FIRST DAY

§ Madam Speaker

Before we commence the debate on defence, which is a two-day debate, I want to tell the House that there is a great deal of interest over these two days and that hon. Members will be very fortunate if all those wishing to speak are called. I do not intend to impose any discipline on lengths of speeches—today, at any rate. I am looking to the House to impose its own discipline on itself. Therefore, I ask hon. Members to limit voluntarily their speeches to 10 minutes so that I shall be able to call all hon. Members who want to speak. I ask the Secretary of State to move the motion.

§ Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset)

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand from your just calling the Secretary of State that you are not selecting any amendments at this time. I seek your guidance on a point of order because I understand that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition has tabled—it is not yet on the Order Paper—a reasoned amendment to the motion. Could you give us any guidance on whether you will be selecting that amendment tomorrow? There is a series of—

§ Madam Speaker

Order. I have got the point. I am certainly not selecting an amendment today. Of course, I am quite at liberty to select an amendment tomorrow. When it is on the Order Paper for us all to see, I shall make my views known to the House.

§ Mr. Bruce

Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

§ Madam Speaker

No. I have made the matter clear.

§ The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind)

I beg to move, That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994 contained in Cm. 2550. It may be of some comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) to know that the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) quite satisfactorily represents the views of the Labour party. I have no doubt that we shall, in due course, hear the official spokesman, as opposed to the unofficial spokesman for the Labour party, explain why he greets that amendment with total enthusiasm, representing as it does the views of his party conference.

We are today officially debating the "Statement on the Defence Estimates", which was published some six months ago. The events of the past six months explain 37 and demonstrate clearly why it is crucial in the modern post cold war world to have armed forces that are flexible, mobile and able to respond to the very curious world in which we now live, with unexpected developments and quite historic changes.

In just the past six months, we have had not only the Iraqi crisis, which the House has just examined, but major developments in Bosnia, with the closure of the border by President Milosevic, the historic developments in Northern Ireland and the necessity to send certain forces to Rwanda. Each and every case either had significant military implications or had the potential at some future date to have significant military implications.

Three main themes emerged from the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" and I should like to comment briefly on each of them. The first major theme drew attention to perhaps the most important initiative that NATO has brought forward recently, the "Partnership for Peace" initiative. It is of historic significance and, since it was launched in January of this year, some 23 countries, including Russia, Ukraine and others, have joined the "Partnership for Peace".

I should like to comment briefly on that initiative because I am aware from various articles that I have read in the past few months that certain people, not so much hon. Members, but certain journalists, have made snide comments about the "Partnership for Peace". They have suggested that it is an inadequate response to the post cold war world and that the fact that it includes Russia and Ukraine as well as central European countries shows that it is purely a cosmetic exercise. They have also said that it is an inadequate substitute for enlarging NATO itself. Those serious accusations are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the needs of European security now that communism has collapsed and the Soviet Union no longer exists.

The first requirement that "Partnership for Peace" represents is a recognition that we must not either directly or indirectly allow a Europe that was divided by the iron curtain for 40 years to be replaced by a new Europe with some other division, however unintended, which could have profound consequences. The security of Europe is indivisible. We therefore need to develop a security framework that has relevance not just to the members of NATO or to the countries that might join NATO, but to Russia and other new democratic countries which have a significant contribution that they could make either for good or ill to the security of Europe.

One of the great strengths of "Partnership for Peace" is that it provides a framework that incorporates Russia as well as central European countries. It has an essential dynamic within it whereby the precise relationship between NATO and any individual country will evolve over the years to come. In certain cases, that will lead to membership of NATO—I have no doubt that NATO will enlarge in the years to come—but, equally, for some other countries that participate in "Partnership for Peace" it is difficult, if not impossible, to envisage membership of NATO, even in the long-term future. Therefore, it is necessary to have a framework, which is what "Partnership for Peace" represents, which enables NATO to develop a significant relationship with each and every one of those countries.

Some mocking has been made of the fact that we have joint exercises with Russia or joint training with Russia or Poland or other new countries. I believe that those who 38 mock those developments do not begin to understand their significance. One of the great tragedies of the cold war period was the almost total lack of contact between the military of the Soviet bloc and NATO. I remember that when, two years ago, I first met General Grachev, the Russian Defence Minister, I asked him how many NATO officers he had met before the end of the cold war. He said that he had met none. If that was true of someone of his level it remains even more true of the many tens of thousands of middle-ranking officers. One of the great strengths of the joint exercises, exchanges and other similar activities is that they enable contact to be made between many tens of thousands of middle ranking junior Russian officers. That enables them to understand how the military operate in a democratic society and how western values should be relevant to their own situation. I believe that such exercises are an important initiative.

Last week, I visited the three Baltic states. The United Kingdom is making an important contribution towards the formation of a new Baltic battalion, which will be available to the United Nations. It has decided to conduct its operations in the English language. We are directly and indirectly playing a leading part in training the armed forces of those three new independent central European states. That is a matter of considerable pride.

One of the messages of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994" was the development of "Partnership for Peace". The second message was the fact that we are approaching the end of the transition to the new force line structure which began under "Options for Change". That has been a very difficult change, but it is one that is now approaching a period of stability.

§ Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East)

Before the Secretary of State departs entirely from "Partnership for Peace", does he agree that nothing would have been worse for the integrity and strength of NATO than to open membership to countries to which politically it would have been very difficult indeed to extend the collective right of self-defence contained in article 5 of the NATO treaty?

§ Mr. Rifkind

Membership of NATO is not just membership of a political alliance; it is membership of an integrated military structure. We must ask not just what additional security new countries would receive, but what contribution they would be able to make to the collective security of the alliance as a whole. Only when an intended member could deal with both sides of that equation would potential membership be a reality.

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

If this welcome European-wide development takes hold solidly and firmly, could it lead to a reduction in the British Army presence in Germany, especially the armoured units?

