Strategic Defence Review

HC Deb 18 July 2002 vol 389 cc460-75 2.35 pm

The Secretary of State for Defence(Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)

Following the appalling events in New York and Washington on 11 September last year, I launched work on a new chapter to the 1998 strategic defence review, designed to ensure that our defence policies, capabilities and force structures matched the new challenges that were so vividly and tragically illustrated on that day.

The SDR recognised the potential threat from new forms of terrorism. It recognised such asymmetric attacks as one of a range of tactics that an adversary might use. But the attacks on the United States showed that such attacks could have strategic effect. We have consulted as openly and widely as possible on the new chapter. In February, we published a discussion paper outlining some of our emerging thinking. Last month, we published a further discussion document, setting out proposals for enhancing the role of our volunteer reserves in home defence. Rarely has a defence White Paper had contributions from so many individuals and organisations. I am grateful to all of those, especially in this House and the other place, who have contributed.

Today we are publishing that groundbreaking White Paper, setting out further and more detailed conclusions, particularly in the area of capabilities to counter terrorism abroad. The White Paper covers a wide range of defence issues, but central to them is the way we want to use our forces against a determined, mobile, often disparate and elusive enemy. We must be able to get the right forces quickly to where we need them, make better use of intelligence to identify the threat, decide how to deal with it and then strike, decisively. This is known as "network-centric capability", but it can be summarised more simply as "detect, decide and destroy". It means being able to strike hard and fast, cutting down the enemy's time to think, plan and act. I will explain later how we intend to achieve this.

First, I should like to deal with the budget planning on which our ideas are based. The Government have already made £359 million available to fund operations in and around Afghanistan, including the cost of the new equipment our forces needed for these specific operations.

Further significant resources will be made available during the current financial year to enable us to manage the pressure arising from the high levels of activity in which we are currently engaged. But the new chapter is about planning for the longer term. International terrorism and other asymmetric threats are long-term challenges. To plan effectively, we need a solid foundation of resources. I am delighted to say that the results of the spending review—set out by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer earlier this week—provide an excellent basis from which to take forward our commitment to strong defence. It represents the biggest sustained real increase in defence spending plans for 20 years.

The defence Budget will rise by £3.5 billion by 2005–06 compared with this year. This means growth in real terms of 3.7 per cent. over three years; around 3 per cent. in 2003–04 alone. Within this settlement, the Government are making available over £1 billion of new capital and a £0.5 billion increase in the resource budget for the

equipment and capabilities that the armed forces need to meet new challenges. It provides a mandate for accelerating the modernisation and evolution of the armed forces.

To ensure that we maximise the resources available to deal with new threats, we are taking further steps to improve the efficiency and effectiveness with which we deliver defence outputs. The defence change programme is focused on reforming the Department's business processes. It covers projects across defence, particularly logistical and supply systems and information systems. Recent operations have underlined the crucial contribution of our logistical organisations in supporting operations over long distances. Our aim is to continue to drive down overheads in order to maximise our front-line operational forces.

Since the events of 11 September, all areas of government have been involved in enhancing our arrangements for dealing with the threat from international terrorism. The Government have developed a broad-based strategy aimed at tackling international terrorist groups, ranging from cutting off their finances. through law enforcement, to military action. We recognise that a successful campaign will need to address the origins and causes, as well as the consequences, of international terrorism.

The armed forces have two principal roles in countering terrorism: home defence and action overseas. Although assisting in the defence of the United Kingdom is a key element of the campaign, long experience indicates that a wholly defensive posture will not be enough. Terrorism thrives on the element of surprise, and one of the key ways to defeat it is to take the fight to the terrorist. We must be able to deal with threats at distance—to hit the enemy hard in his own backyard, not in ours, and at a time of our choosing, not his, acting always in accordance with international law.

As well as helping to deal with the long-term causes of terrorism, we have identified several ways in which our armed forces, in partnership with other areas of government, can contribute towards a long-term campaign: first, by helping to prevent terrorism emerging; secondly, by deterring terrorist groups and states that might harbour or support them, or to coerce states to stop harbouring them; and thirdly, by disrupting terrorist groups and, in the last resort, destroying them. Our ability to operate alongside the United States and other allies, especially in Europe, will be essential to our future success. In the United Kingdom we have certain capabilities which many of our allies do not possess. Others, equally, can bring their own skills and equipment to the table. That role specialisation is crucial if we are to provide the overall military capability that future operations require. For example, at Bagram airbase in Afghanistan, Spain provided an excellent hospital facility, while the Jordanians and the Danes provided crucial mine clearance specialists. Other nations provided other specific capabilities. The overall effect was quickly to create a base on a scale that no single nation could have matched.

