We have no plans to conduct a new review of defence policy. The security priorities and defence missions set out in the strategic defence review remain valid. The SDR left the armed forces well placed to participate in the campaign against international terrorism, but we need to look harder at asymmetric threats of the kind that we saw on
That answer is not quite on all fours with the Secretary of State's previous pronouncement that the attacks on the United States provided an opportunity, if necessary, to "rebalance our existing efforts". Does he accept that the response to terrorism—the military response over which he has control—will be very expensive? Can he assure the House that the money that will have to be spent on our military response to terrorism will not be diverted from other necessary military capabilities as set out in the strategic defence review, which he has just confirmed is still valid?
I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The work in hand is designed to examine the way in which our existing capabilities, many of which were well prepared for the kind of threat that we saw on
Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the British armed forces' ability to respond to the threats posed by the post-
I agree with my hon. Friend. As I said, we are building on the work of the strategic defence review. We shall add what I have described as an extra chapter, to ensure that we can deal specifically with asymmetric threats of the kind that we saw on
The Secretary of State will be aware that the Royal Marines' winter 1999 exercise was cancelled as a result of financial constraints. Can he give us an assurance that there will be not only a proper analysis of the combat effectiveness of our troops and their ability to deal with the current threat but an increase in the resources made available to meet the many commitments that the Government have undertaken? Does he have any response to what Brigadier Lane said today about the effectiveness of his Royal Marines, whom the Secretary of State has charged with the task of leading the spearhead into Afghanistan?
I had the opportunity to see the Royal Marines as they completed the exercise in Oman last week—an exercise that tested our ability to deploy forces rapidly right across the range of capability. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Royal Marines, in particular, much appreciated that. There was no doubt in their minds about their combat effectiveness or their readiness to take action. I am sure that if he looks carefully at what their commanding officer said—what he actually said to the "Today" programme, as opposed to what he was interpreted as saying—he will see that there is little doubt that the Royal Marines stand ready to deal with any threat, whenever it might arise.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that if Dr. Lewis had not left the Defence Committee and been shunted into a corner of the Opposition Whips Office, he would have been able to participate directly in the first inquiry of the Committee into the same subject on which he has just asked his question? I have talked to the hon. Gentleman, who is my friend—although I am ashamed to admit he is—and I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend would give me and the Defence Committee some indication of the timetable of his little inquiry into what tweaking needs to be done to the SDR to bring it into line with the increase in the threat to the UK home base as a result of the events of
I anticipate that the work will follow the lines of the SDR. I want it to be open, and to give all hon. Members the opportunity to make representations, even from the redoubtable fastnesses of the Opposition Whips Office. I am sure that communication can reach and emerge from there, and I want everyone who has the opportunity to think deeply about the subject to contribute to what is an important debate for defence in this country. I would anticipate that we would be ready to publish conclusions in the spring of next year.
Does the Secretary of State agree that our splendid armed forces have one most disturbing weakness, which lies in defence medical services? After the Government decided to close the only military hospital, at Haslar, we are now 75 per cent. short in some key specialties such as surgery and anaesthetics. Will the Government review the decision to close the hospital? That is not only a local issue but a matter of serious national concern.
I would be a little more sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's complaints if he had addressed them to those who were responsible for running down the defence medical services so catastrophically. If he in fact did so, I am grateful for his continuing observations on the problem. We need to address the issue and improve the services. Much effort and many resources are going into that, but that will not involve any review of the decision on Haslar, because part of the importance of the work that we are doing is to ensure that we can provide medical services to our armed forces across the board and across the country.
Under the defence policy review and in light of the proposed cessation of the manufacturing of propellant by BAE Systems in Bishopton, can my right hon. Friend guarantee that alternative supplies of tested and safe propellants are in place to safeguard the interests of our armed forces? Can he further tell the House whether the Ministry of Defence has reconsidered the strategic implications of the cessation of manufacturing at the sole remaining UK propellant factory following the events of
I understand why my hon. Friend has raised the issue, and he is right to do so on behalf of his considerable constituency interest. However, I assure him that we have considered the matter on several occasions and I have every confidence in the arrangements for providing security of ammunition to our armed forces.
I reiterate our support for the Government in their determination and resolve to support the US in its campaign to defeat international terrorism. I also assure the Secretary of State that we expected the campaign to be protracted, we never believed that civilian casualties could be avoided, and we are prepared to support the Government through periods of difficulty and uncertainty. However, does he agree that it is essential to avoid the mixed messages that have been causing serious concern about the direction of the campaign in recent days?
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's good wishes and will ensure that they are passed on; I appreciate his support. He has made his case in a straightforward way. However, I do not accept that there have been mixed messages. It is a hallmark of a democracy that different people can at different times give differing views. I do not believe that it is helpful at this time for these different emphases to be subject to the microscopic examination that from time to time occurs.
I do not believe that mixed messages have been given. Our campaign aims have been set out clearly and the military means of achieving them have equally been set out clearly and on a regular basis.
In that case, may I press the right hon. Gentleman on the point raised by my hon. Friend Mr. Howarth regarding the comments of Brigadier Roger Lane, the commander of 3 Commando Brigade? The Minister of State told the House on Friday that the lead elements of this force will be "immediately available" and those comments were echoed by Sir Michael Boyce, Chief of the Defence Staff, who said that they were "ready now". However, Brigadier Lane appears to be giving contrary indications about the need for further training and the lack of intelligence. Can the Secretary of State use this opportunity to clarify the intended overall message?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to say that I believe that Brigadier Lane's comments were deliberately taken out of context in a most unhelpful way. He was referring to the importance for any military operation of having members of the armed forces prepared for that specific operation. There is no doubt that the Royal Marines, as I saw for myself on Friday, remain at the highest state of readiness. They will continue to maintain that state, and I have no difficulty in saying that they are immediately available for operations. The point is that they need the necessary level of preparation to deal with any specific operation as it arises. That would be true for any members of the armed forces in any situation. It is only prudent to allow that preparation to take place.
Perhaps the lesson is that Ministers should not use officers in the field for high-level political messages—those should be reserved for Ministers.
Will the Secretary of State clarify the overall objectives of the campaign against international terrorism? The objectives published on
"assuming that Mullah Omar will not comply with the US ultimatum, we require sufficient change in the leadership—" that is, in the leadership of the Government of Afghanistan. Moreover, the Chief of the Defence Staff made it clear that he would regard it as "extraordinarily difficult" to achieve the military objectives unless the Taliban regime "folded". That seems extremely clear. Can the Secretary of State therefore reiterate that all four of the immediate objectives, as published on
Yes, I can give that confirmation. On regime change, we gave the Taliban regime every opportunity to give up Osama bin Laden, to stop allowing the al-Qaeda terrorist organisation to use Afghanistan as a base for terrorism and to abandon their support for attacks on other countries. Every opportunity was afforded and so far, at any rate, Mullah Omar and the Taliban leadership have not accepted those opportunities. That is why it is important that part of our military aims involves the replacement of the leadership of Afghanistan by a Government who are not prepared to support either Osama bin Laden or terrorism in general.