9 October 2008 :
Speech
Defence in the UK
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con): I would like to put on record my tribute to the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne). He was professional, courteous and honourable in all my dealings with him, and I am sorry to see him go. At the same time, I congratulate the new Secretary of State and I welcome the two new Ministers to the Front Bench. I would like to put on record my salute to the courage and bravery of all those in our armed forces who lost their lives over the recess period in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. I pay tribute to the Royal Irish Regiment, which is returning to Shropshire, as the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) reminded us, the Royal Military Police, who returned home some months ago, other constituents who serve in the Territorial Army, and reserves in other services and regular units.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) said, one of the best speeches that we have heard on defence in this place came from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) today. I was going to set out my thoughts on the global context, although I think that I will run out of time. One cannot have a debate about UK defence without looking at the global context, defence alliances, which the hon. Gentleman touched on, or defence equipment.
On the question of defence equipment, one of the greatest foreign policy challenges before us is that of failed states, rogue states or states that are infiltrated by terrorist organisations and radical groups. One country is causing particular concern: I heard a foreign policy expert speak recently on Iran. I hope that Iran and President Ahmadinejad will review their position with regard to the International Atomic Energy Agency and the international community, and that they will allow monitors back in to examine the so-called civilian nuclear programme and the so-called civilian space programme so that the current impasse with that country can be dealt with diplomatically rather than in any other way.
On how that situation may be dealt with, there are only two options if the diplomatic and peaceful route does not proceed as we all want it to. First, we have conventional intervention, which is quite unthinkable, whether it is possible or not, and who would be involved? Secondly, there is nuclear intervention, and of course, no one endorses or wants to see that. However, we have a difficulty from the point of view of geo-political strategy and that of stability. We do not have the needed flexibility in our current defence equipment. Our military commanders do not currently have certain options available to them and in the future they might need to consider other means to deal with a threat.
If we are unable to use the conventional or nuclear option, what other options are there if diplomacy fails? During the debate on Trident last year, I mentioned hypersonic mass technology. As the hon. Gentleman said, we need to look again at defence equipment and at whether it matches the threats faced by our country and the NATO alliance. I hope that the Government will work closely with the American Administration and the great state of Alabama, which are developing conventional intercontinental ballistic missiles. These missiles are non-nuclear, but they have a far bigger and more powerful punch than any conventional missiles at the moment. Tomahawk missiles and cruise missiles would not be effective enough to deal with the threats in some parts of the world today, which is why we need to ensure that Britain is in the vanguard of developing such weapons. They are not fully developed at the moment, but they could come on-stream in two or three years. They can strike at any target within two hours, launched either from a submarine or a land site. I hope that the Government will consider such technology, and that the new Ministers will take a fresh look at whether we have the weapons to deal with current threats. They would cost fewer lives and less money than sending in a conventional army, or the use of nuclear weapons, which is completely unacceptable in my view.
Given the time, I will allow those on the Front Bench to conclude.
5.34 pm
... MARK'S OTHER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SAME DEBATE Mark Pritchard: As the Minister knows, the defence training review programme is the largest private finance initiative in British history. I hope he agrees that we must get defence training in this country right. Does he share my concern about the reports over the past three or four weeks about the delay in the delivery of that programme—I believe that an announcement will be made today or perhaps next week about a further delay; he just alluded to it—and, more importantly, about the rising costs? Such reports contradict the statement that he just made. The fact is that the costs have increased by £1 billion in the past six months alone. What recent discussions has he had with Treasury Ministers about those rising costs?
Mr. Ainsworth: I am aware of all the ongoing publicity about the difficulties, particularly those in defence package 1. I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in that because of his constituency interest—
Mark Pritchard: And national interest.
Mr. Ainsworth: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has a national interest too, but he has a particular interest in this matter and, obviously, he pursues it. I am not saying that the costs have not changed. I am saying that we still have an affordable package that is far cheaper than the alternatives, and that has been worked on over the summer. We will be able to go ahead with defence package 1 and get value for money out of those proposals.
... Mark Pritchard: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government of Pakistan need to do all that they can to ensure that al-Qaeda does not link in with the Taliban, so that those parts of the Taliban that are prepared to negotiate, to which he perhaps alludes, are fit and able to do so at the earliest opportunity?
Dr. Lewis: My hon. Friend is exactly right. As has been seen to happen as a result of the successful American grasp of counter-insurgency principles in Iraq, we will end up with a situation in which people who were formerly fighting against us accept that they will eventually get their country back, providing that they break with and eliminate the unacceptable elements. We have seen that at the end of all sorts of counter-insurgency campaigns, both those that have been fought to a draw and those that have been fought to the advantage of the Government side. Ultimately, we isolate the militants and recruit those who are perhaps of a more nationalistic than militant persuasion. We end up with a compromise, which is at the heart of most democratic, and certainly all counter-insurgency, solutions. ... Mark Pritchard: The hon. Gentleman mentions Russia; is he aware of comments made by President Medvedev in the past 48 hours suggesting that Russia should be part of some new security pact with Europe? Does he share my concern that that would destabilise the Euro-Atlantic alliance and the NATO alliance, which, albeit imperfectly, has ensured peace in Europe and further afield for many years? Does he agree that we should continue to support NATO and try to reform it from within, and that there can be no moral equivalence between the Administrations in Washington DC and in Moscow as long as Moscow continues to stamp out democracy, freedom of speech and religion, and the independence of the judiciary?
Mr. Henderson: I do not quite take the same view as the hon. Gentleman. I do not know how much of my speech I will get through in my 15 minutes, but the view that the American Government took in the middle east was, “We can establish western democracy, over a period, in the middle east, and then these guys will know how to play the game; they’ll be on our side and everything will be stable.” America argued that that should be the case in Russia, but what it predicted did not take place. If that argument were successful, the logic would be that the Russians should be part of the NATO pact. That is the ultimate logic of that foreign policy doctrine. We—and the hon. Gentleman—need to be clear in our mind on whether we agree with that doctrine. He needs to be clear on whether he accepts my view that there is a logical conclusion to the argument. If he does not accept that, and he thinks that Russia will always be on the other side, and therefore not linked up with our interests, other aspects of defence policy will need to be considered. I want to come back to that point later in my speech, assuming that I am able to do so.
|