To be able to make such contributions, armed forces need to be ready to undertake three types of military tasks. First, there are stabilisation operations, for example the kind of operation undertaken by the interim security assistance force—ISAF—in Kabul this year and in Macedonia in 2001.

Secondly, there is deterrence and coercion. If an established state is harbouring or supporting a terrorist group, it may be necessary to threaten the use of force. Potential aggressors should know that we will use all our resources, military and non-military, to deal with their activities, reduce their chances of success, and ensure that the United Kingdom can act to defend itself and its interests. Aggression against us will not secure political or military advantage, but will invite a proportionately serious response.

Thirdly, there are find-and-strike operations such as those undertaken by the US-led coalition in Afghanistan. If terrorist groups continue to operate and to pose a threat, it will ultimately be necessary to disrupt and destroy them. Operations can range from interception at sea, which requires specialist boarding capabilities, to engagement by combat troops or with precision weapons.

We recognise that in future we may have only fleeting opportunities to strike at the enemy. That is where network-centric capabilities come in. Terrorist groups show themselves as little as possible. As Afghanistan has shown, it is vital to have the best available intelligence and communications to allow a rapid decision about when and where to attack. We need to be able to identify the enemy fast, then bring the necessary weaponry to bear in the shortest possible time. We need the sensor and the shooter to be better linked by a real-time network—we want to be able to detect, decide and destroy. That requires extra investment in airborne and other sensors, so we will upgrade the E3D AWACS aircraft. It also requires extra investment in networks to pass information quickly to allow strikes by sea-launched or air-launched missiles, by artillery, or by troops on the ground. That will give us more control of the battle space, hunting down the enemy, identifying targets, then hitting them hard.

Unmanned air vehicles will play an important part in the system. US forces in Afghanistan demonstrated how effective they can be in providing persistent surveillance of the battlefield or theatre of operations without putting the lives of aircrew at risk. Some of the American UAVs also provide an attack capability. I can announce today that we are accelerating our own UAV development programme—known as Watchkeeper—and will invest in state-of-the-art technology in that area in coming months. We have learned a great deal from the use of our Phoenix UAV in the Balkans, a system which was designed as an artillery spotter, but quickly took on a far wider intelligence-gathering role. Advances in datalink technology mean that modern UAVs offer greater potential for improving operational effectiveness. Certain issues of commercial sensitivity surround the Watchkeeper programme, but we expect shortly to select the two consortiums to work with us on the next phase of the project.

I can announce that we are setting up a new joint service trial to begin testing prototypes of the Watchkeeper system early next year. We will evaluate additional enhancements to our target acquisition and strike capabilities to enable them to operate 24 hours a day, in all weathers, and to enable rapid retargeting.

The work on the new chapter has also confirmed the increasing utility of special forces. It is not our policy to comment in detail on those forces, and I do not intend to do so today. However, I can say that we will be enhancing the capabilities of our special forces, particularly their key enablers, maximising their utility and flexibility.

The strategic defence review said that the size and shape of our armed forces should be determined principally by the requirements of operations in Europe, the Gulf and the Mediterranean. But terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda can operate worldwide and tend to hide in remote, ungoverned areas. Some small-scale operations may need to be conducted both further away and in areas with little or no local infrastructure. I can tell the House that we are looking at the use of more rapidly deployable and sustainable light forces and ways of improving their mobility and firepower. Operations in Afghanistan have again shown the importance of support helicopters, and we are examining possible enhancements in that area. We are also pursuing the concept of a family of air transportable medium-weight armoured vehicles—the future rapid effect system. In addition, we will accelerate the introduction of additional temporary deployed accommodation for our troops and further improve its hot weather capability.

We will also need to deal with a greater risk that terrorists will acquire chemical, biological, radiological—and potentially even nuclear—devices. We need specific capabilities to deal with such devices safely and to ensure the protection of our own deployed forces—and, indeed, of wider United Kingdom interests. Detailed techniques will have to remain secret, but I can say that we will acquire appropriate technology to meet the threats from CBRN weapons that we may face in the future.

There has already been some speculation about what the new chapter work might mean for the structure of the armed forces. I emphasise that it is focused on ensuring that we have the capabilities that we require. That will probably need some adjustments in order slightly to rebalance the force structure, but there have certainly been no decisions about any specific changes.

