House of Commons Hansard Debates for 24 Oct 1989

Home Page

Column 649

House of Commons

Tuesday 24 October 1989

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker-- in the Chair ]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

City of London (Spitalfields Market) Bill

Order read for consideration of Lords amendments.

To be considered on Thursday 26 October.

Medway Tunnel Bill

[Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 26 October.

Nottingham Park Estate Bill

[Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Isle of Wight Bill

(By Order)

St. George's Hill, Weybridge, Estate Bill

(By Order)

Hythe Marina Village (Southampton) Wavescreen Bill

(By Order)

New Southgate Cemetery and Crematorium Limited Bill

(By Order)

Orders read for consideration of Lords amendments.

To be considered on Thursday 26 October.

City of London (Various Powers) Bill

(By Order) Order for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered on Thursday 26 October.

British Film Institute Southbank Bill

(By Order) Read a Second time, and committed.

Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Promoters of the Associated British Ports (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid ; That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House ;

That there shall be deposited with the Bill a declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present Session ;

That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time ;

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session.

Column 650

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.-- [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members : Object.

Debate to be resumed on Thursday 26 October.

Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill

[Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Promoters of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid ; That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session ;

That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first and shall be ordered to be read a second time ; That the Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session ; That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session or deposited pursuant to paragraph (b) of Standing Order 126 relating to Private Business ;

That, in relation to the Bill, Standing Order 127 relating to Private Business shall have effect as if the words "under Standing Order 126 (Reference to committee of petitions against Bill)" were omitted ;

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session ;

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.-- [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members : Object.

Debate to be resumed on Thursday 26 October.

Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Promoters of the Birmingham City Council (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid ; That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House ;

That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session ;

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.-- [The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members : Object.

Debate to resumed on Thursday 26 October.

Column 651

Oral Answers to Questions

DEFENCE

Trident

1. Mr. William Powell : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends altering the Trident programme.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King) : No. The planned in-service date for Trident remains the mid-1990s, as originally announced in 1982.

Mr. Powell : Has my right hon. Friend been able to identify anything so far in the changes sweeping Europe that would justify a reduction in the current Trident programme? In particular, has he been able to identify anything that would in any way justify this country abandoning the fourth Trident ship?

Mr. King : Although we welcome and shall play our full part in the conventional force reduction talks in Vienna, in support of the NATO position, and although we want substantial reductions in nuclear weapons, there can be no question of abandoning our deterrent before we are certain that there is no threat to this country.

Mr. Menzies Campbell : How does the Secretary of State justify the fourfold increase in warheads which the Trident system represents over the existing Polaris system? Polaris is an effective deterrent in present circumstances with its existing warheads. Why is it necessary to have a substantial escalation in firepower to the extent that the D5 system necessarily involves?

Mr. King : It is a sobering thought that even with the increase which I accept Trident represents over the existing Polaris system, it will still represent a smaller percentage in relation to the number of Soviet warheads and the threat posed by the Soviet Union than Polaris did at the time of its introduction. Although I note the hon. and learned Gentleman's judgment that there is no need for it, it is our judgment that Trident--and the number of warheads proposed in Trident--is the minimum necessary to maintain a credible deterrent against the increasing sophistication of the Soviet defences.

Sir Antony Buck : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reasons for our updating our nuclear capability are precisely the same as those that caused the former Labour Administration to update our nuclear capability? They did it behind the scenes, but we do it openly.

Mr. King : I hope that it would be common ground and manifestly obvious that if there is to be a nuclear deterrent, it must be a credible deterrent. It would be the most outrageous waste to have a deterrent that was not credible or competent for the job.

Mr. O'Neill : Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Trident project is still up to date and within budget? Will he also explain to the House what the ambassador in Washington was doing when he seemed to be lobbying the Senate and Congress to secure extra funding, if the story in last week's Jane's Defence Weekly is true?

Column 652

Mr. King : I think that I can help the hon. Gentleman. He can read the story in the congressional record as well, which may be even better than Jane's Defence Weekly. I have made representations, as has our ambassador in Washington, to ensure that the American authorities and Congress understand and appreciate the importance to us of the continuing Trident programme. We are confident that with the necessary funds, subject to internal matters in the United States and Congress, the programme will go forward satisfactorily. I can confirm my earlier answer : we are still on schedule for an in-service date of the mid-1990s. I believe, although I do not have the final figures, that the next figures are likely to show a continuing fall in the cost of the programme.

