Force Levels

HC Deb 28 November 1995 vol 267 cc1045-7

11. Dr. Michael Clark

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on force levels of reducing United Kingdom defence spending to the European average. [820]

Mr. Portillo

If any British Government were to reduce our defence spending to the European average, it would have a devastating impact on the size of our forces. The Government will not allow that to happen.

Dr. Clark

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we get excellent value for money from our armed forces? Will he reassure the House that, at the current level of expenditure, our worldwide commitment to humanitarian assistance, peacekeeping and protection will not be diminished, and our national defence will not be put in jeopardy?

Mr. Portillo

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we get very good value from our armed forces. They have a fine reputation and they project the prestige and influence, and, when necessary, the power of the country, on a global basis. Their contribution to peacekeeping is demonstrated by the announcement that I made by written answer yesterday that 13,000 British troops are to become part of the implementation force in former Yugoslavia. Of course I take extremely seriously the necessity of the defence of the realm. That is my duty, and I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.

Mr. Burden

Given that achieving value for money must surely be important in reducing defence expenditure, does the Secretary of State agree that it was not good enough for the Minister of State for the Armed Forces to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) that, in connection with the purchase of military ambulances, the Government were merely considering the choice between Land Rover and an Austrian company?

Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the report that appeared in The Observer on Sunday that the rules of the competition were being changed to benefit the Austrian company? Does he agree that the Government should be interested in having the reliable spares and service back-up that can be provided by buying British?

Mr. Portillo

As a matter of policy, I do not comment on stories in The Observer. We do not change the rules of competition halfway through. My hon. Friend said that no decision had yet been taken, and I remind the House that Britain buys about 90 per cent. of its defence procurement from British companies. That happens not through favouritism but because they provide value for money, and that will continue to be an important criterion for us.

Mr. Cash

Does my right hon. Friend agree not only that we give enormous credibility to our British Army and the performance that it puts up in relation to the defence of Europe, but that the report in The Sunday Telegraph suggesting that he might favour moves towards a single army was complete rubbish, and that he would have nothing to do with any such proposals?

Mr. Portillo

Yes, the report was absolute rubbish. I am pleased to say that I have had the opportunity on any number of occasions to make our policy clear, but if I may repeat it: NATO provides the cornerstone of security for Europe, but Europeans need to demonstrate that they can do their bit, which they can do through the development of Western European Union. The comment made in The Sunday Telegraph was disappointingly ignorant and ill informed.

Dr. Reid

On defence expenditure, Defence Ministers are in a state of advanced self-delusion. Do they not recognise that, under the Conservative Government, there has been a 30 per cent. cut in defence expenditure? There has been a cut of more than 100,000 in personnel, and defence spending has been reduced from 5.8 per cent. to 2.8 per cent. of GDP. Is it not time for everyone in the House to give up the juvenile name calling that has marked defence debates for the past 15 years and face the real challenge of a low defence budget, which is to identify the essential framework and to reach a national consensus on national security policy?

Mr. Portillo

Last year, the United Kingdom spent 3.3 per cent. of GDP on defence; the European average was 2.5 per cent. Yesterday, I was in Germany having agreeable discussions with my German opposite number, and he revealed to me that the German figure is now 1.8 per cent. The reason why we cannot reach a consensus on the matter is that a large part of the Labour party wants to cut our defence spending; there is a large part of the Labour party that cannot be trusted on defence.

The delusion is in the mind of the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), because when he sees 42 Labour Members of Parliament calling for savage reductions in our defence spending, he deludes himself that it has not happened, or that those people are not Labour Members. Unfortunately, they are. The threat from Labour is real, and the country cannot trust Labour on defence.

Mr. Atkins

Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if the cuts suggested by the Labour party took place, he would not be able to order next week 2,500 vehicles constructed by British companies—including Leyland Vehicles in my constituency, as well as companies in many other constituencies the length and breadth of the country—and that he might then be forced to order Mercedes vehicles, which he, like all Conservative Members, knows would be unacceptable to all his hon. Friends?

Mr. Portillo

Thousands of jobs would be lost in the British defence industries if the savage cuts advocated by Labour Members were put into practice. If those cuts were made, we would not be able to play a role as a power of global significance in military matters, we would not be able to play a part in NATO and we would not be able to form part of the implementation force in Bosnia. We would be a wholly different and reduced country if Labour's policies were put into effect.