In the United Kingdom and in our overseas territories, domestic security is the responsibility of the civil authorities, particularly the police. When the armed forces are used, it is at the specific request of the civil authorities. We are therefore strengthening arrangements for liaison with the civil authorities at national and regional levels of government by creating joint regional liaison officers to act as a single point of liaison on emergency planning matters. In addition, we will establish reaction forces of around 500 reservists from volunteer reserve units of all three services in each of 11 areas of the country—some 5,000 to 6.000 reservists in all. They will aid the civil authorities in handling major incidents, with individuals committing themselves to turn out at short notice for a range of duties, including site search and clearance, transport and communications, control and co-ordination.

We have already taken steps to improve the ability of the United kingdom's air defences to respond to threats from rogue aircraft. Further enhancements to our radar systems are in hand. We are investing in airfields across the UK—RAF Marham in Norfolk, RAF St. Mawgan in Cornwall and RNAS Yeovilton in Somerset—so that they can support quick reaction alert aircraft when needed. Those are in addition to the bases that are already able to operate such aircraft, and will give us greater flexibility in our air defence arrangements. We are also considering seaborne threats—the armed forces supported the civil authorities in intercepting a suspect vessel in the channel approaches in December last year.

In the new chapter work, we wanted to avoid placing unmanageable demands on our people. We recognise that for a considerable time many of our service men and women have been working at or near—in some cases beyond—the boundaries of what was planned in the SDR. They have borne those challenges with their customary professionalism and determination. So have their families. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to them for the way in which they have shouldered those burdens. The needs of our people are a top priority for us. We will continue to work hard to deliver the real and sustainable improvements that they and their families deserve. Simultaneous operations place a particularly heavy burden on our enabling forces—crew for strategic aircraft and ships, logisticians, signallers, engineers and so on. We will work to ensure that we do not ask more of them than is reasonable.

The new chapter to the strategic defence review provides a firm foundation for responding to the threats demonstrated on 11 September. Together with this week's comprehensive spending review, which provided the largest sustained real-terms increase in the defence budget for 20 years, the Government are ensuring that the United Kingdom's armed forces have the investment that they need—investment to deliver new equipment and enhanced capabilities and to be a force for good in the changing strategic environment. I commend the new chapter and the defence spending settlement to the House.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex)

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for providing me with an advance copy, with the supporting documentation and the new chapter of the strategic defence review.

On Tuesday, the Prime Minister made it clear that the potential threat that Iraq poses is "enormous". At such a time, we should emphasise that far more unites Her Majesty's Government and the official Opposition than divides us. Whatever differences are aired between us this afternoon about the spending review and the new chapter, the House and the nation should bear in mind that we share the same dedication to basic democratic values, the same commitment to the war against terrorism and the same determination to face down dictators such as Saddam Hussein.

For a long time, we have said that the 1998 strategic defence review was underfunded. I therefore begin by welcoming the increased allocations for defence in the comprehensive spending review. However, we must put the increases in perspective. The Chancellor disingenuously claims a rise of £3½ billion a year".—[Official Report, 15 July 2002: Vol. 389, c. 22.] The Secretary of State for Defence repeated that claim today, and I fear that Labour is up to its old tricks again. [Interruption.] The Chancellor said that on Monday. Labour Members should read Hansard, which I have checked.

The House of Commons Library confirms that, on the internationally accepted measure of defence cash spending—the traditional measure—the increase in real terms is only 1.2 billion for the three-year period. Before Labour Members crow that the years of decline have been ended, I point out that the Government will not only spend less in 2005 than last year—for understandable reasons, which reflect the extra costs of the war in Afghanistan—hut they will spend less than the Conservative Government in their last year in office when my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) were Defence Ministers.

Defence spending as a proportion of gross national product will continue to fall from the 2.9 per cent. that Labour inherited from the Conservatives to 2.2 per cent. in 2005. That is well below the SDR target of 2.4 per cent. that Labour set in 1998. Are the days of overstretch and underfunding truly over? I doubt it. I share the Secretary of State's admiration for the people in the armed forces, but I hope that the Government will not continue to take them for granted.

There is much to welcome in the new chapter, not least the thoughtful doctrine that the armed forces have started to develop for the war against terrorism. It rightly goes far beyond the use of simple military force. I reiterate our welcome for the increase in aid spending, which is vital in the war against terrorism.