Mr. Allason : Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity to follow the correspondence on Trident in The Times which has been conducted between various members of the Opposition in the other place? Will he confirm, and once and for all scotch suggestions to the contrary, that the Trident navigational system is entirely independent and will not require any dependence on American satellites or guidance systems?

Mr. King : I am afraid that I missed the correspondence, but I can confirm the statement in the latter part of my hon. Friend's question. There has been a suggestion, which was deployed in the defence debate, that somehow Trident will not be independent and will not be under British control. I confirm that it will be independent.

Nuclear Submarines

2. Dr. Reid : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement about his Department's plans for the decommissioning of nuclear submarines.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark) : We are actively considering the available options, and I refer the hon. Member to the evidence given by my Department to the Select Committee which was published in its seventh report.

Dr. Reid : Is it not time that Ministers made a decision? The only policy that the Government seem to have on the decommissioning of nuclear submarines is to leave them sitting round in port to corrode. Given that the Dreadnought has been hanging around for years and that other submarines are due to be decommissioned before the year 2000, is it not about time that Ministers came to the House with a clear, definitive statement of their intentions on the decommissioning of nuclear submarines?

Mr. Clark : It is important not to make a precipitate judgment. To moor and store submarines in this way is a perfectly safe option, and during that time the radiation in the power units degrades. The United States has been storing submarines in this way for more than 20 years.

Mr. Boyes : Is it not time that the Government came to a conclusion on the matter, which I understand has been actively considered for some time? We will have 10 more nuclear submarines within the next few years. Why does not the Minister advise us of some of the important criteria

Column 653

on which he will base this decision? I suggest that monitoring should be carried out and that the Government should ensure that the submarines are recoverable, repairable and tested. The Government have been dilatory ; it is about time that they got their finger out and did something about it.

Mr. Clark : It is important to get the solution right. There is no danger of these submarines corroding. Dreadnought will be docked briefly for an overhaul within the next six months to ensure that that does not happen. The radiation from the existing hulls is very slight. In accordance with the requirements suggested by the Select Committee, we have monitored the radiation and we are supplying details to Dunfermline council. This is a perfectly acceptable way of storing the vessels until a solution, which will undoubtedly embrace the factors mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, is arrived at.

Tornado

3. Mr. Win Griffiths : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what comparative figures he has for the accident rates for Tornado aircraft for each of the European countries which operate these aircraft.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Michael Neubert) : It is not our policy to publish accident rates for particular aircraft types. The public release of aircraft accident statistics for other nations is a matter for the respective Governments.

Mr. Griffiths : Is it not true that the Tornado accident rate in Britain is twice that of the other European countries which operate the aircraft? Is it not about time that we reviewed our low-flying procedures-- they are not followed by any other nation in the western world--to stop this unnecessary loss of life and huge loss of aircraft?

Mr. Neubert : The hon. Gentleman's opening assertion is not true. The number of accidents is not relevant. What is relevant is the number of accidents in relation to the amount of flying activity. Taking that as the basis for comparison, if we exclude the early accidents that occurred as a result of technical defects which were part of the early experience of operating that aircraft--in which the United Kingdom was a leader--our accident rate since then has been broadly comparable with that in Germany and Italy.

Mr. Mans : Does my hon. Friend agree that the Tornado has a lower accident rate than any other combat aircraft which has been brought into service in the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Neubert : I confirm that Tornado has a very comparable record with other fast jet aircraft in operation with the RAF.

Mr. Rogers : The Minister's statement is quite incredible. He knows very well that figures are available which show that 17 Tornado GR1 bombers have crashed, and that in the past three years in Britain 10 Tornado GR1s have crashed while only four have crashed in the German air force. Earlier, the Government stated that early Tornado losses were due to teething problems. Our losses are much higher than for any other air force ; are they due to faulty equipment or to pilot error?

