§ 1. Mr. Terry FieldsTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on the level of the United Kingdom's forces of the changing situation in eastern Europe.
§ The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton)We shall continue to give full support to NATO's strategy for peace and security and shall foster dialogue with the nations of eastern Europe while maintaining effective nuclear and conventional forces at the minimum levels necessary for deterrence.
§ Mr. FieldsDoes the Minister agree that the level of defence spending by the Government is an obscenity and a waste, when a fraction of that money would resolve the ambulance dispute and fund expenditure on the environment, our infrastructure, education, health and other matters? Who is the enemy—surely not our new-found friends in eastern Europe? Why do the Government persist in posturing as the most fanatical cold war warriors in Europe? Is it not time for a rethink and for Britain to take a realistic approach to defence?
§ Mr. HamiltonThere is nothing more important than the defence of these islands and although changes are taking place in eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union, there is tremendous uncertainty there and nobody knows what the future will bring.
§ Mr. SpeakerSir Alan Glyn.
§ Sir Alan GlynDoes my hon. Friend agree that, despite all the changes in Europe, in Russia and in the satellite countries, Russia still represents a formidable force and that we should in no way drop our defences but should retain our nuclear deterrent until Europe has settled down and a peace settlement can be reached?
§ Mr. HamiltonMy hon. Friend is right. It is probable, indeed likely, that intentions in the Soviet Union have changed, but recently the capabilities of the Soviet Union's forces have probably been enhanced with new equipment that has come on stream. We know that intentions can change and the future is uncertain.
§ Mr. Menzies CampbellDoes the Minister accept that the changed political circumstances make it highly unlikely that a follow-on to the Lance missile will be deployed? Will not that make it impossible to sustain the doctrine of flexible response? Does not that in turn make it necessary for the Government to consider a defence strategy based on minimum deterrence?
§ Mr. HamiltonAs the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, our NATO partners remain committed to a follow-on to Lance, and that decision will be taken in 1992. Flexible response is an essential part of our deterrence strategy and I should be unhappy to see us move away from that.
§ Mr. SpeakerQuestion No. 2. Mr. Colvin.
§ Mr. ColvinNo. 2, with one proviso—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Gentleman must ask his question. He cannot preface it with a proviso.
§ Mr. ColvinI am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but the wrong date has been printed on the Order Paper. I do not know whether that is a Freudian slip, but the date should be 1990, not 1999. I fear that the Minister may give me the wrong answer.
§ Mr. SpeakerIf the fault lies with the Table Office, I shall accept that correction.