We welcome the Secretary of State's intention to spend more on digitising the battlefield and on support staff and headquarters. However, that must not be at the expense of front-line ground troops, who are always decisive. They proved that in Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, the Gulf and every serious military conflict in history. It would be dangerous for the Government to believe that our armed services can remain effective if they continue to reduce in size, however network-centric they become. Surely the Government have learned the lesson since 1998 that we need to put more boots on the ground. Although the Secretary of State has abandoned the 1998 manning targets for the armed forces and made a commitment to increasing the size of the Army, will he assure hon. Members that he has no plans to disband or merge regiments simply to make ends meet?

We have long harboured the suspicion that the Government will use under-recruiting as an excuse to scrap Scottish regiments such as the Black Watch and the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards. Will the Secretary of State spell out clearly what he meant when he said that an adjustment would probably be required to rebalance the force structure? When will he announce the detail of the review of force structures, which is likely to be far more controversial than his good news today?

In the coming weeks and months, we will study today's announcement and its implementation. The new chapter contains omissions, which worry us. Many European Governments and NATO, presumably supported by the Secretary of State, are already committed to the development of theatre missile defence systems. Where is the Government's much vaunted leadership in Europe on that? Even under the heading of force protection, the new chapter does not mention the missile threat. Why does not the document tackle the dispute between NATO and the European security and defence policy that is now in its fifth year?

Hon. Members should broadly welcome the Secretary of State's announcement today. However, I reiterate that the Government have so far failed to fund the defence capabilities that they promised in the 1998 strategic defence review. We must hold the Government to their commitments. The defence capabilities that are essential to safeguarding national security and fulfilling our international obligations must be fully funded. The next Conservative Government will do that.

Mr. Hoon

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's words of support at the beginning of his remarks. I am sorry that he did not see that through by studying more carefully my comments and those of the Chancellor. Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's first whinge about the £3.5 billion. I clearly said that the defence budget will increase by £3.5 billion by 2005–06 compared with this year. The figure therefore applies to the CSR period. I did not claim anything else, and I am not aware that the Chancellor did so. The hon. Gentleman was responding to my statement and to avoid doubt, I emphasise that the £3.5 billion will be spent over the three years.

The figures have been published since Monday, and I am again a little disappointed in the research effort that the Conservative party puts into supporting the shadow Secretary of State for Defence. It has been found wanting, and not for the first time. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know the total cash increase, calculated on the previous basis, I shall provide the figures. In the first year, the increase is £700 million; in the second year, it is £972 million, and in the third year, it is £1,244 million.

Mr. Jenkin

Real terms?

Mr. Hoon

They are real-terms increases, after inflation has been taken into account. If I were one of the hon. Gentleman's researchers, I would be examining my terms and conditions of employment. They are simply not doing their job.

On the jibe about the percentage of GNP, the hon. Gentleman needs to consider more carefully the state of the economy at the time to which he referred and compare it with that today. In effect, he pointed out the success of the Labour Government in increasing economic growth and ensuring that we have more people in work and paying taxes than at any other time in the country's history. I therefore take his comments as implied congratulations on the success of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's economic policies, which are allowing us to deliver on defence and the full range of public services.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned more boots on the ground. If he had read the strategic defence review carefully, he would know that the targets for manpower in the armed services were indicative. They change year on year, and that has always been the case. Perhaps he might consult some of the hon. Members behind him who have done a ministerial job in the Ministry of Defence. If he chooses to ask them, they will tell him that those figures for manpower targets change annually, according to the needs of the armed forces, and that Ministers do not have specific control over them. Indeed, that can be one of the frustrations of the job, as those issues are determined by military requirements set by the chiefs of staff. If he knew anything about it, he would see the that the same argument arises in relation to force structures, as the issues are constantly changing. If they did not do so, we would be left with the armed forces that we required at the end of the 19th century, never mind those that we require at the start of the 21st century. Of course, those changes will be announced to the House at an appropriate stage, but they are not significant. I assure him and the House that no substantial changes are involved in the size or organisation of our historic regiments.

Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford)

I, too, thank the Secretary of State for the advance copy of his statement and the White Paper and supporting documents.

At least between the Liberal Democrats and the Government, there is a great deal of cross-party consensus on the continuing relevance of the conclusions of the SDR and the broad balance of the forces that the UK requires. However, it is always necessary to make adjustments even to the best-laid plans, so we believe that our defence policy should always be regarded as work in progress. We support much of what the Secretary of State has announced today on special forces, reservists, intelligence gathering and unmanned air vehicles.

Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that the greatest threat to our forces is still the problem of retention? Several branches of our armed forces, such as the defence medical services, are chronically under strength. What part of what he announced today will help recruitment and cut the number of men and women leaving the services? It is easy to pay tribute to those personnel, as we do, but we must match those fine words with deeds.