Column 654

Mr. Neubert : Each accident is subject to an inquiry, as the hon. Gentleman will know. I am well aware of the article in The Independent on 8 June from which the hon. Gentleman draws this incorrect inference. I can repeat only that it is not a question of the number of accidents. The important point is the number of accidents that occur in relation to the amount of flying activity with that aircraft.

Mr. Devlin : Will my hon. Friend assure my constituents and those in neighbouring constituencies in the north of England that the low-flying exercises from places such as RAF Leeming involving Tornado jets are absolutely essential to the future defence of Great Britain and must be carried out? Although they impose a small price in terms of inconvenience for local households, it would be totally irresponsible of the Government to abandon them.

Mr. Neubert : My hon. Friend puts it extremely well. The fast, low operation of modern jet fighter and bomber aircraft is the only possible way, in present circumstances, of surviving the electronic warfare environment that we would be likely to meet in a war.

Demography

4. Mr. Litherland : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest assessment of the effects of demographic changes upon Her Majesty's Government's defence policy.

7. Mr. Nigel Griffiths : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest assessment of the effects of demographic changes upon Her Majesty's Government's defence policy.

Mr. Neubert : Demographic changes pose a particular challenge which we are taking steps to address for the recruitment and retention of manpower, but they do not require changes in current defence policies and commitments.

Mr. Litherland : Why do the Government have a negative attitude towards the conventional forces in Europe talks in Vienna when we could be discussing the reductions in troop levels? Does he agree that the Government's record in the planning of reductions in the 1990s has been pathetic and short sighted and that it will be very costly for the taxpayer?

Mr. Neubert : The premise of the hon. Gentleman's question is wrong. We played a full part in the events that led to the conventional forces in Europe talks in Vienna and we shall continue to do so. We lack no vigour or enthusiasm for those developments. However, when it comes to defending our country against potential threat, we must maintain our forces at assessed levels. We are endeavouring to do that through a range of initiatives which were put under way long ago--not as recently as the hon. Gentleman first discovered the problem.

Mr. Griffiths : Does the Minister realise that inadequate living conditions are driving people out of the armed forces and that a quarter of armed forces accommodation is of the lowest grade, grade 4? What is the Minister doing to improve the quality of accommodation so that it meets demographic changes?

Column 655

Mr. Neubert : The hon. Gentleman has a point, and we recognise it. There is-- [Interruption.] If hon. Members will be good enough to wait for the answer-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Win Griffiths : The Minister thinks he is Sergeant Bilko.

Mr. Speaker : Order. The Minister must have a chance to answer.

Mr. Neubert : If I were Sergeant Bilko, I would call the hon. Gentleman to attention.

If Opposition Members were to await the answer, they would know that, over the passage of 10 years, that property, like any other property, deteriorates. We have a major programme of works to accommodate that. The existence of a substantial number of lower-graded dwellings is perhaps of convenience and acceptability to those who occupy them, because they pay low rents.

Mr. Ian Bruce : Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main reasons why we lose members of the armed forces is that highly skilled personnel are asked to do such things as security duties and ship deep- cleaning? Does he agree that we should continue to ensure that those tasks are civilianised and that security is kept at a high level without having to use highly trained people?

Mr. Neubert : Yes. There are many component parts in the well-being of members of Her Majesty's armed forces. My hon. Friend has pointed to another need, which is to avoid stretch and over-stretch and, wherever possible, to accommodate civilian manpower in operationally administrative roles so that serving men and women can be released to do their proper jobs.

Sir Dudley Smith : Is my hon. Friend aware that, even with the best will in the world and provided that it keeps its bargain, the Soviet Union will take six to eight years or even longer to reduce its conventional forces? Is he further aware that, in respect of NATO, we start from a much lower base, which also includes troops? In those circumstances, does he agree that there is a danger of a serious imbalance occurring unless we watch matters very carefully?

Mr. Neubert : My hon. Friend observes with a rather more expert eye the scene in eastern Europe and beyond. It is quite clear that we shall have a continuing need for manpower and womanpower in the armed services, and we are doing all that we can to maintain assessed levels of need.

Troop Numbers

5. Mr. McCartney : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on the British Army of the proposals tabled in Vienna for ceilings on troop numbers.

