, we should have to consult our allies. It would be perfectly possible for all of us in combination to develop a new approach to the subject, which in many ways has much to be said for it.

§ Sir Philip Goodhart (Beckenham)

Does my right hon. Friend remember that since the end of the second world war we have usually been involved in low-intensity conflicts in which trained and efficient men are more important than smart weapons? Is it not likely that that will happen again?

§ Mr. Clark

Trained and efficient men are particularly important. I would not want my hon. Friends to feel that I reject in any way the historic value of ancient regiments and the cohesion, morale, pride and combat effectiveness that run with a great historic tradition. These days the trade-off is in allocating resources between the insistent demands of high technology and those of tradition. It is not an easy equation.

I hope that my hon. Friend will not think that I am introducing a note of levity if I remind him that Field Marshal Haig, in writing a paper on restructuring the British Army after the great war, wrote that we must always be careful to carry in our minds the importance in future of the horse. When it was in print he annotated in his own hand, "particularly the well-bred horse".

§ Sir John Stokes (Halesowen and Stourbridge)

As my right hon. Friend knows how much I admire his realism and patriotism, does he agree that there is a social dimension in reducing the number of men and women in our armed forces? Are they not the very fabric of the nation? We are doing that at the very time when we are enormously increasing expenditure, amounting to millions of pounds, on extra places at universities for students, some of whom will be taking half-baked courses.

§ Mr. Clark

I am delighted to have drawn an intervention from my hon. Friend, whom I hold in the highest esteem. I must, however, tell the House that I should prefer not to give way again.

In the RAF, the Tornado will remain our principal front-line aircraft, in the variety of roles for which it was designed, until well into the next century. It demonstrated impressive versatility in the Gulf in both low-level precision attack and high-quality day and night reconnaissance.

The performance of the Tornado is more than a reflection of the excellence of its design; it is also a tribute to the courage of its crews. I should like briefly to refer to the circumstances in which six Tornado aircraft and, sadly, five RAF aircrew were lost in combat operations.

177 Our investigations into the circumstances have been completed. These made the best use of all the available evidence, including an inspection of the crash site where this was possible. In three of the cases it has been concluded that the aircraft were shot down by enemy surface-to-air missiles. In the fourth case, the aircraft was lost owing to damage caused by the premature detonation of its own weapons. Conclusions on the cause of the loss in the remaining two cases, where inspection of the crash site was not possible, could not be reached; the circumstances of these losses remain undetermined. I have today placed in the Library of the House a full summary of the results of the investigations.

The number of aircraft lost was very small compared with the overall scale of the air campaign against Iraq, but that cannot lessen the loss. In some ways it makes it more particular and painful for the families of the five airmen who were killed. I know that the House would wish me to extend its deepest sympathy to those families and to express its admiration and respect for the courage and fortitude shown by those who survived the loss of their aircraft and endured captivity.

The centre-piece of the future Air Force equipment programme is the European fighter aircraft. Despite the changes which we have seen in the Soviet Union and the countries of the former Warsaw pact, there will be a continued need to ensure the air defence of the United Kingdom and of British forces wherever they may be. EFA is a multi-role, all-weather fighter able to provide air defence of land or maritime targets, offensive support and reconnaissance in a hostile electronic warfare environment. The development programme is going well and we expect the aircraft to enter service with the RAF at the end of the present decade.

The Gulf clearly demonstrated the value of precision-guided munitions as a means of achieving high rates of success against multiple targets and with fewer aircraft. We are now examining the best balance between "smart" and "dumb" bombs and intend to increase the proportion of laser-guided bombs in our arsenal.

We are also considering the purchase of other air-launched stand-off weapons. Such a weapon would not only increase the effectiveness of our post-"Options" forces, but increase the survivability of aircraft. We have now received the tenders for a new generation of advanced short-range air-to-air missiles for the RAF and are evaluating them with a view to reaching a decision in the spring of next year.

The threats to peace and security are likely to be less predictable and, perhaps, more diverse in their scale, nature and origin than was the case only a few years ago. Amphibious forces, by virtue of their inherent flexibility, are likely to be of increasing utility in peace, crisis and conflict. They are an example of precisely the kind of flexible, mobile and highly skilled forces which we envisaged when my right hon. Friend made his initial statement on "Options for Change" last year. They are ideally suited to NATO's emerging concept of reaction forces and they are essential in meeting any national or multinational out-of-area commitments.

Amphibious forces can sail early in a crisis, quietly or with much fanfare, depending on the message we wish to send. They can stay at sea complete with their own integral 178 logistic support for extended periods and then advance or withdraw without violating frontiers or ceding ground. They can raid or land in strength on a potentially hostile shore and at a place and time of our choosing—quite independent of ports, harbours or airfields. There is no other means of providing such a variety of operational choices.

We will, therefore, replace the command and assault ships HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid and I expect to award the contract for project definition of the replacement vessel next month. We will also be procuring the aviation support ship, which will provide a vital platform for helicopter operations. Again, I hope to make an announcement by early next year.

I turn now to the subject which I regard as being of primary importance—a view which I know is widely shared on both sides of the House: defence research and development. The experience of the Gulf conflict with its demonstration of the impact of very high technology has thrown this subject into sharp relief. Last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to advances which have made the gap between Alamein and the Gulf as great as the gap between Waterloo and Alamein.

To retain credible armed forces it is essential that we maintain a viable and productive research and development programme. However, the Gulf demonstrated the value of high technology, not only to the coalition forces, but to any future adversaries. If the standard of defence research is not preserved, we shall lose the technological edge that proved then to be so vital.