Does the Secretary of State agree that much of the campaign against terrorism will be undertaken without recourse to B52s or Marines and will be fought by accountants and diplomats? Does he therefore agree that there might be a case for ensuring that a single Cabinet member is responsible in the UK for all aspects of defence against international terrorism?

Finally, the Secretary of State should be proud of the victory that he has achieved against the Treasury. It is not bad. I am not sure that it is excellent but, in short, the men and women of our armed forces will receive the statement with relief rather than rapture.

Mr. Hoon

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support, especially for the special forces.

Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife)

It is hardly surprising.

Mr. Hoon

I could not possibly comment on whether that is surprising.

On retention, the hon. Gentleman is right. I have made no excuse at all: retention remains a challenge. We are doing remarkably well with recruitment in a very healthy economy, but clearly retention could improve. A number of specific measures have been taken, such as those relating to pilots, but we still need to do more and I make no apology for saying so. The Budget settlement will give us a degree of flexibility to address some of those issues, and not least the very difficult question of accommodation. As I have told the House before, some of the accommodation that is available, especially to single men and women, is in a shocking state and has been neglected for very many years. Sadly, accommodation is one of those areas on which it has been most easy for previous Governments to turn the other way and not allow appropriate investment. It is therefore important that we carry through the £ 1 billion programme for improving accommodation, especially single living accommodation.

I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments about the Budget settlement. I emphasise that there is a five-year programme of steady increases in the amount available to defence in real terms. That will allow us to plan over a long period for the success of Britain's armed forces.

Mr. John Smith (Vale of Glamorgan)

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I believe that it was a measured and realistic response to the dreadful events of 11 September. There is always a danger that Governments will give a knee-jerk reaction and do things for show that have no great effect.

I accept entirely the need for greater global reach, flexibility and versatility, and the ability to deploy rapidly. However, given the delay in the A400M aircraft, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that we have the lift capability to allow us to deliver that versatility for the future?

Mr. Hoon

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. In a sense, the document represents a continuation of work in progress, as it is a continuation of the work successfully conducted in the strategic defence review. Inevitably, further work is required to ensure that we have the right capabilities as the potential of the enemy with which we must deal develops and expands. That is why we have placed so much emphasis on global reach and flexibility.

On my hon. Friend's specific point about lift capability, there is a very attractive photograph of a C-17 somewhere in the White Paper. C-17s are certainly available and have performed magnificently since we first leased them. Clearly, they are preparing the way for the A400M aircraft, which will provide still greater lift capability to the United Kingdom.

Mr. James Arbuthnot (North-East Hampshire)

More money for the defence budget, especially in the light of 11 September, is of course to be welcomed and the Secretary of State is to be congratulated on that. However, does he agree with the House of Commons Library, which suggests that in each year of the Conservative Government, the near-cash constant prices spending on defence was higher than in each year of this Government and each year that is planned? Does he not agree that that is a rather disappointing reaction to 11 September?

Mr. Hoon

More money was available for defence even before 11 September. In talking about a five-year period. I was referring not only to the current CSR round, but to the last one. In each of the three-year periods, there was a planned growth in expenditure. I have not seen the figures from the Library. I will certainly look at them very carefully, but it is extremely doubtful whether such a comparison could be made, as the figures with which we are dealing represent real-terms increases year on year.

The problem that I have with those on the Conservative Front Bench—I exempt the right hon. Gentleman—is that they do not appear to understand the basis on which the budget for defence is arranged. They have issued a series of statements, some of which have made their way into the newspapers, indicating that they are comparing the outturn figures for the budget with the planned figures. As a former Defence Minister, he will know that that is not an appropriate basis for comparison.

Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead)

When the Chancellor handed out a lot of money on Monday, he accompanied it with public service agreements, independent audit, statutory inspection regimes and tough policies for managements that fail. As the Ministry of Defence has wasted money on the rifle and the Army radio and is overspending on countless other projects, why is it exempt from those tough new inspection, audit and management failure regimes?

Mr. Hoon

The Ministry of Defence is not exempt from those techniques. Indeed, as I said in my statement, we are setting out on yet a further round of very tough efficiency arrangements. I hope that they will be more satisfactory than in the past, as they will deal with outputs and will therefore look at the ways in which we deliver military capability, rather than the amount of cash that goes in in the first place. That will have a very clear advantage not only for the Department at the centre, but for those responsible for the various devolved budgets, as it will mean that they get the benefit of any savings that they have generated through efficiency. I think that that is a much more sensible way of proceeding.

