HC Deb 11 February 1997 vol 290 cc131-2
9. Mr. Brazier

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the RAF's equipment budget for the next four years. [13723]

Mr. Arbuthnot

We plan to increase spending on major equipment procurement for all three services by more than 15 per cent. in real terms over the next four years. The RAF will be a major beneficiary, as demonstrated by recent orders for Nimrod 2000 maritime patrol aircraft, Storm Shadow cruise missiles and Brimstone anti-armour weapons.

Mr. Brazier

Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important single requirement for a conventional war fighting capability is a modern air force, and that the bulk of the welcome forward programme for the RAF is based around Eurofighter and weapons to be carried by Eurofighter? Does he also agree that, should any Government be sufficiently irresponsible as to conduct a defence review driven by peacetime foreign policy requirements, the effect could only be an undermining of that modern war fighting capability that is so important in a dangerous world and a replacement that would look very much like the khaki branch of Oxfam?

Mr. Arbuthnot

My hon. Friend is right. We have already had exchanges today about Eurofighter and the fact that the Opposition refuse to exempt Eurofighter from their strategic review, but we have not yet had exchanges about whether Nimrod 2000 replacement maritime patrol aircraft would be exempted from that review. Would Labour exempt the CASOM—the conventionally armed stand-off missile? Would it exempt the anti-armour weapon? We do not know—perhaps Labour Members will tell us, because without such an assurance we know that Labour cannot be trusted on defence.

Mr. Barry Jones

Does the Minister still propose to go for the 40 to 50 future large aircraft? What is the status of that project in his Department? Would it not be best to keep wing technology in my constituency in Wales instead of letting it slide to Hamburg?

Mr. Arbuthnot

The hon. Gentleman is arguing very strongly for a further Conservative Government; I thank him for that.

The Government's position on the future large aircraft was set out in a written answer by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) on 16 December 1994 at column 823. It remains the case that we need to be satisfied that a number of conditions have been met before we agree to rejoin the FLA programme. That work has not yet been completed. We shall make an announcement as soon as a decision is taken.

Mr. Mans

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the height of irresponsibility for any party to say that it will conduct a strategic defence and security review without telling the electorate before the general election exactly what the criteria of that review would be? Does he further agree that, without that information, all those orders that he has mentioned for the Royal Air Force are in jeopardy, threatening tens of thousands of jobs in Lancashire and dealing a death blow to the defence industry?

Mr. Arbuthnot

I do agree, because a defence review is the policy that dare not speak its name. That policy is the mask for cuts demanded by Labour Back Benchers. That policy is the greatest skulk of the century; Labour Members are trying desperately to pretend that they do not want to cut defence expenditure. They are trying to be all things to all men, and the electorate will see through them.

Back to