So although the reduction in the threat allows us to reduce our forces, we also need to retain the capacity to reconstitute our defences in both quantity and quality should the international situation deteriorate. That requires a technological base derived from civil as well as defence activities in industry and sufficiently strong to permit rapid exploitation of state-of-the art technology.

I see an expanding role for collaboration in research with the civil sector. Whereas in the past military needs have usually driven research at the leading edge, in some areas the main impetus is now coming from the demands of the civil commercial market. In the field of electronics, there is an increasing overlap between military and civil equipment uses. I see our making increasing use of commercial technology wherever this is possible.

I am also examining whether we should be researching new technologies and demonstrating them, while not automatically taking them to the expense and the delays inherent in full development, as we have tended to do hitherto.

I recognise that the past few months have been difficult for United Kingdom defence contractors and I take this opportunity to thank them for their forbearance. Now that the future pattern is becoming clear, I have written to the chairmen of some of our largest defence contractors asking for their views on how we might improve communications between MOD and industry. I am very grateful for their many thoughtful replies to which I am now giving careful study.

The Government continue to support defence exports where they are consistent with national defence and pose no threat to human rights in the customer countries. And with a reduced United Kingdom defence budget, exports will become increasingly important to our defence industry, upon which we continue to depend for the bulk of our defence needs. Sales of defence equipment, if 179 handled responsibly, can contribute to regional stability overseas as well as supporting jobs at home. The United Kingdom has always taken a responsible approach to this issue and encouraged other countries to do likewise.

During the course of my speech I have been amazed by the docility with which the Labour party has received my remarks.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

rose——

§ Mr. Clark

I shall not give way. I understand that Labour Members are behaving themselves.

I was here yesterday and I listened to the contributions from the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen and to most of the debate. The speeches from the Opposition provide a most extraordinary spectacle as they are a caricature of what happens to a party and of the state it gets into when it does not have a policy. No unit can be identified for amalgamation or restructuring, no depot can be designated for closure and no system or order can be varied in size without the Labour party throwing up its hands in horror and great gouts of crocodile tears appearing.

§ Mr. Dalyell

rose——

§ Mr. Clark

If the hon. Gentleman had sought to intervene earlier I should have been delighted to give way, but I will not do so now.

The Labour party must decide on one question. Does it admit that some restructuring of our forces is necessary, or does it believe that the present condition is exactly as it should be? If there is to be any new structuring, what form does the Labour party believe it should take if it does not like the existing structure?

Yesterday the right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) said that we should have more SSNs, but his Front-Bench spokesmen have said that we should have no SSNs and that we should use conventional forces. All the Labour party's thinking is motivated by a degree of synthetic indignation which presupposes that Brezhnev is still alive. I do not doubt that a number of Opposition Members—they are not in their places now—wish that he still were.

How anyone can endorse the Labour party's attitude by going into the same Lobby tonight defies belief. We are the only party that can be entrusted with the defence of the realm—we always have been and we always will be.

§ Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)

I listened with great interest to the Minister of State for Defence Procurement and I enjoyed his speech, as I always do. I also listened with great interest to the ministerial speeches yesterday and I am sorry that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement is not present. When he wound up the debate the hon. Gentleman made some interesting points—he pulled them out like rabbits from a poacher's bag and perhaps that is apt for that hon. Gentleman.

We welcome the statement on low flying, which will be of immense relief to people in the areas affected. However, I wish that the Ministry of Defence would look again at the practice of flying as low as 100 ft in certain areas. We are the only country to do so as Germany and America have stopped the practice. There is a great deal of evidence to demonstrate that such flying was not that effective when 180 used in the Gulf war. I look forward with great interest to learn what is in the report as I am sure that such flying was not as effective as the Government have pretended.

The announcement on HMS Endurance was a typical example of the Government's style of crisis management. Obviously that announcement will cover the immediate future, but I am sure that everyone would be much happier if a more measured decision was made soon. The exposition on the citizens charter given by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement was most illuminating, especially his statement: Our principal response to the charter will be to continue to provide a formidable defence of our country."—[Official Report, 14 October 1991, Vol. 196, c. 117.] I remember that when the Prime Minister introduced the citizens charter he spoke about penalties being imposed on governmental bodies that could not fulfil their obligations or come up to scratch. I believe that he intended to fine British Rail if the trains ran a little late. Tonight I look forward to learning from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces about the penalty system that will be adopted for the MOD.

The ministerial speeches of yesterday and today are extremely sad given that the Government have been running the defence of the country for the past 12 years. Suddenly, just before election time, they come up with promises of procurement decisions which will give false hope to many people in certain parts of the country that jobs will be provided. We have yet to see those promises carried through. If the Government's procurement policy of the past 12 years is extended in the future, I would not view those promises with any great confidence if I lived in the areas to be affected.

§ Mr. Cecil Franks (Barrow and Furness)

rose——

§ Mr. Rogers

I will not give way, especially as Mr. Deputy Speaker has already spoken about a time limit on speeches. The hon. Gentleman rose to his feet about 10 times yesterday; probably he was instructed by the Whips to do so. However, I will give way to him a little later.

When Conservative Members bleat about the loss of jobs and Labour party policy in that respect they should look at their record of the past 12 years. It is a bit much for the party of unemployment to start talking about job losses as the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement did yesterday. In the past 12 years the Conservative party has been responsible for the loss of at least 200,000 jobs in the defence industry and it is about to make 66,000 soldiers, sailors and airmen redundant. However, Conservative Members still criticise and carp about the Labour party policy of so-called "job losses".