§ Mr. Rifkind

I believe that we have already indicated our policy in that respect. The British Army of the Rhine is already being reduced from more than 60,000 to about 23,000. We have no intention of bringing that down further. The most important reason for that—and this explains also why the United States is maintaining 100,000 troops in Europe—is the point that I made a few moments ago: NATO is an integrated military structure. That means that the troops must train together and be in the habit of working together if, in the event of a crisis, they are expected to fight together. That requires a 39 physical co-location. We and the German Government believe that that is important to ensure that NATO remains a credible and coherent alliance based not just on good intent and good faith, but on collective military training.

I said that the second main theme of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994" was the work, which is now drawing to a conclusion, on reforming our force structure. A year ago, we said that we did not intend to make any further reductions to the fighting strength of our armed forces. In the "Front Line First" initiative earlier this year, we demonstrated that that was a policy which we could deliver. Indeed, we have been able to enhance fighting strength in a number of important ways.

I shall return to that point later, but I emphasise that one of the themes for the rest of this Parliament will be the fact that the Government now offer stability so far as the fighting strength of our armed forces is concerned. The Opposition, because of their commitment to a review which would be the first initiative of a Labour Government, are offering nothing other than at least three years of continuing uncertainty about the force structure that would arise under a Labour Government.

§ Dr. David Clark (South Shields)

Is the Secretary of State assuring the House that, after the next election and if there were by accident to be a Conservative Government, there would be no defence cuts in the lifetime of the next Conservative Government—if there were to be one?

§ Mr. Rifkind

We are now approaching the completion of a very important change in the armed forces consequent upon the end of the cold war. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week, we have now reached the end of the big upheavals. We are saying that we believe that we now have a force structure which deals with the situation that has arisen after the end of the cold war. I shall return to this point later, but I can tell the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) that we are not contemplating any further cuts in battalions, regiments, ships and aircraft. That is not subject to a review, as it would be under the Opposition who make all those matters indeterminate for the foreseeable future.

The third theme of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1994" is the sheer quality of our armed forces and the contribution that they make around the world. I want to remind the House of what we said at the beginning of the document. These two sentences are perhaps the foundation of our approach to the armed forces: The United Kingdom remains one of the world's most formidable military powers. Only the United States, Russia and France"— as well as the United Kingdom— can deploy as broad a range of capabilities as the armed forces of the United Kingdom who, in terms of their experience, training, leadership and esprit, are the match for any in the world.

That is a bold claim for a relatively small country to make, but if there is any doubt about the validity of the claim that I have just made, one has only to contemplate where else in Europe, Asia, Africa or Latin America one can find a country that has not only armed forces of the size of ours—many countries have larger armed forces—but our capabilities, our experience and our ability to 40 deploy in various parts of the world in pursuit of a wide range of interests. That is something which the Government intend to maintain.

I refer now to certain specific parts of the world where our armed forces are operating. I shall comment only briefly on Iraq because the House has just heard a full presentation of the situation there. The House has been made aware of the quite significant assets that we have in Kuwait at present.

One of the points that I should like to draw to the attention of the House is that the spearhead battalion has responded to the circumstances there, and as a consequence we have asked the First Royal Anglian to become the new spearhead battalion which will be in reserve for any new crises that may arise in any part of the world, in order that the presence of 45 Commando in Kuwait should not have removed our ability to deploy quickly and effectively if any new problem needs to be dealt with.

I have noted also reference in certain newspapers to the fact that, as a result of the need to get our forces to Kuwait, the training of those who use Hercules aircraft or who use aircraft for other purposes might be affected. Of course, that is the case. The whole point about training is that it must not be allowed to take precedence over a real operational requirement. If we have a real operational requirement, as we have had in the recent past, inevitably it must have implications for training, but of course operational tasks are often the best training that the forces can receive, so that will be no loss to them.

§ Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow)

The Secretary of State will be aware that many of his colleagues on both sides of the House have been receiving representations on sickness allegedly contracted during the Gulf war. Indeed, there was a Channel 4 "Critical Eye" programme, "Quick War, Slow Death", which purported to show several cases that looked very genuine. Is the Ministry of Defence taking the issue seriously? If so, what developments can we expect?

§ Mr. Rifkind

Of course, we take those matters seriously. On several occasions, those who believe that they have suffered medical consequences as a result of participation in the Gulf war have been invited to identify themselves and to give such evidence as they have of their medical condition. As far as I am aware, all the inquiries that have been made so far have not substantiated those claims. A relatively small number have contacted us. Each case has been investigated and there has been no evidence to support the claims that have been made, but we continue to be willing to examine any such allegations to see whether they are supported by reasonable and acceptable medical evidence. It is a medical question, which can therefore be properly assessed.

I now refer to the situation in Bosnia and in former Yugoslavia. Since the publication of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates", there have been a number of important developments: the contact group map and the attempts to persuade the Bosnian Serbs to accept it, the decision by President Milosevic to break with the Bosnian Serbs, and the decision of the United States Congress to say that it would propose the lifting of the embargo if the contact group map was not accepted by 15 October.

The United Kingdom has at no stage been in any doubt as to the proper approach to the arms embargo. The position that we have taken has also been taken by France and, as far as I am aware, by all the countries that 41 contribute to UNPROFOR—indeed, it is the view that has been taken by most countries around the world. It is not possible to lift an arms embargo and, at the same time, continue to believe that UNPROFOR could carry out its task in a non-partisan role, seeking to bring peace in that country. That remains our view.

We were particularly pleased that the Bosnian Government, having given careful reflection and consideration to what might happen if the embargo was raised, came to the conclusion that, after all, they did not wish to recommend that the embargo should be raised at this time. I am sure that that was a wise judgment on their part. One must recognise that, if the embargo were raised, inevitably UNPROFOR would have to withdraw. That would expose Gorazde and the other enclaves to any attack that might then take place, and the effects of lifting the embargo, certainly in the short term and, in our view, also in the long term, would simply bring more warfare, suffering and hardship to the people of Bosnia and prolong the conflict rather than bring it to an end.

I am aware that there are some who argue that although we should not raise the embargo now, we should be prepared to give a commitment that we shall raise it in six months. The same arguments that I have just mentioned would be likely to apply in the same way at a future date. Obviously, events move on and one would have to look at the circumstances as they existed next April, but I find it difficult to believe that the basic argument would have changed fundamentally.

