Home Defence (Hansard, 11 January 1994)

§ 5. Mr. Flynn
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what new proposals he has to improve the defence of the British Isles.

§ Mr. Rifkind
The Government's plans for the defence of the United Kingdom and for our wider security interests are detailed in the White Paper "Defending Our Future", and in my evidence to the House of Commons Defence Committee on 1 December.

§ Mr. Flynn
Is not the greatest danger to Britain and the rest of the world the proliferation of nuclear weapons, especially to the new tyrannies that are growing up from the right and the left? Is it not an act of insanity for Britain to commission THORP, which will create enough plutonium to make 50,000 nuclear weapons in the next 10 years, and to export the plutonium to the four corners of the world? Was the Secretary of State consulted on the defence implications of the commissioning of THORP?

§ Mr. Rifkind
Naturally, I was involved in the discussions that took place on the matter. I am entirely satisfied that the hon. Gentleman's assertions are plain nonsense. First, we have not the slightest intention of exporting any of the material to countries that do not conform absolutely to their international commitments. Secondly, the material in question could not, without the most extreme difficulty, be converted for any military purpose. The hon. Gentleman appears to be unaware of that.

§ Mr. Mans
In relation to the defence of the United Kingdom, will my right hon. and learned Friend look closely at the potential threat that is likely to develop towards the end of the decade of a surface-to-surface missile attack on this country from various emergent nations in the middle east?

§ Mr. Rifkind
My hon. Friend is correct to draw attention to such a problem. We already have reason to believe that countries such as Libya have a missile capability that could threaten Italy or parts of southern France. As the years go by, it is possible that a range of such missiles could penetrate much further north. It is one of the new emerging threats of which NATO as a whole and Britain must take increasing account in our future defence plans.

§ Mr. Maginnis
Is the Secretary of State aware that, in terms of the defence of the United Kingdom, and despite the wishes of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, the IRA has already decided to reject any opportunity of peace, and is simply trying to find a way of rejecting the Downing street declaration? Is he satisfied, in the light of that information, that regiments such as the Parachute Regiment are adequately manned for the role that they have to carry out in Northern Ireland? There are reports that such regiments are having to depend on the territorials to make up numbers. Can the Secretary of State tell us what the knock-on effect on our special forces will ultimately be?

§ Mr. Rifkind
First, I am sure that the whole House will unite in condemning the vicious attack in the past 24 hours in Crossmaglen, which resulted in serious injury to two soldiers serving in Northern Ireland. It is not unusual for individual territorials to serve in Northern Ireland, but I am conscious of the fact that it is important that any unit, whether serving in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, should be as fully manned as possible. One reason why I announced last December an increase of some 3,000 in the field Army was precisely to help ease the difficulties that occasionally occur.

§ Mr. Devlin
On maximising resources for the defence of the United Kingdom, why is my right hon. and learned Friend allowing the Navy to empty a large office building in my constituency at the Royal Navy spare parts 8 department and then to construct a new building—to all intents and purposes exactly the same—in the Bath area, as part of the new Naval Support Command?

§ Mr. Rifkind
I understand my hon. Friend's natural concern on behalf of his constituents. I assure him that the proposal to which he refers was strenuously examined. We concluded that it was right to go ahead with that proposal only because we were satisfied that there would be substantial cost benefits for the armed forces.

§ Mr. Donald Anderson
The Secretary of State must have been made aware over the past months of the anxiety among senior Territorial Army officers that, although the forces at their command are adequate now, if the proposed cuts are implemented, they will not be adequate for the task of regenerating British forces. What reassurances can he give our TA that it will have the capability to carry out the assigned task of regenerating our forces?

§ Mr. Rifkind
The hon. Gentleman refers to proposed cuts in the TA. I am aware of no such proposed cuts. A review is going on into the future size and structure of the TA, but it has yet to make recommendations to Ministers. The hon. Gentleman's comments are premature, to say the least. He should be joining in the welcome that the TA has given to the Government's proposal to make much wider and more flexible use of the reserves. We published that proposal recently and, as the hon. Gentleman should be well aware, it has been widely welcomed throughout the Territorial Army.