Yesterday the speech of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement brought back to mind the many days we spent together in Committee on the Atomic Weapons Establishment Bill. Last winter the Government privatised the production of atomic weapons, but, next year, when the Labour party gets into power, we will rectify the effects of that obnoxious Bill.

One of the things that the Secretary of State mentioned yesterday was the export of arms to Iraq. The Secretary of State and his Ministers hypocritically sought to derive some credit for the recent work of the United Nations agency in uncovering Saddam Hussein's arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. They sought to derive such credit again today during Defence Question Time. When the Secretary of State was questioned by me 181 yesterday, and when he was questioned by other colleagues today, he forgot to say anything about the role of British companies and the Government in the export of arms and potentially lethal equipment to Saddam Hussein in contravention of the United Nations resolutions on the export of arms to sensitive areas. Today the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said that the MOD would study critically how and where arms are exported. However, if the Government's record continues to follow that of the past 12 years, the Minister of State's comments today are not worth a fig.

In 1985 the then Foreign Secretary gave a policy statement that was published. He said that the United Kingdom has been strictly impartial in the conflict between Iran and Iraq and has refused to allow the supply of lethal defence equipment to either side". Just before the recess I wrote to the Prime Minister to ask him to put the record straight. My questions were necessary in view of replies to questions that I had asked well before the Gulf conflict, following the exploitation of the Kurds in northern Iraq. When I asked questions of the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Defence and the Prime Minister's Office about the export of arms to the area, they denied that any such exports had taken place.

In the Army debate on 1 July 1991 I asked the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to confirm his continual statements to me over the past two years that there were no arms sales to Iraq. The Minister replied: There were certainly no arms sales to Iraq from British firms. That is what I have always said and I still confirm that absolutely".—[Official Report, 1 July 1991: Vol. 194, c. 55.] Although I had reason to doubt the veracity of the answers that Ministers had given to me, I had to accept them as the truth. After all, though members of the Tory party, they were Ministers of the Crown.

Imagine the shock when we saw the list that was submitted to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry only a week or so after the Minister's statement. The list of materials exported to Iraq included armoured vehicle spares, armoured vehicles, artillery fire control equipment, fast assault craft, laser rangefinders and mortar-locating radar.

One must draw the conclusion that Ministers did not know what was going on in their Departments, that they knew but were not prepared to tell, that they were telling lies or that the Government do not define such equipment as lethal. I found it all strange, especially following the visit of the Prime Minister in which he projected himself as a war leader. At the Tory party conference he spoke of the way in which he got out of his helicopter and talked to the troops. I wonder whether he asked them on that occasion how they felt about the Iraqis using equipment supplied by British firms with the approval of the British Government. Did he ask if they were happy to face those weapons? Having written to the Prime Minister on the subject, he has not given me an answer.

Sir Colin Chandler, then head of the Ministry of Defence export services organisation, said at the 1986 British Army equipment exhibition that there was no such thing as a non-lethal weapon. When one examines the 182 equipment that was sent to Iraq, the Government having been involved in those exports, it is clear that questions remain to be answered and that an inquiry must be set up.

The only response has come from the chairman of the Tory party, the custodian of the truth, the successor to Mr. Jeffrey Archer. The right hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) was quoted in The Guardian as saying: I do not honestly think there is as much public interest as you might suppose in Labour muck-raking. I asked him to tell me, if that was the case, who created the muck in the first place. The truth is that it was created on the Government Benches, in view of their involvement in this sordid business. The Government have systematically turned their backs on the matter and looked with a blind eye at arms exports to an area and countries circumscribed by the United Nations. It was odd how during the Gulf war the Government invoked United Nations resolutions in justification of the Gulf action, even though for a number of years they had been exporting arms in contravention of other resolutions.

The chickens came home to roost for the Government last August, with British made weapons guided by British made radar being pointed at British troops. In addition, we had paid for the weapons. Saddam Hussein did not pay for them, for when he reneged on his payments, the British Government, of which the present Prime Minister was a member, picked up the tab. In August 1983 the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), announced that the Export Credits Guarantee Department was extending substantial loans to Iraq. When Iraq reneged on those loans, the British taxpayer picked up the bill.

§ Mr. Alan Clark

The hon. Gentleman has made some poisonous charges but they have been couched in such general terms that he owes it to the House to be specific. What weapons is he talking about, on what contract did the Iraqis default and what is his evidence for saying that the British taxpayer picked up the bill?

§ Mr. Rogers

The evidence is clear from the actions of the ECGD, which guaranteed the loans that the British Government gave to Saddam Hussein. Those were the extensions of credit, and when he did not pay the bill——

§ The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King)

For what?

§ Mr. Rogers

For weapons.

§ Mr. King

What weapons?

§ Mr. Rogers

The weapons that were listed—[Interruption.] It is clear that Conservative Members are squirming and do not like what they are hearing. The list was submitted to the Select Committee, as I explained—[Interruption.]—and in addition to the items I mentioned, it included tank spares, Land Rovers, radar equipment, Cymbeline battlefield equipment, control and weather systems, munitions, propellants and even propellant for the big gun. All of that was exported with the complicity of people involved in the British defence industry.

I leave the issue there. I have dealt with it at some length in view of the hypocritical stance of the Government in recent days.