On British forces in Bosnia, the Royal Highland Fusiliers will complete their handover from the Second Royal Anglians in November. I pay great tribute not only to what they have achieved but to the excellent leadership that General Sir Michael Rose has given them and the United Nations as a whole during his period in Bosnia. He has demonstrated exceptional qualities in the best traditions of our armed forces, and that has enhanced the reputation of our armed forces, as one would expect, around the world.

It is also worth remembering the broad role of UNPROFOR in Bosnia. Events move on, and as events move on so the role has significantly changed. In addition to escorting humanitarian aid convoys, British forces have played an important role in implementing the Muslim-Croat ceasefire in central Bosnia by patrolling confrontation lines, manning weapons collection points and liaising between the parties. British engineers have continued to play an essential role in keeping open key supply routes, and last month succeeded in constructing a badly needed Bailey bridge over the River Neretva in Mostar, which has been widely acclaimed. In addition to the ground forces, our sea and air forces in the Adriatic have served with equal distinction.

That is a record of service of which we can be proud, but we can also properly pay tribute to the sacrifices that our armed forces have made. Sadly, we have had the tragic deaths of eight British troops through action by the warring parties. Last month, we also saw the sad loss of four more soldiers as a result of two separate road traffic accidents. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering our condolences to the families of those brave men and in the recognition of the sacrifice that they have made in pursuing a noble objective.

It would be right and proper to comment on developments in Northern Ireland. That matter is clearly of profound importance at present because we are all 42 conscious that we are entering into an historic phase with regard to events in the Province. For more than 25 years, the armed forces' largest and most important peacetime commitment has been within the United Kingdom itself, in Northern Ireland. Their role has been to support the Royal Ulster Constabulary in countering violence by republican and loyalist terrorists and to assist the return of normality to Northern Ireland. They have carried out that role with considerable success.

The terrorists have not succeeded in achieving their aims through violence. Despite terrorist activities, most people in Northern Ireland have been able to lead relatively normal lives in recent years. That that is so is due in large measure to the resolute and professional way in which the security forces have carried out their duties over the years. The RUC and the armed forces supporting them have together seized vast quantities of weapons and explosives and made thousands of arrests of suspected terrorists, both republicans and loyalists. Their actions have prevented countless terrorist attacks and saved many members of both communities from murder or maiming. It is no exaggeration that the actions of the security forces have preserved the very fabric of society in Northern Ireland.

I regularly visit the armed forces in the Province, and every time I do so I am reminded afresh how easy it is to take for granted the extent of their daily contribution on behalf of the community there. For 25 years, young soldiers have had to face every day the possibility of terrorist attacks in a wide variety of forms. Young privates and junior NCOs have carried the greatest part of the burden. They have had to face daily the awesome responsibility of making split-second decisions on which their lives and the lives of others have depended. Those on roulement tours have been required to work a 16-hour day for six months on end, in spartan conditions, with only a nine-day break in that time. They have been expected to act with impartiality and politeness to all those whom they meet on the streets, regardless of the provocation that they may receive and the danger that they face. Some 300,000 service men have served in Northern Ireland over the past 25 years. It is an enormous credit to their training, discipline and character that the vast majority of them have carried out their duties—they are still carrying them out today—to the highest standards.

We do not pretend that there is a military solution to the problems in Northern Ireland. The problems are, essentially, political ones that require a combination of political, social, economic and security measures to resolve them. The Government have made strenuous efforts on all those fronts, and there are grounds for believing that we are making progress.

§ Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley)

May I join the Secretary of State wholeheartedly in his tribute to Her Majesty's forces, both the regular Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Does he agree that it is necessary to make it possible for the utmost vigilance to be maintained by the security forces to guard against any resumption of violence or surprise attack, given that it is always possible to do those things as long as any terrorists retain arms?

§ Mr. Rifkind

I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I pay a sincere tribute to him for the statesmanlike way in which he has contributed towards 43 the prospect of real peace in the Province—a contribution which I believe has been widely applauded by all sections of the community.

Clearly, the Government have been greatly encouraged by the Provisional IRA's announcement of a ceasefire. There have now been no terrorist attacks by the IRA for more than six weeks. We are also encouraged by the announcement last week of a ceasefire by the loyalist paramilitaries. We very much hope that all those groups intend a permanent end to violence, and we are assessing whether we can yet make a working assumption that that is so.

In any case, we cannot and we dare not assume that now or in the near future there will suddenly no longer be a need for military support for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. All the terrorist groupings still retain a substantial capability for carrying out further acts of violence without notice. It is a matter for the Chief Constable and for the General Officer Commanding Northern Ireland, as the operational commanders, to judge how their forces should be deployed in the present circumstances. However, the Government must ensure that they have the necessary resources available to ensure the security of the people of Northern Ireland.

We shall continue to keep force levels under review to ensure that they are appropriate. I very much hope that in time the security situation will permit us to reduce force levels, but it would be irresponsible to do so prematurely. As we have made clear in the past—and I quote from the "Statement on the Defence Estimates": As soon as the terrorists on both sides renounce violence, and fully demonstrate their commitment to doing so, the armed forces will progressively be withdrawn from the streets. They will then return to their peacetime role, so that normal policing can resume throughout Northern Ireland. But, in the meantime, the armed forces will continue steadfastly to support the RUC for as long as the terrorists make it necessary. That was said six months ago; I can confirm that we stand by those commitments today.

However, that does not mean that there is no scope for flexibility. As the House will be aware, a number of measures have already been taken to reduce the profile of the armed forces in Northern Ireland but without reducing security or vigilance. The GOC Northern Ireland, with the full agreement of the Chief Constable, has taken steps to make the posture of the military patrols appear less aggressive to the public. For example, for some weeks now, soldiers have been patrolling in regimental headdress without camouflage cream, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has announced the reopening of a number of closed border crossing points. Those measures have been welcomed by many ordinary members of the public in Northern Ireland.

