§ 1. Mr. Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby)If he will list the annual cost of British forces in Germany (a) gross and (b) net of offsetting arrangements. [36256]
§ The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson)I estimate the total cost in the previous financial year of our armed forces based in Germany to be about £1.3 billion, the vast majority of which would arise wherever those forces were based. There is no offset agreement with Germany, although the armed forces benefit from barracks, some quarters and training areas, for which no charge is made.
§ Mr. MitchellI am sure my right hon. Friend would agree that that is still a substantial cost across the exchanges for a nation that has a trade deficit with the European Union. The forces were placed in Germany because of the Soviet threat, so the important question is 2 this: as that threat no longer exists, as NATO is being enlarged to the Polish border and as the French are about to withdraw the great majority of their forces from Europe, is it any longer right to keep about one quarter of the British Army in Europe? Should we not bring it home?
§ Mr. RobertsonIt will come as news to the French that they are about to withdraw their troops from Europe—perhaps my hon. Friend's obsession with the subject is getting the better of his grasp of the facts. As I said, the vast majority of the expenditure would have been required wherever the forces were based. Indeed, it is estimated that the additional costs of basing the Army in Germany last year were only about £150 million, in return for which we have leadership of the Allied Command Europe rapid reaction corps, we maintain our substantial influence in NATO, we show solidarity with our allies and we improve the multinationality of training with our allies to face any threat, whether on the continent of Europe or elsewhere.
§ Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)Does not the disproportionately large cost of stationing a substantial part of, in particular, our Army in Germany distort Britain's defence posture as a whole? Would not at least part of that money be better spent on providing instruments for flexible intervention overseas, such as heavy lift transport aircraft?
§ Mr. RobertsonUnless the hon. Gentleman wants to bring all the troops back from Germany and disband the division that is currently located there, he makes no case. The 1st Armoured Division, which is based in Germany, is fully required and plays a positive role. Although there may be scope for changes in the size of our garrison in Germany, we believe that a substantial majority of our troops should stay there. If we brought back our troops from Germany but did not disband the organisations that were there, the British taxpayer would face substantial 3 costs in building new barracks. Moreover, many extra training facilities in this country would be needed, as that resource is currently at a severe premium.
§ Ms Rachel Squire (Dunfermline, West)I was, indeed, about to ask my right hon. Friend whether he agreed that, if we withdrew all our armed forces from Germany, we would have to find loads of money to build new barracks and other facilities. Would it not also be difficult to find enough training areas, of which, thanks to the previous Government, there is already a shortage?
§ Mr. RobertsonMy hon. Friend makes a perceptive point. It is estimated—by the previous as well as the present Government—that it would cost about £2.5 billion in extra infrastructure and training ground to bring all our troops back from Germany. In addition, we would lose considerable influence in NATO and in the NATO tasks that British troops currently carry out. At a critical time in NATO's history, we would be breaking solidarity with the Americans who are still there, as well as with the Germans and all our other allies.