§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of exports to Iraq, may I ask if he is aware that the total cost of exports underwritten by the 183 British Government in the 10 years before the Gulf conflict was £1 billion and that the Government have so far refused to reveal how much of that they have had to pay because of non-payment by Iraq? That equipment was used to manufacture weapons of mass destruction used against the Kurdish people in 1988.

§ Mr. Rogers

The Government have refused to provide details of the annual value of arms sales to Iraq, despite having given similar figures for Malaysia. It is all very well for Ministers to demand specifics from my hon. Friends and I, but we are faced with the most secretive Government we have ever had. Whenever we table questions or otherwise try to get information, they wrap themselves in the Union Jack and say that to give the facts would be against the national interest or that it is commercial and confidential.

§ Mr. Churchill (Davyhulme)

rose——

§ Mr. Rogers

I close my remarks on the Iraq issue there because I want to get on and I have put on record our views about the hypocrisy of the Government towards the whole matter.

A consistent complaint over the years has been about the ineptitude of the Government's management of defence procurement. In the early to mid-80s the Tory conference darling, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"]—was appointed Secretary of State for Defence, and Tory Members who were here at the time welcomed him with enthusiasm as the smart business man who would reform the Ministry of Defence. They said that the right hon. Member for Maidenhead—[Interruption.] I meant to refer not to the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Sir A. Glyn) but to the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine).

§ Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne)

The hon. Gentleman got that wrong, just like he has got all his other facts wrong.

§ Mr. Rogers

The hon. Gentleman should stop twittering. The hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead has contributed a damn sight more towards the security of this country than the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) will ever do.

It was thought that the right hon. Member for Henley would turn out to be the smart business man who would reform the Ministry of Defence. He was to be the hatchet-wielder, the butcher who would cut up the fat cats of the defence industry—those members of the Conservative party who, in true Tory tradition, had been ripping off the taxpayers for years—but they did not realise how good a hatchet-wielder he would turn out to be. His reforms may have had short-term benefits, but they created as many problems as they solved. The major project statement published by the Government leads us to believe that, despite the so-called reforms in defence procurement, many programmes are still subject to cost overruns and time slippage.

The National Audit Office has discovered that seven major projects show a variation in projected spend well in excess of 20 per cent. in real terms. In the case of 19 out of 33 projects, there had been a significant time slippage— well over two years. The so-called tougher contract conditions were supposed to fall on the contractor and not on the taxpayer, but, in practice, the taxpayer is still 184 incurring considerable extra cost. More important, our armed forces are having to wait for up-to-date equipment, and having to extend the life of out-of-date material.

Many of the slippages occur as a result of the change in specification made by the MOD because of the lack of skilled personnel to prepare estimates. I was very pleased to hear the Minister of State say today that the Gulf war had brought the importance of research into sharp focus. However, although I then waited to hear what the Minister was going to do about the matter, I still have not heard anything other than that it is in sharp focus.

I understand why the Government are not coming up with the proposals. In recent years, savage and substantial cuts have been made in defence research and development. Anything that the Government do over the next 10 years will probably not be sufficient to rectify the wrongs that have been perpetrated.

The Government may talk about research and development that is defence-oriented, or carried out within specific Departments. The worst damage that is being done to scientific and other research, however, is being caused by the Government's attacks on universities and the public education system. If scientists are not emerging from the universities, it is no good our having all these grandiose defence establishments: there will be no scientists ready, able and willing to work in them.

The Government's management of high-risk defence programmes still leaves much to be desired. That is typified by the recent debacle of the type 23 frigate programme. As I have said, the problem is compounded by misguided Government cuts. [Interruption.] It is no use the Minister muttering; it is he who has been making those cuts. The withdrawal of resources following the reorganisation of the defence and research establishments means that only very limited technological support is available to the MOD from the Royal Signals and Radar Establishment.

The MOD is increasingly having to rely on technical design advice from the prime contractors. That is not the best position for a Department that is going to purchase from those same people, and for the Government to be so lax and inept in its management of programmes and specifications certainly does not set a good precedent for industry.

§ Mr. Franks

The hon. Gentleman has made great play of what he terms the Government's secrecy, and of cuts that have been made. Perhaps I can help him by asking him to remove the veil of secrecy that surrounds the Labour party's policies. Perhaps he will not be secretive, but will tell the House what his party, if it were in government, would propose to do about the fourth Trident submarine. Perhaps following the comments made last night by the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) he will also tell us what his party proposes to do about the SSN submarines—that is, strategic submarine nuclear—that are being built.

§ Mr. Rogers

I anticipated that question: as the Minister of State said earlier, the hon. Gentleman has a strong constituency interest in the matter.

Labour does not believe that a fourth Trident boat is necessary. If, however, an order for one were placed before a general election, an incoming Labour Government would have to examine the contract—[Interruption.] Conservative Members should listen. The hon. Gentleman asked a question to which they must want to know the 185 answer, but they have not the courtesy to listen. An incoming Labour Government would have to examine the contract, and the cancellation charges associated with it, before making a decision.

§ Mr. Franks

What about the SSN submarines?

§ Mr. Rogers

I want to make my own speech.

Yesterday, Conservative Members spent a good deal of time criticising Labour's defence policy—

§ Mr. Franks

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yesterday afternoon, the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) said that he would allow me to intervene later. When I sought to do so, he did not honour his word. The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) did exactly the same. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said that he would reply to me, but he has not replied to my question about the SSN submarines.

If Opposition Members do not honour their words, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is it incumbent on me to continue to call them "honourable Members"?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)

Order. That is a point of protest; it is not a point of order for the Chair.