I must argue against my hon. Friend's suggestion that we have wasted money on the rifle or, indeed, on the radio. The current programme on improving the communications system available to the armed forces is proceeding very successfully.

Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex)

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's announcement that he has secured new money for defence. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) said, that is wholly to be welcomed. While the new chapter is extremely sensible in taking forward much of the work that needs to be done following 11 September, does he agree that it is important in this matter as in any other not to be too deluded by fashion at any one time or by the wonders of defence technology, and that at the end of the day there will be no replacement, particularly in the British armed forces, for basic grunt soldiering? Will he also assure the House that, when he comes to consider the future size, shape and structure of the armed forces—which clearly need to be adjusted—and the difficult decisions that he is going to have to take on the future of the main battle tank, on the structure of the Royal Armoured Corps and on Eurofighter numbers, nothing will interfere with the continuing, astonishingly brilliant achievements of the British armed forces of all three services? That success is achieved by the most demanding and rigorous training, which enables them to do what they do for us overseas in much easier circumstances than might exist for other people.

May I also ask the Secretary of State to examine the whole question of defence diplomacy again? Does he agree that it is one of the golden assets offered by this country, and that as many foreigners as want to should have the opportunity to train at our great military institutions—the staff college, the Royal College of

Defence Studies, Sandhurst, Cranwell, Dartmouth and all the others? This facility is a great plus for Britain and a great driver for our interests overseas.

Mr. Hoon

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations, particularly those about the people involved in the armed forces, who, as he rightly said, do a tremendous job. I ended my statement with a proper tribute to the effort that they make, and I always strongly insist that that should include the civil servants in the Department. who perform magnificently alongside members of the armed forces.

The hon. Gentleman is also right to suggest that there is a risk, when producing a White Paper of this kind, that we simply reorganise our armed forces to fight the last battle. The most important theme of the strategic defence review was that we should have flexibility, and that we should have the kinds of armed forces and equipment that we judge will be necessary over the longer term. Adding technology to that, particularly the kinds of technology that are dealt with in the White Paper, is a crucial part of it, but it should not be—and will not be—at the expense of previous commitments that we have entered into and recognise that we have to deal with.

On defence diplomacy, I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. In the course of my travels—I have recently come back from Russia, for example—I am always enormously impressed by the way in which the expertise of our armed forces is welcomed, supported and sustained in other countries. In Russia, co-operation between the Royal Navy and the Russian navy has gone on, even in some extraordinarily sensitive and difficult times, and the men and women of our armed forces have continued to work with their opposite numbers in a way that can only enhance the United Kingdom's standing.

David Cairns (Greenock and Inverclyde)

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement today, especially the centrality that the review gives to conflict prevention and defence diplomacy. Does he agree that money and time spent on working with democratic Governments throughout the world, and with moderate regimes in places such as the middle east, to tackle the root causes of terrorism and to identify embryonic terrorist cells and deal with them in situ represent an investment, and that that is money well spent? What discussions is my right hon. Friend having with other arms of the British Government—the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, for example—and with our allies to ensure that the vital work of conflict prevention has a central role in the years ahead?

Mr. Hoon

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he makes a number of extremely good points. Conflict prevention involves a number of different Departments working together, and it is a characteristic of the threats facing international security that they cannot simply be addressed by the armed forces; we have to ensure that we engage other Departments. Perhaps the most recent illustration of that involves the difficulties undoubtedly being experienced today in Nepal. We are working closely with the Department for International Development to ensure that there is a coherent approach to the problems of that country.

I would, however, emphasise that one of the lessons that we must learn from the appalling events of 11 September is that we cannot necessarily afford to ignore threats to our security simply because they appear to he in far-off countries and do not immediately threaten our interests. The one lesson, above all others, that I have learned from the events of 11 September is that we cannot simply put out of mind appalling regimes of the kind that we saw in Afghanistan on the basis that they are doing damage to the local population but may not be a threat to us. Globalisation means that that threat to us can occur very sharply, and in a very dangerous way.

Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport)

Does the Secretary of State agree that the weakest link in our entire defence array is defence medical services, in which there are now shortfalls of as much as 75 per cent. in certain key faculties? He will know that this is not just a constituency interest for me, but one that involves defences generally. Our armed forces have not faced heavy casualties recently, but if we wait to reconstruct defence medical services until there are heavy casualties, it will be too late. Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the whole of defence medical services? Will he also recognise that it will not be possible to reconstruct and improve them unless a proper training centre is available to improve esprit de corps, linked to the hospital ships and to the deployment of field ambulances, and that that should, of course, be the Royal hospital Haslar?