In the coming months, provided that the terrorist threat permits, the GOC, in consultation with the Chief Constable, intends to implement further measures to reduce the impact of the armed forces operations on the ordinary people of Northern Ireland. We all look forward to the restoration of normality in the Province. I can 44 assure the House that the armed forces will continue to play a full part in the restoration of normality by whatever means are appropriate.

§ Mr. Keith Mans (Wyre)

Bearing in mind the fact that there was a permanent garrison of British troops in Northern Ireland before the present trouble started in the 1960s, and there had been for many decades previously, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that provided and if a settlement is reached after the present negotiations, there is no possibility that British troops will not continue to be garrisoned in Northern Ireland after that settlement?

§ Mr. Rifkind

My hon. Friend can be reassured because, of course, there is the Royal Irish Regiment, whose home is in the Province. It is important that that regiment will continue to have that intimate role as part of our armed forces.

It can never be normal for soldiers to be deployed on streets of the United Kingdom. Our aim is to remove soldiers from the streets of Northern Ireland, but when it is safe to do so and not a moment sooner. I believe that that is what the public would expect of us.

Finally, I refer to the "Front Line First" study and the consequences, which we announced in July shortly before the House rose. I thank the Select Committee and its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor), for the work done and its report on the "Front Line First" study, which was published recently. I welcomed in particular the reference in paragraph 4 to a package of measures … elegantly cobbled together". We do not always expect such recognition of the elegance of our policy from the Select Committee.

§ Dr. David Clark

It was a compliment.

§ Mr. Rifkind

Yes. Of course, nothing is perfect in this world. If it can be elegant only by being cobbled as well, that is something that I shall have to live with. I noticed that the Select Committee said: As a one-off exercise, the Defence Costs Study has unquestionably been of some value in identifying savings: but the temptation to treat it as the beginning of an annual round of such exercises must be firmly resisted. I tell my hon. Friend and other members of the Select Committee that I have no intention of responding to that temptation. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be reassured by that.

I acknowledge—and the Select Committee pointed out—that there are uncertainties, unpredictabilities and difficulties about a number of the recommendations in the "Front Line First" study. It is a massive study, which covers a vast range of issues. Of course, at this stage there must be a question mark over some of the conclusions and figures. We have deliberately gone out to consultation so that we can respond to some of those concerns.

§ Mr. Winston Churchill (Davyhulme)

Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House how much of the £750 million that has been identified in the "Front Line First" study as savings is being recycled into defence, rather than going back to the Treasury?

§ Mr. Rifkind

As my hon. Friend rightly says, we have identified the means of considerable enhancements. For example, we have announced the development of a joint rapid deployment force; we have indicated our interest in 45 acquiring Tomahawk cruise missiles; we are responsible for a major expansion of training in both the Air Force and the Army; and we have also decided not to put into mothballs certain aircraft and ships that had been planned for that purpose. That is a whole series of enhancements in addition to the other changes that I have been able to announce.

§ Mr. Churchill

How much?

§ Mr. Rifkind

I cannot give my hon. Friend a figure. However, we can give figures for each item, and they add up to a considerable sum. Of course, they are not one-off sums; they are recurring costs. Most of the things to which I have referred have an on-going cost but are affordable partly because of the savings identified in the "Front Line First" study. That study was not only of benefit to the taxpayer but has resulted in a transfer of resources to the fighting edge as it affects our armed forces.

§ Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley)

Will the Secretary of State give way?

§ Mr. Rifkind

I shall continue for a moment and then I might give way to the hon. Gentleman.

There were three main characteristics in the way in which we approached "Front Line First", which made it a significant initiative. The first was our determination not to cut the fighting strength of the armed forces. Indeed, we were determined to enhance it wherever possible, and we were very successful with that. I note that the Select Committee said that while it acknowledged that there were to be no direct effects on fighting and strength, it was concerned that there might be some indirect consequences. I assure my hon. Friend and other members of the Committee that we intend to be scrupulous in ensuring that neither directly nor indirectly will the fighting strength of our armed forces be weakened by any of the recommendations.

§ Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)

May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to look again at the proposal which one understands is before him to reduce by more than half the strength of the Royal Marine Reserve and by almost half the strength of the SAS Reserve?

§ Mr. Rifkind

I assure my hon. Friend that no proposal has come to Ministers on either of those matters. The Royal Marines expressed a desire to review their strength to see what they required. That was not part of the defence costs study. It did not arise out of the same initiative. It was something that the Commandant General of the Royal Marines said to Ministers that he wished to do. I await the recommendations of the Royal Marines. We shall respond when we hear what they believe to be desirable.

The second main characteristic of the "Front Line First" study was the involvement not only of the chiefs of staff, who were intimately involved throughout the process, but of middle-ranking officers responsible for many of the support activities. We invited them to give us the benefit of their ideas and experience. We were delighted that more than 3,000 proposals which we were able to take into account came to Ministers. There were no sacred cows on this occasion, but the consequence of that has been that we have had to recommend the closure of several establishments and a significant number of redundancies, which although not in front line activities were nevertheless painful to many hon. Members in 46 respect of their constituencies. I have a constituency which is affected in that way because of the proximity of the Rosyth base, so I am conscious of the difficulties that the recommendations mean in terms of jobs and the future of certain support organisations.

We are now into the period of consultation. The three-month formal period of consultation ended on Friday of last week, but we have stated that we have every intention of showing maximum flexibility. Certain consultative documents have only recently been published. Two have been published today. Of course, proper time will be available for consultation on those documents.

§ Mr. Ian Bruce

My right hon. and learned Friend will know that I have a copy hot off the press of the consultation paper, for which I have been asking all summer, on the air station at Portland that is due to move to Yeovilton. I understand that my right hon. and learned Friend has given 45 working days or nine weeks for consultation. I thank him for that. Will he give an absolute assurance that the skimpy figures, which I am afraid are too small even to read in the document, will be expanded completely? I know that my constituents want to take an active and constructive part in consultation. I think that we have a strong case to put to my right hon. and learned Friend to suggest that he can make his savings elsewhere.

§ Mr. Rifkind

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I am delighted that he wishes to respond constructively. I look forward very much to hearing the particular points that he might wish to put to us so that we can consider them in due course.