§ Mr. Rogers

Yesterday, Conservative Members spent a good deal of time—[HON MEMBERS: "What about the SSNs?"]

§ Mr. John McWilliam (Blaydon)

Before my hon. Friend responds to the Conservative chants of "SSNs", should he not ask Conservative Members to tell the House openly about the state of the current SSNs?

§ Mr. Rogers

With all due respect to my hon. Friend, I do not intend to go down that road now.

We understand why the Conservative party does not want to concentrate on its estimates. We understand why Conservative Members continually try to divert the discussion to the subject of our policies. They bleat about the job losses that would result if a Labour Government were elected—but this is the party that uses unemployment as an economic tool; a party that believes that, regardless of human misery, that is all that unemployment means. [Interruption.] The Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary—I believe that the hon. Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. MacKay) is his PPS; he is all dressed up—is clearly intent on preventing the debate from proceeding. If he does not mind, however, I shall continue to speak over the racket that he is making.

Given that the MOD has reduced the number of regular service personnel by 6 per cent. since 1985, and has cut the number of civilian employees by 19 per cent. over the same period, it is pretty ripe for Conservative Members to talk about job losses. According to the Government's records, there have been substantial losses in British defence firms since January 1990.

Yesterday, Opposition Members were pleased to hear about the Scottish Office proposals to set up a defence industries initiative to work with companies and communities affected by reductions in demand for defence products. It was heartening to learn from a press release that the Scottish Office is to build into that initiative our proposals for a defence industry diversification agency. I am glad that the Tories are picking up our policies. 186 Defence industry job losses in Scotland are substantial, and we cannot wait until next summer to put them right. If the Tories are prepared to do that, we applaud their efforts.

One of the issues presented to the Select Committee was the use of the Royal Engineers to carry out mine clearance in the Gulf on behalf of a private company; that was dealt with at some length. Questions need to be answered. Perhaps, for instance, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will be able to tell us more precisely what are the terms of the contract, why the British soldiers could not have dealt with it themselves, and how much profit the private company is making—especially as it had received a Government handout of hundreds of millions of pounds a little earlier. More importantly, can he tell us whether, should there be an accident, soldiers would receive civilian compensation or the lower rates of service compensation? Moreover, if service men refuse to work for a private company, will that be allowed?

One aspect that very much concerns the Opposition is the Ministry of Defence's attitude towards the acquisition and holding of land for training purposes. Last July the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said—I quote him, in part—that The Ministry of Defence is always considering areas throughout the United Kingdom, to increase the number of training grounds. We still do not feel … that we have enough training areas and we should like to extend them if the opportunity arises. Scotland is certainly an area that we have been considering, for example, when estates are up for sale. I understand that the Nugent committee made fairly strong recommendations for the release of a great deal of defence land. I accept that since then some of that land has been released, but much more could have been released. Much of the land that has been released is on the urban fringes rather than in areas of outstanding natural beauty in Scotland, Wales and certain parts of England. I hope that the Ministry of Defence will look critically at its land holdings.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

Would it not be useful if the Government set up a new committee similar to the Nugent committee to carry out a full review of its defence land holdings? The Nugent committee made recommendations about many areas, such as Lulworth cove. It said that the defence use could be substantially reduced and that people could enjoy those areas instead of having to be used as military training grounds.

§ Mr. Rogers

I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no reason why that land should not be released. I applaud what has happened at, for example, Castlemartin. The public are allowed on to the tank training area when it is not being used by German Panzers. I presume that the German Panzers will return home and that Castlemartin may become redundant for tank training purposes. The Ministry of Defence may therefore not need to retain that land.

Last week I listened to the Prime Minister's speech at the Tory party conference. [Interruption.] I must confess that I did not want to do so, but the rugby on the other channel was so bad that I thought that, of the two horror stories, watching the Prime Minister was probably the best. What struck me was the Prime Minister's steely determination to put the country right, to redress the ills of our society. However, as I watched him it occurred to me that he seemed to have forgotten that his Government are the authors of all our ills and woes. The Prime Minister 187 wants to rectify the ills that he has created. For the past 12 years he has been part of the Government. At one time he lived in No. 11 Downing street.

At Blackpool the Prime Minister indulged in a de-Thatcherisation exercise. He said that for the last 12 years he had had nothing to do with those policies, that he never put his hand up in favour of them, and that now he wants nothing to do with them. Neither the Prime Minister, nor the Government, nor the Ministry of Defence can escape their past. In the run-up to an election it is no good pretending that they are starting with a nice clean sheet and that they will write the future of our defence industry and our Armed Forces on that sheet. I had exactly the same feeling when the Secretary of State for Defence spoke in the debate. Yesterday he made great play of the expression—as did the Minister of State for Defence Procurement today and as the Secretary of State did on the radio this morning—"smaller and better" forces. No one disputes that our armed forces will be smaller. Conservative Members are going to object to that in the Lobby. Whether our armed forces will be better because they will have better equipment remains to be seen.

The Secretary of State said that the Army has the right to be sceptical. The Army certainly has every right to be sceptical. It also has every reason to be sceptical. This Government's defence procurement record does not instil confidence in anyone. As the Secretary of State said on the radio this morning, the equipment that the British Army had in Germany last year meant that it could not go into action in the Gulf without expensive, extensive and urgent up-dating, combined with the cannibalising of tanks in order to get them moving to go to the Gulf.

Last year Opposition Members stated these truths. The Government denied that this was so. However, the truth has now come out. The Government have run out of places to hide and this morning the Secretary of State had to confess. The Government will not be around long enough to do much more damage to our defence industries. Next year, when we win the election, we shall put right the wrongs that they have created for our defence industry over the last 10 years.

