---

Defence in the United Kingdom

As I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the responsibility of the Attorney-General comes into play after the Army prosecution authority believes that there is a matter to be prosecuted. That is how it happens and how it has been happening. We need a robust system of military justice through which allegations are investigated and, if appropriate, wrongdoers brought to court. That is what the Government want. Let me respond to the comments made by hon. Members. First, I pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). We wish him well in his retirement. He has made a considerable contribution as a Member of the House, an Opposition spokesman and a Minister. I endorse warmly the comments that have been made on both sides of House at his last appearance at the Dispatch Box. The right hon. and learned Gentleman alleged that the Government were responsible for cutting the defence budget. When his party was in power, defence spending—[Hon. Members: ““Come on.””] It is funny how Conservative Members do not want to hear these things. The Conservative Government cut defence spending by 15 per cent., and that was after the cold war. This Government are increasing defence spending by 7.5 per cent.—that is the difference. The right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to complain about regiments and various cuts to forces. Let us not forget that the Conservative Government merged several regiments. They also reduced numbers in the Navy. The number of submarines fell from 18 to 10 and the number of frigates from 22 to 19. The number of Navy personnel was cut from 58,000 to 45,000. During the Tory Government of 1992 to 1997, the number of RAF squadrons fell from 55 to 47, which was a reduction of 15 per cent. The Conservatives have nothing to teach anyone about how to handle the armed forces. The right hon. and learned Gentleman criticised the Government’s procurement record, but in 1997—the year that the Conservatives left office—the National Audit Office found that the top 25 defence procurement projects in which the Conservative Government were involved were £3 billion over the original costs and would be delivered three years late. That was the Conservatives’ record in Government. I was especially worried that the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the armed forces were under a ““legal siege””. That is rubbish. There have been 80,000 troop deployments in Iraq since we have been there, but in that time, there have been 184 investigations, which includes investigations of road traffic incidents. Of those investigations, one is ongoing, three have been dealt with by a commanding officer, five have been passed to the Army prosecuting authority, five are due for trial and 164 are closed. Five trials have been held and one case is now with the chain of command. There is no siege on our forces as far as the legal system is concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) said that he believed that there should be an open debate on defence. He is right, but we have five defence debates a year—this is one of them—so we have a fairly open debate on defence. The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Mr. Moore) made several points about nuclear policy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made his views on that clear during Defence questions this week, so I have nothing to add to what he said. The hon. Gentleman asked about the publication of the tri-service Bill. As I said, we hope to publish it at the end of the month and hold the Second Reading debate at the end of December. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to the Blake report earlier, so I do not think that I can add anything else to that. I will take note of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised about Qinetiq. I will go through them thoroughly and, if necessary, write to him. I will place a copy of any correspondence in the Library. I pay great tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) for his hard work on behalf of his constituents. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) has been trying to intervene for some time—he must forgive me but I cannot give way at this time—and I know that he shares my hon. Friend’s concerns about the proposed job losses at Donnington. All is not dark there and I hope that both Members will take part in the meetings with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. I cannot answer the question about the rail freight depot but to assist my hon. Friend I will ensure that it is passed on to my appropriate ministerial colleague. The Chairman of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), has an important role. His Committee scrutinises on our behalf what we do day-to-day in the Ministry of Defence. I pay tribute to him and his Committee for their hard work. He mentioned a debate about Trident. I am sure that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reads Hansard tomorrow he will take note of the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks, and if there is a wide-ranging debate I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will welcome it. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) raised the issue of nuclear policy. I think I covered that point in my earlier remarks. The hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) expressed concern about TA recruitment. I certainly do not dismiss the points she raised. Of course, we are engaged in a battle in recruiting people to our forces. That is a fact and we do not deny it. However, she might like to hear some remarks made by soldiers themselves, and I shall read out a couple of them. The first is:"““I do not believe that anyone joins either the reserve or the regular forces without some hope of seeing operations at some time during their service.””" The second is:"““One ought not to be in the Territorial Army if one does not accept or even welcome the chance of being called up.””—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 24 March 2005, Vol. 419, c. 251–2.]" Those statements were made by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). I know of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith) about DARA St. Athan. He has been campaigning about that for several years. As he knows, consultations are under way and I have no doubt that he will take part. I am encouraged by a south Wales newspaper headline, quoting my hon. Friend who said:"““It’s not all doom and gloom over St. Athan.””" It is not, and I have no doubt that he will continue to ensure that he represents the interests of his colleagues and constituents in the forthcoming discussions. I did not agree with many of the things that the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) said, but his contribution was thoughtful and lucid. Such contributions are important in defence debates. It was a good House of Commons speech, which considered the whole ambit of defence. I thank him for the main thrust of his remarks, although I disagreed with some of his conclusions. It was an excellent contribution to our debate. My hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) made a similar contribution and I certainly welcome his comments. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) mentioned the tri-service Bill. Perhaps he will serve on the Committee; if so, he will bring much wisdom and knowledge to our deliberations when we deal with the Bill, which already has several hundred clauses—and we have not finished yet. I shall look into the points raised by the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) about accommodation and education. If necessary, I shall write to him. The hon. Member for The Wrekin expressed concern about Donnington. I hope that he will be able to take part in the discussions with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. That would certainly be helpful. He accused us of adopting privatisation, but the James review stated that, if the Conservatives had won the last election, they would have sold or privatised the Warship Support Agency, ABRO, DARA, the Met Office and the UK Hydrographic Office.