§ Mr. David Shaw (Dover)

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for finally publishing today the consultation document on the Royal Marines school of music in Deal. However, not only are the financial figures just four skimpy pages at the back of the document, but the people of the communities of Deal and Kent have agreed through the local authorities that an independent firm of accountants should be retained to go through the figures. Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the Ministry of Defence is prepared to allow access to the figures that are not given on the four pages so that people in the community can see what the real figures are? It is not acceptable to keep the figures within the Ministry when the Ministry has made so many mistakes with the figures for Deal in the past.

§ Mr. Rifkind

I hear what my hon. Friend says. Obviously, I shall seek to respond in the way that he requests. He has not specified which particular figures he would like access to. Therefore, he will not expect me to give a blanket answer. When we hear what figures he would like to have access to and if they appear to be relevant to the real issues, I will try to be as helpful as possible.

§ Mr. Shaw

Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?

§ Mr. Rifkind

I must move on.

§ Mr. Foulkes

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. I knew that he was not discriminating against me. He dealt earlier with aspects of procurement. The replacement of the Hercules is important to the British Aerospace plant at Prestwick and other British 47 Aerospace plants. I hope that the Secretary of State will not be influenced by the knocking advertisements by Lockheed in the newspaper. There was one again today. I was worried when I received a reply from the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, which suggested that a decision would be rushed by the end of the year. That would not allow the future large aircraft to be properly considered. I hope that the Secretary of State will give an assurance that no decision will be rushed and that the FLA will be properly assessed and considered.

§ Mr. Rifkind

I assure the hon. Gentleman that Government policy is not determined by the contents of advertisements. My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will comment in greater detail on the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. I assure him that we shall not be rushed into any decisions. We will take decisions based on the operational requirements of the Royal Air Force and the armed forces.

I shall briefly refer to the joint rapid deployment force, which is one of the important initiatives that we announced as a consequence of the "Front Line First" study, and which we are able to take forward because of some of the savings that have been identified.

The reinforcement of Kuwait is just the latest in a series of examples of threats to security that have required the deployment at short notice of elements of our sea, land and air forces. Such operations play to the strength of our professional, experienced personnel and allow them to make a contribution greater than mere numbers might suggest. In July, I announced a number of measures that would further enhance all three services' capabilities for contingency operations. I should like to comment on the joint rapid deployment force.

As "rapid deployment" implies, the land elements of a rapid deployment force must be light while still able to protect themselves, and at high readiness, with a capability for strategic deployment by air or in dedicated specialist shipping. Hence the focus on the airborne and commando brigades, although in principle any element of our contingency forces could be drawn on to contribute to a JRDF operation. The rapid deployment force will rely heavily on the support provided by air and maritime forces, particularly for firepower and mobility. Operations in which it is involved will place emphasis on the need, if necessary, to apply force or to demonstrate the ability to use force quickly and with maximum effect, perhaps in order to save lives, as in service evacuation, or to forestall the escalation of a crisis, as in the reinforcement of a dependent territory. It may also be deployed in advance of heavier forces, to demonstrate intent or to secure an airhead or port.

Such tasks are demanding, and made all the more so by their diversity and the impossibility of predicting the exact combination of mission, environment, threat and allied involvement that will be encountered. The keys to success will lie in the co-ordination and confidence gained through extensive joint training and effective, interoperable communications and equipment.

Implementing the concept will not require fundamental changes to be made in the order of battle. The British armed forces already have more experience of joint warfare and are better prepared to meet the demands imposed by it than most of their counterparts. The JRDF 48 will enable us to target resources for training and equipment to best joint effect. In that context, some £50 million to £60 million in total will be spent on the communications enhancements that I announced in July. The major element of that will start to arrive with units from 1996, and most will be in place by 1997.

The 3 (UK) Division and 3 Commando Brigade headquarters staff are already working closely together on joint planning of training and exercises and in future they will co-ordinate their training wherever possible. Those efforts, combined with the communications enhancements to Headquarters 3 Division and the RAF Tactical Communications Wing, which I announced in July, will be built upon in the years to come as an essential complement to the development of the new, permanent joint headquarters.

Before I conclude, it would be remiss of me not to mention briefly the Labour party policy on defence. I shall mention it only briefly because there is no policy, so it is unnecessary for me to detain the House terribly long. We have been conscious that in the past couple of years the Labour party, in a desperate attempt to appear respectable on the subject, has sought to avoid any commitments that would antagonise either its party supporters or the public. But those two objectives are irreconcilable, as we saw in Blackpool two weeks ago.

Not only the Government or the Conservative party hold in contempt the Labour party's position on defence. I shall draw to the Labour party's attention the remarks of people who might normally be thought to be sympathetic to or objective on its point of view and would like to put the best interpretation on whatever it might say. For example, on 22 July there was an editorial in The New Statesman and Society commenting on the "Front Line First" study, which had a mixed reaction in the press. That editorial praised the Government and condemned the Opposition. It stated that the Labour party

in Parliament opted for the path of least controversy. In effect, it decided not to have a defence policy. In place of a policy, Labour has taken on a set of attitudes and tactics. David Clark repeats his call for a defence review with such regularity that things are now beginning to fall off the walls from sheer ennui. What would be reviewed in such a review; what Clark himself thinks; what Britain's defence relations should be with the United States and the European Union—all these questions are left unasked and unanswered … It will have some difficulty convincing voters that it is indeed fit to govern. The problem now is not the policy, much less disagreements over it. The problem is that there isn't one.

§ Mr. Nick Raynsford (Greenwich)

The Minister said that he was coming to the end of his speech, but I should not like him to do so or to launch into flights of party political oratory without at least mentioning the issue of training. He will be conscious of the important recommendations in the defence costs study about the future location of the tri-service college. He will also be conscious of the real anxieties of people in Greenwich about the future of the Royal Naval college. The Minister probably shares those anxieties because he is a trustee of the Greenwich hospital estates. When will the study produce recommendations and what assurances can the Minister give the House that he looks forward to preserving not just the important naval college and its fine achievements, but its buildings for which he has a personal responsibility?