§ Sir David Price (Eastleigh)

In the interests of the many right hon. and hon. Members who wish to speak, I shall not attempt to answer the election speech of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers).

Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am one of a rapidly diminishing number of right hon. and hon. Members who belong to a generation who had to pay a very heavy price in blood for the continuous neglect of defence in this country throughout the 1920s and the larger part of the 1930s. We came out of the second world war and went back to civilian life determined that neither we nor subsequent generations should forget that. That is why I am not one to press our Government to declare an immediate peace dividend because of the dramatic changes that have taken place in eastern Europe and that are continuing to take place in the Soviet Union. For me, the better securing of peace which results from these changes is in itself a more than sufficient dividend for our proper investment in defence. In any case, the future balance of power in the world is difficult to forecast at this precise moment. It is probably always difficult to forecast, but it 188 is particularly difficult now. Therefore, common prudence tells us not to be in too much of a hurry to count our peace chickens before they are hatched. Let us never forget the old saying: The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. I trust that all hon. Members agree that the size and the mix of our armed forces must at any time be related to the likely threats against which we must protect ourselves and to any additional duties which might reasonably fall to our armed forces to fulfil. I have two such duties in mind. The first was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel): to support a United Nations peacekeeping initiative. I think that that duty is likely to increase. The second duty is to respond to any major international disaster. I pleaded at the beginning of the Gulf conflict that we should send more help to Jordan for that very purpose.

In the changed circumstances of 1991, it is not easy to define those threats with any precision. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made a brave effort to do that in his White Paper. However, it is worth reminding ourselves, as several hon. Members did yesterday, that the two major conflicts in which our armed forces have been involved during the past 10 years were both outside the NATO area and that neither involved those potential enemies against whom our defences have been principally deployed—the Warsaw pact countries. Nor do I believe that the recovery of the Falkland Islands from Argentina or the recovery of Kuwait from the Iraqis had been the subject of major military contingency planning in the years preceding them.

The fact that both operations were carried out successfully does great credit to our armed forces but rather less to our military foresight. Therefore, I commend to the House the statement in paragraph 251 of the White Paper which says: Nothing could have demonstrated more clearly the need … to maintain effective forces, who train realistically, are well supported, well manned and well motivated. Our decision to maintain balanced forces, able to meet the unexpected with a skilful and effective response has been completely justified. It goes without saying that this admirable statement of purpose can be fulfilled only by the appropriate commitment of sufficient resources. I trust that so far the House agrees with me. Therefore, the outstanding question before us is whether the White Paper proposals achieve that or, to the extent that they do not, whether that can be rectified.

It has been suggested that the changes have been Treasury led and have largely Treasury objectives. On a number of occasions my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has assured us that that is not the case and I invite the House to accept those assurances. However, there are areas of defence that worry some hon. Members. Three areas worry me and I have experience in them all. First, I am concerned about the Merchant Navy. As the House knows, I have always involved myself in the affairs of the Merchant Navy and I declare every form of personal interest, including a constituency one. In paragraph 440 of the White Paper my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tells us, in relation to the Gulf operation: We were able to meet all our requirements on this occasion by commercial charter, but in a future operation we might need to requisition vessels. The key sentence says: The availability of British-owned and flagged vessels is therefore of continuing importance. 189 As the House knows, the number of British-flagged vessels is declining. I know that this matter involves more than the Ministry of Defence, but I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to tell us what they intend to do about it.

My second concern is the mix in the Territorial Army. I think that the House will agree that as we reduce the numbers in the regular Army the role of the TA becomes more important as does the mix of skills within it. I have been approached by people involved in the TA in Wessex, my part of the country. They have asked me to draw the House's attention to two concerns. First, their understanding is that the establishment of the TA Royal Army Medical Corps is to be reduced by half. The House would wish to know the logic behind that. If my thesis is correct, the TA exists to furnish in war those parts of the regular Army that are not needed in peacetime soldiering to the same extent as in a military operation. It seems that the TA medical service is a classic candidate for that role. To reduce its numbers drastically must be damaging to the national interest, both military and civilian, apart from any possible disaster roles in which it may become involved.

The second concern is about the transport units in the TA. The House will recall that the RAMC and the Royal Corps of Transport contributed more than an arithmetical proportion to the Gulf operation and they did so extremely well. Therefore, in all our talks we must remember the role of the medics and the drivers. I hope that my right hon. Friend can reassure me.

My third concern deals with the infantry, which has occupied much of the House's time. I know the strong feeling that we all have about our county regiments. In Treasury terms the infantry is always a cheap option. However, the late Field Marshal Montgomery said that the infantry is the central core of the fighting machine, on which all else depends. My figures suggest that the cost of an infantry battalion per year is between £10 million and £12 million. To add six infantry battalions to the 38 that my right hon. Friend wants would cost between £60 million and £70 million extra. If we allow a little for overheads and a few more people at brigade, we could settle for a figure of £75 million to £80 million. Much of the aggro about great regiments going would, to coin a phrase, dissolve at a stroke. As a reference point for the House, my research suggests that one Challenger 2 tank costs about £4 million and one Tornado aircraft costs about £25 million. So, every time a Tornado crashes in training, it costs the equivalent of two infantry battalions. My right hon. Friend could afford to give a little on the matter of the infantry battalions without adding significantly to his expenditure. If in the future we were short of infantry, my right hon. Friend would find it difficult to go to the supermarket and buy a do-it-yourself infantry battalion because they do not come off the shelf like that. It does not involve great cost to keep a few extra battalions.

