---

Defence in the UK

As is usual on these occasions, we have had an extremely well informed debate, with some very interesting contributions. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) that it is disappointing that the House has not had more opportunity to hear some learned contributions. It is also disappointing that the press do not take more interest in reporting what we discuss here, but we all know that they are much more interested in the trivialities of what goes on here than in much of the substance. Like my hon. Friends, I pay tribute to the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne). He initially arrived with no knowledge of defence and with the impediment of being a human rights lawyer, but he learnt hugely in the post. We all found him most congenial to deal with and we are disappointed that he has gone. He learnt in the post, and he made many friends in the Ministry of Defence and among our armed forces, as he became more knowledgeable and understanding. However, the Prime Minister imposed upon him the impossible task of performing the Secretary of State's duties part time, having given him the duties of the Secretary of State for Scotland, too. The hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) also served the House well, as well as veterans' interests. He did a good job in that area and the Government can claim to have achieved some success, not least in the creation of a veterans badge, as the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) said, which we have all had the opportunity to give to our constituents. I welcome the new Ministers, although I am perhaps not as charitable as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). As my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) pointed out, there are now four Ministers on the Front Bench. That is a 33 per cent. increase, and I am sure that the armed forces would welcome a 33 per cent. increase from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although that is unlikely at present. The reason there are now four Ministers is that the Government have realised that they have been outdone by us. We have four spokesmen and they have had to match the formidable firepower from the Conservative Benches. The Government are going to need every bit of firepower that they have between now and the next general election, when we come storming back to victory. As has been pointed out, apart from the Minister for the Armed Forces, the rest of the ministerial team are rookies, leaving him, a 12-month server, as the longest-serving Minister. There are challenges that those on the Front Bench will have to contend with, not least the Secretary of State, who will have to do some explaining, given what he told the House in December 1997:"““It is clear that the Royal Navy has borne the brunt of many of the reductions in defence spending in the past 15 to 20 years. That is a serious mistake.””—[Official Report, 3 December 1997; Vol. 302, c. 275.]" We all look forward to seeing how he will justify the slashing of the Royal Navy's surface fleet, from the 32 frigates and destroyers in the SDR to the present 22. Apart from the huge increase in our commitments, what has changed to justify that reduction in the Royal Navy? The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) and I are old friends and sparring partners on the Defence Committee, and I look forward to his doing something for me. He very kindly gave me an Afghan hat when he came back from Afghanistan, which I have worn, although not publicly. When I came back from Tunisia earlier this year I gave him a red fez, on condition that he was to wear it at the next meeting of his constituency Labour party. I look forward to seeing a photograph of him so clothed. The hon. Gentleman has now signed up to the unenviable task of answering the innumerable criticisms of the Defence Committee, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot). He is going to have to explain them to the House and to the public or, alternatively—as has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate—fight jolly hard within the Department for the things that he fought for when he was a member of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman enjoys a reputation for having subjected MOD witnesses to severe dressings down, and they will no doubt be thrilled to have him as their Minister now. I can hear the orders for the Château Lafitte being given in officers' messes across the land, and I am sure that he will get just as warm a welcome in the sergeants' messes. He needs to start eating some humble pie before he tucks in in the officers' mess. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), having ratted, cannot expect us all to be as charitable to him as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East was. It is entirely true that our researchers are not even working overtime, because there is such a deep seam of his past quotes to mine. I shall content myself with producing only one of them. A few years ago, he said:"““The defence of the country is no longer in the hands of people who care about defence; it is in the hands of the new Labour Treasury. There can be no less safe hands for the defence of this country than that.””—[Official Report, 13 April 2000; Vol. 348, c. 591.]" I think that the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) almost agreed with that latter point. We have had a good debate today. In the time available to me, I cannot go through all the contributions that have been made, but I shall single out one or two. It is good to see that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) has been unleashed from her Trappist vows and is now giving vent to freedom of expression, which, as a Whip, she would not have tolerated. She said that the Conservatives were not supportive of the United Kingdom defence industry, but that is not true. We are extremely supportive of it, and I refer her to my speech on defence procurement in the House on 19 June. The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) referred to the budget black hole, and he was absolutely right. That is going to be a problem with which Ministers will have to contend. They are going to have to explain how £500 billion can be found for the banks, when a couple of billion pounds cannot be found for the hard-pressed defence forces of this country. The public certainly want to know the answer to that question. There is much mention to be made of the contribution of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson). What he said was absolutely right. He participated in the strategic defence review negotiations, and the House will undoubtedly have enjoyed his mini-review today. We shall want to study it in more detail. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire, who does a marvellous job commanding the Defence Select Committee, referred to the report on recruitment and retention, and I want to refer briefly to it as well, if I have time. He also said that we need a strong defence industry and strong defence exports. I entirely agree with him about that. Next week, on 16 October, we shall celebrate the centenary of flight in this country. There will be a fly past, which my right hon. Friend can watch, and I will be flying the De Havilland Canada 1—a Chipmunk sandwiched between a Hurricane and a Vulcan. That spectacle will be on view at Farnborough next Thursday, weather permitting. We will have the opportunity to demonstrate how Britain has made such a contribution to, and led the world in, the aviation business during the past century. The hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) and my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) drew our attention to the concerns about training in their constituencies. Both of them have been members of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, as, I think, has the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport. I think that that speaks volumes for the value of the AFPS. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) is an absolute expert on reserve forces, and he paid tribute to their role in his speech. He has also produced some excellent reports, which the House would do well to study. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) said that when the First Sea Lord warns about cutbacks to the naval programme he needs to be heeded. The last one made the same cuts, and he got a peerage, so this one probably can as well. My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) referred to the repatriation of the fallen through his constituency. All of us will have been hugely impressed by the people of Wootton Bassett in his constituency, whom we have seen on television and who have given the fallen the dignity of a hero's return, for which the entire nation ought to be grateful. The debate clearly takes place against a background of the darkest possible economic conditions, the full fallout of which we must await and in turn assess in relation to future spending priorities, but we cannot allow those matters, however weighty, to distract us from attending to the needs of our armed forces. Much mention has been made of the need to look at the new geopolitical situation. For the past year, I have been warning that we ignore what Russia is doing at our peril. While I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) said about the need to deal with the situation in Afghanistan—much of which has been done, as she pointed out—it would nevertheless be foolish not to note how Russia is now behaving: invading Georgia, claiming the Arctic and rebuilding its military capability. I am sorry that the Minister was insulting of our military covenant commission. We have some distinguished people on it and it would be good for him to apologise, because Simon Weston, John Keegan and Rear Admiral Iain Henderson are not people to be trifled with. Much mention has also been made of Help for Heroes and other charities, which have done a fantastic job. They are much in tune with the public spirit, which is that they support our armed forces. The high command has been slow to recognise the public support that exists for the armed forces. By the Government's own admission, the state of the armed forces is parlous and they have failed to resource the armed forces to meet the current international challenges. Those failings are fully annotated in the Ministry of Defence's own annual report and accounts, but the nation has every reason to take pride in the courage, loyalty and commitment of our armed forces, which continue to set the standards against which other nations are judged. They are supported by a defence industry that is striving to ensure that they have the very best equipment, preferably sourced from the UK, to discharge the responsibilities imposed on them by us, the politicians. Our servicemen and women, together with their families, deserve the best support that the country can give them.