§ Mr. Rifkind

I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said and in due course, when we reach a 49 conclusion, we shall respond to his points. However, he will not distract me from the issue with which I was dealing, although I know that he would like to do so.

I have shared with the House the views of The New Statesman and Society on Labour's lack of policy, and I shall now move to The Guardian, that other well-known reactionary newspaper which would normally be thought sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman. On 14 July 1994 after the Government's publication of their proposals, Mr. Hugo Young wrote: There is no field in politics in which Labour is less convincing than defence. Its conferences vote for massive defence cuts, its spokesmen can barely admit that a single job should disappear. Although this may not be quite the economics of the madhouse it defines the statesmanship of the nursery. The Independent on Sunday published a brief editorial that is relevant to the Opposition. It stated: Labour has called … for a full scale review of Britain's defence commitments … But it is no use Labour pretending that it can be done without loss of jobs and much consequent pain. And it is no use pretending that it can avoid hard choices in this or any other area. The editorial, written in July, went on: If he does become Labour leader on Thursday, Tony Blair should act at once to stop the kind of wet and vapid thinking that did his party so little credit last week. The Leader of the Opposition did become leader of his party in July, and since that time the total thinking vacuum has continued.

§ Mr. Dalyell

rose—

§ Mr. Rifkind

I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman because I think that he more clearly represents the views of the Labour party than his Front-Bench spokesmen.

§ Mr. Dalyell

The Minister spoke about unanswered questions. On 27 November 1992 I asked seven questions. The fifth one was: will the Government confirm or deny that Mark Thatcher and a Saudi Arabian middle man involved in the deal, whose name was Wafic Said, paid income tax on money which they earned from the Al-Yamamah deal?"—[Official Report, 27 November 1992; Vol. 214, c. 1104.] If the Minister intends to indulge in such cross-party talk, perhaps he will explain the exact role of Mark Thatcher.

§ Mr. Rifkind

Mark Thatcher is neither a member of the Labour party nor, as far as I am aware, a member of the Conservative party, so I do not intend to be distracted by the hon. Gentleman.

It may just be that for the first time for two and a half years we are about to hear the makings of a Labour defence policy. I appeal to the Opposition spokesman not to give us nonsense about his calls for a defence review. Everyone knows perfectly well that Labour believes not in the defence review but in the necessity to avoid saying anything on this subject that will antagonise anyone either now or during the remainder of this Parliament.

If the hon. Member for South Shields does not believe my claim about that, he should simply state Labour's policy on whether we should spend more on defence, spend what we are spending now, or spend less. The Labour party does not need a review to determine that. Do we have the right number of battalions or should we have more or fewer, or does it depend on a review? [Interruption.] Do we have the right number of ships? Should we have more or fewer or does that also depend on a review? Have we the right number of aircraft or do 50 we need more or fewer, or does it depend on a review? If the hon. Gentleman says that it depends on what commitments we should enter, perhaps he will give us Labour's view on those commitments. Perhaps we are not to be told about that for another three years until after a review.

The Labour party is a disgrace to the armed forces and to the national interests of this country. Unless the hon. Gentleman can rescue the reputation of his party in the next half hour, his party will rightly continue to be held in contempt.

§ Dr. David Clark (South Shields)

I shall begin by making a few observations which I hope will find consensus in the House. Over the years, I have come to respect the dedication and skills of all those who are involved in protecting the security of our country. The sheer professionalism of the men and women of our armed forces is second to none. I include in that our reserves and the oft forgotten men and women who serve in the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. Those who are involved in the necessary administration and planning are often ignored, but our defence effort would flounder without their contribution.

The sheer brilliance of those involved in defence research is renowned throughout the world, and workers in the defence industries also deserve our gratitude. Time and again, they have shown that in an emergency they can more than rise to the occasion. Collectively, they have played their part admirably in ensuring our security. In view of the novel difficulties that have been created by Tory mismanagement of defence requirements over the past few years, my admiration for them is even stronger.

My experiences in visiting Bosnia and Northern Ireland and bases in the United Kingdom and elsewhere over recent years have served to reinforce my impression. As the Secretary of State for Defence has said, the task of the forces in Northern Ireland is now, we hope, ending. One of my most unnerving experiences was to be on foot patrol with soldiers in west Belfast, and the contrast between that experience and the soldiers' good nature will remain with me for ever.

Those who take part in the valuable humanitarian missions that we are undertaking at sea, in no-fly zones and on the ground throughout the world deserve the gratitude of the whole House. I am sure that we are all well served by those people. On behalf of the House, I should like to express condolences to the families and friends of loved ones who have lost their lives in Bosnia. Twelve British service men have lost their lives there in tasks which have saved thousands of innocent civilians.

§ Mr. Gary Streeter (Plymouth, Sutton)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the decision two weeks ago at the Labour conference to scrap Trident would throw 4,000 people in Plymouth out of work overnight? What are we to make of the fact that the only Labour amendment on the Order Paper "supports the call" to scrap Trident? We 51 know that Opposition Members are weak on defence, but what do they have against the city of Plymouth which I represent? [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)

Order. I hope that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) will withdraw his sedentary remark.

§ Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)

Perhaps you would tell me what the sedentary remark was, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am sorry to have to say that I thought I heard the hon. Gentleman use the word "rat". Will he confirm that he did not use that word?

§ Mr. Home Robertson

If I used that word, I withdraw it.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

Did or did not the hon. Gentleman use that word?

§ Mr. Home Robertson

Not that I recall, Sir.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am most grateful.

§ Dr. Clark

The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) demeans himself and the House. I am trying to pay tribute to the men and women who have served us so well in the past—yet he interrupts in the middle of my speech to make a cheap party political point. It has been reported to us that he has also been telling his constituents that the amendment on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) is the Opposition's official amendment. That is not the case. We are debating the order under normal practice.

It is nice to see the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) joining us. Having failed to get healthy food when he was at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—

§ Mr. Oliver Heald (Hertfordshire, North)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) to deny that the only amendment on the Order Paper is the official Labour party amendment? There is no other amendment. How can it not be an official Labour party amendment when the Members who tabled it are all official Labour party candidates elected to the House?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

I do not think that that is a matter for the Chair.