As my right hon. Friends knows, I am not happy about the way in which he has treated the Foot Guards. I know that one or two of my hon. Friends want to develop that if they catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend has not satisfied me on the necessity of that treatment. I am in a generous mood and I am not standing at the next election. To use an old phrase, I am almost 190 demob happy. If my right hon. Friend cuts us down in the way that he intends, please cut down public duties equivalently. It would add enormously to the distortion of our military duties and would involve virtually nothing but public duties if they are to be retained at the present level. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will respond to my plea to cut public duties, but I fear that it will mean that when Christopher Robin goes to the palace with Alice he may be disappointed, as will the Japanese tourists. However, they will have no grounds for complaint because they will know that a King will have decreed it.

§ Mr. Denis Healey (Leeds, East)

I belong to the same dwindling band as the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) who fought in the last war because of the follies of pre-war Governments and I share many, but not all, of the views that he has just expressed. I am also demob happy and it is an agreeable feeling.

What depresses me about the Government's handling of the debate is that we have little more information now than we were given in June last year about the nature of the commitments that the Government expect us to have to face in the future and how the forces that they have decided to maintain are related to those commitments. For example, we have no idea why the Government have chosen to cut the Army far more than the Navy or why, within the Navy, they have decided to cut the submarine force far more than the surface fleet. Both those decisions are profoundly mistaken but we have had no excuse for them.

There has been some consensus in the House, but I fear it is at a very obvious level. None of us believes that there is a significant danger of war or of an attack on Europe from the east, and if such a danger arose we would have several years to prepare for it. That is one of the bases on which the Secretary of State has founded his decisions.

Secondly, we all recognise that the end of the cold war has led to an explosion of nationalism, which has created immense instability in what was once the Soviet empire of eastern Europe and in what was once the Soviet Union. We should have been well prepared for that because the end of the British, French and Dutch empires produced the same instability in the third world, and that instability has lasted from 1945 to this day. We know that by the terms of its treaty NATO is forbidden directly to act in those areas of instability, although its members are free to do so if they wish, as they mostly decided they would when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.

It is not easy to decide when it is wise to commit British forces to such an enterprise. I believe that the Government were right not to support calls for military intervention in Yugoslavia from people who would not provide troops. The time might come when some police force might play a role, but certainly not now.

There may now be second thoughts, even on the Conservative Benches, about the wisdom of intervening to protect the Kurds in Iraq, as we have found that the Kurds were recently attacked simultaneously inside Iraq by aircraft from our Turkish NATO ally and by Saddam Hussein's armed forces. I found it a little shaming that the only European Government to comment on the Turkish action were the German Government.

Our main task, surely, if we all agree with what I have said so far, is to try to prevent the existing instability, 191 which is much more widespread than before the end of the cold war, from leading to a hot war. I suggest that this is primarily a task not for western armed forces but for action in other fields. We must begin to define security much more widely than we have been used to during the cold war. With respect to the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) pointed out, will sell arms to anyone who has money to offer, and many who have no money to offer, we must control the trade in arms with areas of instability. It is worth reminding ourselves that the big five powers—Russia and the main western powers— spent $60 billion this year on defeating a threat that was created entirely by their own arms exports, to which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda pointed out, we contributed. How much wiser it would have been, for our own security, to have spent that money on reducing the economic causes of instability.

I know that it will be difficult to reach agreement on how to control the arms trade, but while agreement is being reached there is an overwhelming case for freezing all arms exports to areas of instability, notably to the middle east. At one time, the American Administration seemed to be toying with that, but they have now dropped it.

We also face new problems, the full range of which we did not understand until after the Gulf war, in banning exports of dual technology—technology that can be used for civilian and military purposes. Before the Gulf war, few western countries, including our own, were not involved in supplying Saddam Hussein with the technologies that enabled him almost to produce nuclear weapons.

If we want to control the trade in arms, we must also control the production of arms, otherwise countries without their own arms industries could be at the mercy of countries that have substantial arms industries, as Croatia is now at the mercy of Serbia. That is best done by tying economic aid to cuts in military budgets. That has been proposed by Mr. Camdessus, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, and I desperately hope that the Government will support that idea not only for the third world but for the Soviet Union. If I understood the Minister, he was rather suggesting that they had some sympathy with that idea.

Thirdly, we must try to cut existing forces not only in the third world—they would never accept that—but in the rest of the world as well. President Bush and Mr. Gorbachev have set a useful example by the initiatives they have taken in the past few weeks. The United Nations must play the central role in all this enterprise, and the work of the special committee of the Security Council in Iraq recently showed how valuable that role can be. As the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Sir D. Steel) suggested, it must also develop machinery for the peaceful settlement of disputes, covering the rights of minorities and dangers of untenable frontiers such as those in the middle east that affect Palestine and the Kurds. We must regenerate the Military Staff Committee to provide a stand-by police force to monitor such agreements.

But the point that seems to have been missed in this debate is that economic breakdown in eastern Europe, the ex-Soviet Union and the third world could vastly increase political instability and lead to military dictatorships and wars of aggression, especially in eastern Europe and the ex-Soviet Union. Western Europe has a clear interest and 192 moral duty in offering aid at least to the central European countries of Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary on the scale of the Marshall plan—a smaller scale, incidentally, than the cost of the Gulf war—and in offering them the prospect of joining the Community, as they all wish. The sooner European Free Trade Association countries join the Community the better, because they will increase, rather than drain, the Community's economic strength.