Mr. Hoon

I was about to agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman said. I certainly agree that there is still significant room for improvement in defence medical services. There has been some modest improvement recently, but we inherited a dreadful situation, which I am determined to tackle and get right. I believe that we have the right kinds of plans in hand to do that, and I certainly do not want our armed forces to be deployed without appropriate medical support.

Mr. Malcolm Savidge (Aberdeen, North)

I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the new chapter. Given the immense difficulties of ensuring homeland security against the threat of smuggled terrorist weapons of mass destruction, does he agree that, alongside the measures that he has outlined, there is an urgent need for us to strengthen international co-operation and treaties on non-proliferation?

Mr. Hoon

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government put a great deal of effort into ensuring the success of non-proliferation agreements. Equally, however, it is my job, on behalf of the country, to look at situations that could arise in which those efforts could fail. Without being pessimistic about this, we need to have the right plans in place to be able to deal with the prospect of failure. That is why, while emphasising the importance of improving the co-ordination between our armed forces, in terms of their playing a part in defending the territory of the United Kingdom, I equally emphasise that that responsibility rightly lies with our Department for homeland defence, which is known as the Home Office.

Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South)

I congratulate the Secretary of State on his statement to the House today. I welcome much of it, particularly the part relating to unmanned air vehicles. Will sufficient resources be devoted to the process of speeding up their development from a reconnaissance vehicle to an attack weapon, so as to achieve that quickly? Four times this afternoon, the Secretary of State has stressed that the new money will be spread over a five-year period. Much of what is required in the new chapter, however, needs money fairly quickly. I should be grateful if he would give an assurance to the House that the resources to carry out those developments that are needed speedily will be contained in the money that is available, and that we shall not have to resort to implementing cuts in the nation's existing defence commitments.

Mr. Hoon

So far as UAVs are concerned, part of the work that we would do would involve looking at the extent to which they require that offensive capability, as well as the reconnaissance aspect that they already enjoy. So far as any earlier spending is concerned, I would draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention this paragraph in my statement: Further significant resources will be made available during the current financial year to enable us to manage the pressure arising from the high levels of activity in which we are currently engaged.

Hugh Bayley (City of York)

I am prompted by the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) to remind my right hon. Friend that there is already a defence medical services training establishment for reservists at Strensall, on the outskirts of York. I went there recently, and observed an exercise in which an entire district general hospital, staffed by reservists, was created in a weekend. I welcome the White Paper, especially the section on international organisations. My right hon. Friend knows that the G8 action plan on Africa gives a strong commitment over the next 12 months to making progress on conflict prevention there, and sees, in particular, a role for regional defence forces.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that we must make progress, as the afternoon is crowded with business. I do not want a statement; I want a question.

Hugh Bayley

Will resources be provided for staff training of African soldiers so that they can undertake their own peacekeeping?

Mr. Hoon

A great deal of effort is made in that regard. We have already had questions on defence diplomacy, and part of the excellent work done by our armed forces is to ensure that we offer such training and assistance wherever possible, including specifically in Africa.

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)

We know that the extra chapter has been called forth by the events of 11 September. One of the most embarrassing aspects of that is the fact that the leader of al-Qaeda, many of al-Qaeda's financial resources and the majority of its personnel who committed suicide and killed so many people on 11 September come not from Afghanistan, but from Saudi Arabia. What steps is the Secretary of State able to take to ensure that we maximise co-operation with our defence counterparts in Saudi Arabia? If they are left out of the picture. all the attacks in places such as Afghanistan, and even Iraq, will surely be insufficient to our ends.

Mr. Hoon

One of the beneficial consequences of 11 September, if I may put it that way, is the enormous improvement in co-operation right around the world, including with Saudi Arabia. As I said earlier, I have just come back from Russia. The co-operation with that country since 11 September could not have been imagined on 10 September.

That is a consequence of those appalling events that we need to continue to build on, so I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we are working with Saudi Arabia and other countries that supplied nationals. We should not be too complacent: I still find it astonishing that United Kingdom citizens were involved and were prepared to go to Afghanistan and participate in terrorist operations. We simply cannot afford to point the finger at any other given country when we have similar problems.

Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury)

This is a significant new chapter and I welcome it. The devil is in the detail, and understandably the detail is not in the chapter. Will the Secretary of State assure me that due consideration has been given to the pressure on the Army training estates, particularly the defence nuclear, biological and chemical centre at Winterbourne in Wiltshire, the NBC Regiment and Winterbourne's neighbour, Porton Down?

