HC Deb 11 February 1986 vol 91 cc766-9
4. Mr. Gordon Brown

asked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to conduct a defence review.

9. Mr. Nicholas Brown

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans for a defence review.

13. Mr. Hardy

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for a defence review.

16. Mr. Wallace

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to hold a defence review; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Younger)

I explained in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) on 30 January that while, in the usual way, decisions on priorities will have to be taken in the coming months in order to match the forward programme to the available cash, I see no need for any fundamental change in our defence commitments or in the main roles undertaken by our armed forces.

Mr. Gordon Brown

If the Secretary of State will not consider a full-scale defence review, will he at least review the risks and hazards to our defence forces' readiness if our helicopters are to be provided courtesy of Sikorsky-Fiat, our military vehicles are to be made available courtesy of General Motors of Detroit and our naval frigates and submarines, and even our nuclear deterrents, are to be refitted by Foster Wheeler or some other international conglomerate? Will the right hon. Gentleman study the letter from his hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, who expressed his complete opposition to the privatisation of the royal dockyards and warned of the fear that they might fall into the hands of strangers?

Mr. Younger

We always take the greatest trouble to ensure that in any changes this country's security of supply is maintained. It might be of interest to the hon. Gentleman if I remind him that since the 1930s the vast majority of military trucks used in this country have been bought from a company owned by Americans. That does not appear to have done us much harm.

Mr. Nicholas Brown

What assurances can the Secretary of State give to the Royal Navy and the warship building communities that they will not be the major victims of any expenditure cuts in his Department? When will he place the three type 23 warship orders that are scheduled for this year, and when will he order the fleet auxiliaries?

Mr. Younger

I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friends the Minister of State for Defence Procurement and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement have said about the orders in the debates which have taken place in the past two weeks. On security, I should have thought that all the hon. Member's constituents and those of his hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) would be looking with some dread at the possibility of the Labour party ever coming back into office, because if that happens there will be huge job losses in those constituencies.

Mr. Hardy

With chickens rapidly coming home to roost and Treasury forecasts of defence spending proving rapidly to be awry, would it not be as well for the Secretary of State to recognise the problem and to act or announce decisions upon it now rather than wait for further time to elapse and for his predecessor's role to be forgotten?

Mr. Younger

With regard to recognising facts, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that after six and a half years of this Government the defence budget is approximately 20 per cent., in real terms, above what it was in 1979. We should put that against statements by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), who has made it clear in debates that the Labour party has no intention of increasing the present levels of conventional spending. 1 do not believe that the hon. Gentleman has a leg to stand on.

Mr. Wallace

Does the Secretary of State accept that the so-called salami-slicing of defence spending, which is implicit in his answer, will continue to lower the morale of our forces? In recent months that has led to increasing numbers of resignations. Will he make a virtue out of necessity and announce the abandonment of the Trident project, which means not just high opportunity costs in terms of new conventional equipment, but a considerable escalation in our nuclear fire power at a time when there is serious negotiation over deep cuts?

Mr. Younger

I do not accept most of the hon. Gentleman's premises. To abandon our Trident programme would be to make a grave change in this country's future security. I think, but I am not sure, that his SDP allies propose not just to abandon Trident but to replace it with something else. I do not know where they would find the money for that.

Mr. John Browne

Does my right hon. Friend accept that deterrence is the product of capability times will, and that cuts in defence give the impression to other nations that we lack the will to defend ourselves? Will he assure the House that future defence reviews will not contain cuts in effective spending and effective capability?

Mr. Younger

I understand my hon. Friend's point on future cuts. We have clearly laid out the provisions for defence for the next three years. I repeat that that starts from a position at least 20 per cent. higher than it was six years ago, thanks to the action of this Government.

Dr. Hampson

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that what he has just said means that there is a firm commitment to Trident? Will he comment on the recent press speculation on a review of or a delay in the Trident programme?

Mr. Younger

There is certainly a firm commitment to Trident. The programme is on course. There is no change in the Government's position.

Sir Anthony Grant

In his review, will my right hon. Friend seek views on cruise missile deployment, especially that of the Liberal party and the SDP, because it seems to be obscure at the moment?

Mr. Younger

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. However I should make it clear that I am not conducting a review on the main components of our defence stature. I am considering ways in which the available cash can be worked into it. I believe that consulting the SDP and the Liberal party about their plans would be time-consuming and not a profitable exercise.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor

When my right hon. Friend reviews our defence requirements, will he bear in mind the importance of maintaining an adequate surface fleet, and will he consider the merits of the short, fat frigate design?

Mr. Younger

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point about the surface fleet, which we shall be taking into account. The design of future frigates is another matter.

Mr. Dalyell

In the work carried out by the right hon. Gentleman in preparation for the review, are any of the papers of the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) or of Sir John Nott denied to him?

Mr. Younger

I am not aware of any papers being denied to me. I must again make it clear that I am not conducting a defence review in the terms that the Opposition consider it to be. I am examining the present resources. Some difficult decisions will have to be taken, but there will be no need for any change in our main defence posture.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith

Is my right hon. Friend aware that we welcome his intention not to have a fundamental review on defence? The Opposition would welcome it, because they want to destroy a British independent deterrent.

Mr. Younger

My hon. Friend is perfectly right. The Opposition have done that twice in recent memory, and it has not done our defence any good.

Mr. Denzil Davies

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's decision not to have a fundamental review, but like a good Scotsman he is having a cash review. When that cash review is complete, the defence budget will be seen to be out of control by £1 billion. Is it not impossible to finance Trident and all the existing conventional commitments at the same time? Something must give—Trident or conventional defence.

Mr. Younger

What is taking place is the normal annual process of a review of the long-term costings of the defence programme. Regarding matching the two factors, one cannot undertake to buy everything that everyone wants in each department. There is no call for any fundamental review of our defence posture.

Mr. Soames

Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that it is folly to pretend that there is no crisis in defence spending in Britain today? Does he agree that it is far better to have a defence review now to tackle the fundamental choices that must be made rather than wait until the crisis becomes untenable?

Mr. Younger

I know my hon. Friend's long-held strong views on this subject. I assure him that in my examination of the defence budget I shall not leave anything to chance. I shall take the greatest care.