A big problem arises that has not been discussed by Ministers: what will the security system be for countries in the old communist empire? The east European countries, and some of the Soviet republics, would like to join NATO. Indeed, Mr. Gorbachev suggested that the Soviet Union might join NATO. I do not think that we should dismiss those ideas as idle ravings, because what has happened in the past few weeks has made that more possible, more difficult and more necessary. Yet the United States and Germany have already made such a proposal for the east European countries.

Everything in the world has changed, not so much because of the fall of the wall in Berlin but because of the failure of the Monty Python attempted coup in Moscow in August. The "Coup Klutz Clan" failed to carry out its objectives and as a result it destroyed the three pillars on which the Soviet state has rested for 70 years—the Communist party, the secret police and the Red Army.

The interesting thing which has happened during the past few weeks and which was responsible for President Bush's initiative is that none of the successor states to the Soviet Union now fears attack by NATO, but nearly all —except the Russian republic—fears attack by the Russian republic. In a remark of stupendous and historic folly, a few weeks ago Mr. Yeltsin suggested that, if the Soviet Union broke up, the Russian republic reserved the right to change the frontiers of other republics. Twenty per cent. of the Ukranians are Russian, as are 30 per cent. of those living in Kazakhstan. The result is that they want not only independence but their own armed forces and nuclear weapons.

Last week, the Ukraine announced that it proposed to produce an army of 420,000 men—far larger than any army in Europe. It already has on its territory 100 strategic nuclear warheads. Azerbaijan wants to produce a somewhat smaller army and is already appealing to Turkey and Iran to provide it with the necessary weapons. Kazakhstan has 200 strategic nuclear warheads on its territory. Just as the G7 decided yesterday in Bangkok to send a mission to discuss the economic co-operation of the Soviet republics with one another as an indispensable foundation for western economic aid, so NATO should be considering sending a mission to discuss the military implications of the end of the Soviet Union. I have reason to believe that quite a number of republics would welcome the dispatch of such a mission. Certainly, at the very least, we should make economic aid to the Soviet Union dependent on the creation of a military structure in the Soviet successor states which does not give the world the same cause to fear as President Bush's recent offer.

The economic and military future of the Soviet Union are of immense importance to us in Britain and, indeed, to the rest of the world. An economic cataclysm in the Soviet Union, which seems all too likely, could send millions of refugees across the Soviet frontiers into western Europe and the middle east. One need not discuss, of course, the horrifying possibility that individuals or groups in some of the countries that at present control Soviet nuclear 193 weapons may decide to sell them for money to other countries, particularly in the middle east. Already Soviet military nuclear scientists have been hired by Iraq and Iran. Incidentally, a large number have been hired by the United States, including the Soviet Union's main nuclear rocket specialist, Sagdee, who is now working at an American university.

It surprises me that none of those issues has been mentioned by the Government Front Bench.

§ Sir Patrick Duffy (Sheffield, Attercliffe)

The matter was mentioned yesterday.

§ Mr. Healey

There was just a mention of instability but there was no analysis of the way to deal with the consequences.

§ Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West)

The right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) spoke about it.

§ Mr. Healey

My right hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, East mentioned that aspect—the only Member to do so, and he is on our side. If I am wrong, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Sir P. Duffy) will correct me if he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker.

President Bush has proposed unilateral nuclear arms cuts—an interesting example of the way in which unilateral arms cuts can be sensible in the right context. To make a theological fetish out of the contrast between unilateralism and multilateralism is as silly as talking in the European sphere about federalism and non-federalism. The real need is to look at what is happening on the ground and how it influences our interests.

No one can deny what I have said, nor that these events have turned the world upside down. The Government's failure to face these new problems is depressing. The United States and Germany have decided to join Japan in recognising that, in the next generation, economic strength will be a much more important influence in the world than military strength, yet in our country we plan to reduce our defence spending, which is higher as a percentage of gross domestic product than that of any of our allies, except the United States. We are planning to increase the gap in spending by cutting our forces to a level higher than any of our allies, except conceivably France—how far France will go has yet to be seen.

The Prime Minister should face this problem. It is not a problem for the Secretary of State for Defence, who boasted that his cuts were not Treasury driven. Why the hell not? Surely, when the British economy is tottering on the verge of collapse and our social and economic infrastructure desperately needs assistance, the Chancellor should say, "Justify your demand for these forces." The Foreign Secretary should not spend his time playing kindergarten games with his European colleagues in Brussels. Last week, there was a wonderful example when the German and French Foreign Ministers tried to go joyriding in the Dutch Foreign Minister's limousine after a meeting so that they could hold an independent press conference before the Community's official press conference. What a way to run a railroad when the world faces the sort of problems that we all agree exist!

The Foreign Secretary should start by considering some of the commitments by which the Ministry of Defence 194 justifies, quite reasonably, its force structure. Is it really sensible to retain our military commitments in Gibraltar, Cyprus, Belize and the Falklands when we are already getting rid of our commitment in Hong Kong? Surely the skill that the former Prime Minister showed with the former Foreign Secretary in selling the people of Hong Kong down the river to save us embarrassment could have been deployed on equally worthy causes in other ex-colonies.

This country's future will depend on our economic success relative to the success of those who compete with us. If we go on spending so much more of our smaller wealth and smaller research and development resources on defence rather than on civil expansion, we shall collapse in the face of the onslaught from our industrial competitors and we shall deserve to do so.