Mr. Hoon

I can give that assurance but, as I said in my statement, we must work on those areas simply because we recognise the growing threat, which facilities such as Winterbourne Gunner and Porton Down in particular will give us the capability to deal with.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that, in combating terrorism, it is important to act within international and domestic law? Does he accept that, usually, that will involve seeking explicit authority from the United Nations? Does he accept also that he should generally come to the House for express authority for the deployment of troops overseas? Does he accept, finally, that we need to define in international law the rights of those who are alleged to be terrorists and who are held overseas?

Mr. Hoon

Let me make it clear to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, although I am sure it is not necessary, that international and domestic law involve recourse to the UN for specific authority, but that is not, as I think he suggested, an absolute precondition. As he well knows, there are many circumstances in which it is perfectly proper to take international action without specific recourse to the UN. The law relating to self-defence is an obvious example of that.

Pete Wishart (North Tayside)

Will the Secretary of State please explain how putting the defence fire service in the private sector will improve the effectiveness and security of our defence personnel? He is of course aware that when the Minister of State for Defence was asked on Monday how many positive representations he has had on the issue, he candidly and honestly replied none. In the light of what has been said today, will the Secretary of State reconsider this daft privatisation?

Mr. Hoon

No decision has been taken on that, and an announcement will be made once a decision has been taken. Certainly, I have taken the hon. Gentleman's representations into account and, indeed, those made by others on the subject.

Patrick Mercer (Newark)

Whatever Army numbers are—we can argue about what they should be—the fact remains that they are still about 7,000 short. Indeed, the document says that fully manned and sustainable manpower structures are proving elusive. The fact also remains, however, that certain regiments and battalions are overmanned and fully sustainable. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that those units will be used in the roles fulfilled by the Parachute Regiment and the Royal Marines so that a two-tier Army does not emerge and dwindling morale is restored?

Mr. Hoon

We have had this conversation before. I do not accept that there is dwindling morale, but I certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that part of the implication of what I have said is that we must ensure that there is a wider, rapidly deployable capability available to us. By implication, therefore, I agree with at least part of what he says. We have made no secret of the need to make up that shortfall, but he knows from his considerable experience that the real pressures on the armed forces are in those areas that I mentioned—key enablers and the kind of people that we have to deploy time after time when we are engaged in a series of operations around the world. We need to devote specific resources to that area to improve our capabilities.

Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde)

Will the Secretary of State confirm that nothing in this welcome new chapter will change his commitment to buying all 232 Eurofighters? Will he also tell me whether the European-based successor to the future offensive air system programme will be fully engaged in developing unmanned air vehicle technology to the advantage of our British aerospace industry?

Mr. Hoon

I can absolutely confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that nothing in the new chapter will affect our commitment in relation to the Eurofighter. The Prime Minister made that clear to him very recently, I believe, and I am happy to repeat it. Certainly, our work on UAVs will inform considerably our thoughts on FOAS and how we take it forward. This and many other countries must have that important discussion on the aircraft that we shall have in future, and I am delighted to say that we are leading the way with that.

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)

I welcome most of today's announcement, including consideration of the volunteer reserves, but has the Secretary of State at all examined the model of the American air national guard? It provides all America's continental air defence, and did so effectively when patrolling after 11 September, although our own Air Force has just withdrawn its last regular squadron from the London area.

Mr. Hoon

The issue is obviously to ensure that we have the right capabilities available to deal with potential threats. As I said in my statement, we have quick-reaction aircraft available. The statement set out the circumstances in which we intend to extend the availability of airfields for that purpose and ensure that we have appropriate protection in place across the country. That has undoubtedly been improved since 11 September and we must continue that improvement.

Hugh Robertson (Faversham and Mid-Kent)

In his statement, the Secretary of State trailed the development of a new air-transportable medium-weight armoured vehicle. Presumably, it will fall mid-way between the current main battle tank and the light armoured CVR(T), or combat vehicle reconnaissance (tracked). That is much to be welcomed, but given that the Ministry of Defence has clearly identified it as a gap in our capability, will he tell the House when it might come on stream and what we are doing to plug that gap in the meantime?

Mr. Hoon

As a consequence of the events of 11 September and, specifically, the operations that we have had to conduct at a great distance, we recognise that there may be a greater need for air-transportable medium-weight equipment. We are working on that. I do not anticipate a gap today, but we recognise that there may be such a requirement for the future.