§ Dr. Clark

Your knowledge of the procedure of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and our knowledge of history confirm that what has happened is the usual procedure. Indeed, this is what happened last year. When a debate is held on the first two days after our return from the summer recess, any amendment must have been tabled on the day that the House rose. Of course, various things happen during the course of a three-month break and we need to keep our options open to ensure that we can debate everything that is relevant and pertinent to the time. I wish that my admiration for those who serve in our forces and in the defence industry could be shared by 52 the Conservative party. The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald) has just shown why it cannot be.

The truth is that the Government have mishandled our defence and cannot be trusted with our security. They are a Government without a coherent defence strategy and with a Secretary of State entirely in the hands of the Treasury. If there were need for proof of that, we had it just 12 months ago. It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech last November—not the Defence Secretary—who told the House about the proposed shape of our armed forces and the further cuts in defence spending.

If the Secretary of State still claims that he runs his Department, can he explain why he did not tell the House last year that cuts were to be made very quickly? It might be assumed by the more cynical and by those who follow these matters that, perhaps, he was not aware of any unrest on his Back Benches. Perhaps he was not aware of a letter signed by his Back-Bench colleagues, which was delivered to the Prime Minister on 26 October, saying that enough was enough, that there could be no further cuts and that if there were, they would not be supported. That resulted in a headline in the Evening Standard.

§ Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North)

Is not it a fact that the £750 million savings asked for were widely exceeded by the then Ministers of State for Defence Procurement and for the Armed Forces? Is not the balance of that money being invested in front-line materials for front-line troops? Is not that what the armed forces require? Did not the suggested savings come from the armed forces? Would the hon. Gentleman have done otherwise?

§ Dr. Clark

The hon. Gentleman's question was also asked by the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill). Unfortunately, there was no answer—[Interruption.] At this moment—although this might change very soon—I am not the Secretary of State for Defence and unfortunately I am not running the budget for the defence of this country.

Will the Secretary of State now tell us about his future spending plans? Can we be sure that there will be no further cuts? It was reported that at the Conservative party conference he said that there would be no more defence cuts. However, if we look at the small print of his speech we see that he did not actually say that—he said that there would be no cuts in our fighting capacity. The two are not necessarily the same. Nor do we accept his definition of fighting capacity. We are worried that the former Defence Minister, the right hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) is now Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Perhaps it is a case of gamekeeper turned poacher or protector turned persecutor. We shall have to wait and see.

Last year, the Ministry of Defence was ordered to find further spending cuts, hence the defence costs study otherwise known as "Front Line First". Of course, that title was dropped when we asked the question, "When wasn't it front-line first?" Of course, the results of the study were announced under the protection of much delayed defence orders—most of which had been announced more times than the economic recovery.

The results of the cuts were not painless, as the Secretary of State has tried to tell us. They included the sacking of 11,600 uniformed men and women from the Army, Navy and Air Force. It was not an increase of 53 3,000, as the Prime Minister told the Tory party conference; it was a decrease of 11,600 service personnel. It meant an 11 per cent. fall in RAF manpower and the closure of two out of three service hospitals. We now hear of the possibility of buying into a private hospital in Glasgow to make up the shortfall.

§ Mr. Rifkind

I saw the press report about that, but the hon. Gentleman should not believe everything that he reads in the newspapers. We cannot prevent any hospital from showing an interest, but it has already been explained to the hospital in question that it is unlikely that it could meet the needs of the armed forces because of its geographical location. The idea came from the hospital, not the MOD.

§ Dr. Clark

In view of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks, I take it that he is guaranteeing that no MOD money will be used to buy places in private hospitals. I take that to be Government policy.

Other results of the study include the merging of both headquarters and helicopter training centres and the closure of depots and supply stores, based on a decision that spares could be ordered just in time. The Defence Secretary gave the impression that he had universal approval from the military chiefs. That is not quite the case. The First Sea Lord, Sir Ben Bathurst, said on the BBC "PM" programme on 14 July: none of us are under any illusion that there is a certain amount of risk in this programme". I feel that Sir Ben was flagging up his disclaimer if anything should go wrong.

On the same programme, the Chief of the Air Staff, Sir Michael Graydon, went even further, saying:

within my service, and indeed all the services, there are large numbers of civilians who are crucial to our front line who will also be made redundant. I emphasise the words, crucial to our front line". They hardly accord with the Defence Secretary's bland and misleading assurances that the front line is not affected by the defence costs study.

Of course, I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not volunteer to do the study. During our debates last year, he did not explain that, because of the cuts made in the armed services there were surplus stores wasting taxpayers' money. Nor did he tell the House that there were thousands of unnecessary officials in the MOD, all just sitting there being paid for no good reason. Yet this year we are told that great savings can be made in the budget by closing stores and sacking staff. This year—and from now on, we are assured—we are told that the MOD will look for waste on a continuous basis. Why now? What has it been doing for the past 15 years if it can now find £750 million of genuine savings? The right hon. and learned Gentleman assures us that they are genuine. What have the MOD and the Government been doing for the past 15 years? Of course they know that much of those savings are not real.

§ Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside)

Nineteen eighty nine was 15 years ago. The iron curtain was lifted in 1989 and new circumstances then arose. That is the base date for reform of our armed services.

§ Dr. Clark

Yes, but even 1989 was five years ago, and five times £750 million would have been a big saving. The Government have been cutting since 1985.

54 The Secretary of State claimed that his proposals do not reduce the fighting strength of our armed forces, but his premise is fundamentally flawed. Does the Secretary of State not realise that in modern warfare, close integration of the front line and logistical support is fundamental to military success? Was he not advised at the start of the Gulf war that 77 per cent. of Challenger tanks in the British Army of the Rhine were unavailable due to lack of maintenance and of spare parts?

We are now expected to believe that spare parts are not needed in any quantity and that depots can be closed. The reality is that logistics and front-line capability are inseparable. In Bosnia today, it is estimated that the ratio between combat and logistical support is one to one. I warn the Government that they may not have five months' notice, as they did in the Gulf conflict four years ago.

We are told that millions of pounds can be saved by not storing parts and that we can rely instead on just-in-time production. Just in whose time? In Saddam Hussein's time? The crisis in Kuwait that started two weeks ago threatened a new Iraqi invasion within hours. If that had occurred, when would the Government have ordered the necessary spares? When the invasion took place? A week later? A month later?

§ Mr. Rifkind

If the hon. Gentleman wanted to comment on that aspect, he might at least have done the House the courtesy of reading the report, in which we made it explicit that we do not believe that just-in-time principles as they apply in industry can apply to the armed forces, precisely for the reasons just mentioned. Therefore, we make no such comparison.

§ Dr. Clark

The Secretary of State knows that and says it, but still he goes ahead, which is why we condemn the Government. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that his policy does not make sense, yet he continues to pursue it.

The manner of the Government's cuts is frightening and irresponsible. We can be sure that it will not be MOD or Treasury Ministers who will face the consequences but service men and women at the front line. Government policy on spares may be appropriate for Tesco, the Co-op or Sainsbury, but it is not appropriate for front-line services. The Government should not only say so but act against implementing that policy.

Any progress in wiping out inefficiency must be welcomed, but it astonishes me that while 18,000 men and women will lose their jobs so that the Treasury can save £750 million, there is massive MOD waste. it is unbelievable. Would anyone have noticed that £250,000 was spent on refurbishing—not buying—one air chief marshal's house if that matter had not been raised in my parliamentary question in February? How can the MOD lose track of £6 billion worth of stores? Why is it that almost all the £2.8 billion saving on the Trident programme is a result of efficient American rather than United Kingdom work? As the Public Accounts Committee report showed, in the UK there is a real cost increase of £761 million just for facilities on the Clyde.

After all the MOD checks, why did the National Audit Office find telephone lines that were not only never used but were proclaimed not to exist—yet have cost the taxpayer £10,000 a year every year since 1985? I know that the Secretary of State has friends in BT, but that is pushing too far. 55 I predict that in the months ahead we shall find more waste and more fraud. I will not say much about fraud, but the Secretary of State knows that there have been very unfortunate incidents of fraud involving millions of pounds of MOD money and the loss of jobs. The whole approach is unacceptable.

Earlier, I said that defence workers deserve our gratitude and admiration for their skills and loyalty. Our defence workers have built aircraft for the RAF, tanks for our Army and ships for our Navy, and they have done us well. Their skills and expertise have also given the UK major export opportunities in countries as defensive as the United States of America. Much of the work on head-up displays for the F16 and on the stealth aircraft was a result of the skill of our research and defence workers.

Instead of rewarding those workers, the Government seem to do all they can to ensure that skills go to waste in the dole queues. Government policies have made 200,000 defence workers redundant. At times, one gets the strong feeling that the Government regard this country's defence workers as the new enemy. Swan Hunter fought hard to stay open. That company's work impressed its customer—the Royal Navy—in terms both of its timeliness and quality. A strongly motivated work force provided our forces with equipment that will provide British security well into the next century. After all the months of struggle, it is shameful that the Government have done nothing to help Swan Hunter's work force to continue their work and, even by quibbling over £700,000, have allowed that highly efficient work force to slip away from a deal. What happened to Swan Hunter is happening to other factories and workplaces throughout the country.

While most countries recognise the need for a defence industrial base, the British Government do not. The right hon. Member for Thanet, South admitted in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts): Generally, we do not have a conception of a defence industrial base. What an admission. The Tories are content to let our defence industry disappear as if it had no relevance to Britain. The Government ought to act. There ought to be a proper regional policy, to ease any downsizing in defence orders. A defence diversification agency should be established, which could retain our defence workers' skills and techniques and materials, to help revitalise Britain's shattered manufacturing base. Partnership between industry and such an agency would encourage business change and would help to utilise a work force who have done great things in Britain.

Does not the Secretary of State have any conscience about the effect of his ill thought-out cuts on communities as far apart as Exeter, Rosyth, Eaglescliffe, Pendine, Devonport and Kirkcudbright? A proper regional policy is needed.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

Can Labour's defence spokesman explain to the House why his party should be considered the defender of defence-related jobs when it is still Labour policy to bring our defence expenditure down to the level 56 of our west European allies and to abolish the Trident nuclear programme? Labour's policies would have a far more devastating effect on defence jobs.

§ Dr. Clark

Labour's annual conference unanimously passed a resolution that rejected the re-ordering of British defences according to any rigid financial formula. We said that whatever is required and whatever resources are needed for the effective defence of our country will be supplied. I hope that is clear. I have looked at the history, because I heard the Secretary of State for Defence, at the Conservative party conference, claim that the Labour party could never be trusted with defence. So I worked out the annual percentage of gross domestic product on average spent by Labour Governments since the war, as compared with Conservative Governments. I must advise the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that, under a Labour Government, on average some 6.45 per cent. of GDP was spent on defence whereas the Conservative Government are spending 5.8 per cent. It is no wonder, then, that military men throughout the country tell us that they always do better under a Labour Government rather than a Conservative Government.

§ Mr. Clifton-Brown

Will the Opposition spokesman tell the House how much as a percentage of GDP the Labour party will spend on defence if—unfortunately for the country—it wins the next election?

§ Dr. Clark

The hon. Gentleman made his point as though the Conservatives have made no cuts. It is interesting that if one looks at the cuts in British defence made under this Government, one sees that they will bring us down to the average of our European allies without any problem. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman knows, but, in real terms, on the Government's projections, defence spending will be reduced by 40 per cent. towards the end of the century. What we have said, and I will say it again, is that the only way forward is to have a proper defence review where we can assess the risks facing our country and then reshape our policies accordingly.

§ Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby)

I am most interested in all these military men up and down the country who are telling the hon. Gentleman that the armed forces would be so much better off under a Labour Government, because I remember being in the armed forces under a Labour Government. I remember the pay rises that never quite seemed to happen, or which amounted to about half a packet of cigarettes. I remember, too, that, no sooner had all my friends, with whom I joined, got in, than they started to leave. Will the hon. Gentleman reassure us that—God forbid—should there be another Labour Government, we will not have the same situatio