Mr. Tom King : The current NATO proposals on manpower are limited to forces stationed by the United States and the Soviet Union in Europe.

Mr. McCartney : I should have thought that the Secretary of State would be a little more enthusiastic about initiatives being taken at Vienna, especially as recent public opinion polls in the Federal Republic of Germany show that people are in favour of more troop reductions

Column 656

there. Surely it is part of the British Government's commitment to a safer and peaceful Europe to offer troop reductions in central Europe, as part of our contribution to demilitarising Europe.

Mr. King : I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was present when I made clear our full support for the reduction talks in Vienna and our determination to play a full part in them as members of NATO. The proposals tabled by the Warsaw pact and by NATO involve items of equipment. The present proposals affect forces stationed outside the national territory of the United States and the Soviet Union. The most important thing for those who care about arms reductions and force reductions is that this first major undertaking is successfully completed with confidence and trust.

Mr. Batiste : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as our troop numbers are contained, they should have the latest, most modern equipment to take fullest advantage of resources? Is that policy not wholly inconsistent with the Labour party's commitment to massive cuts in conventional defence expenditure? What assurance can my right hon. Friend offer to our defence industries and to the many thousands of people who work in them that the Government at least are committed to the sound security of this country?

Mr. King : Consistency is not a word with which one should ever charge the Opposition. Although they have proposals for massive reductions in defence expenditure, they never lose opportunities to complain about the potential job losses that they suspect lie somewhere within our proposals, which are for considerably greater defence expenditure-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. I ask hon. Members to settle down.

F111 Aircraft

6. Mr. Caborn : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions the NATO nuclear planning group has had concerning the possible deployment of additional F111 aircraft.

Mr. Tom King : At the nuclear planning group meeting in April 1988, Ministers endorsed a proposed package of force restructuring and modernisation measures designed to enable the Alliance to sustain its strategy of flexible response in the post-INF era. The options included possible deployment to Europe of longer-range dual capable aircraft from the United States. However, no decisions have yet been taken.

Mr. Caborn : I thank the Secretary of State for his usual unclear answer. Is he aware that it has been widely reported--as his answer suggests--that the debate has gone beyond the F111s and is now centred on the F15-E strike eagles? Have there been any consultations with the British Government about that and, if so, what attitude are the Government taking? Will it be in the context of trying to reduce nuclear weapons in Europe, not increase them, as President Gorbachev has been trying to instill into the Western Alliance?

Mr. King : I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman found my answer unclear. It precisely answered the two points that he then made in his supplementary question. I made

Column 657

it absolutely clear that consultations are continuing, and I referred to a package of force restructuring and modernisation measures. Those measures were discussed in the nuclear planning group in April 1988 and discussions and consultations have continued. Furthermore, I have made it absolutely clear that no decisions have yet been taken.

Mr. Bellingham : Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been rumours that RAF Sculthorpe in north Norfolk might be designated as a new base for the F111s? Will my right hon. Friend comment on that rumour and, if there is substance in it, will he confirm that there will be the widest possible consultation before any final decision is taken?

Mr. King : I am aware that misleading stories have recently appeared in the press as though decisions had been taken. They are not true because no decision has yet been taken. I can confirm that--

Mr. O'Neill : Was it in The Times ?

Mr. King : The story was correct in some newspapers and wrong in one. If the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) would like to check, he will find that one correspondent managed to get it wrong, unfortunately leaving out a "not" from his report.

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I cannot comment at this stage. Such matters are under consideration, but obviously we shall want to give careful consideration to any of the aspects causing concern to hon. Members.

Ms. Short : Will the Secretary of State confirm that Britain is becoming increasingly isolated as a NATO power in pushing so strongly for modernisation? Will he reconsider the commitment to a longer-range dual capability aircraft which could undermine the INF treaty? Is Britain in favour of disarmament in Europe or not?

Mr. King : I have made it absolutely clear that we are in favour of a reduction in conventional arms. We are in favour of a substantial reduction in strategic arms. We are in favour of the removal of intermediate nuclear forces. We have a more successful record of achievement on disarmament than the Labour party has ever dreamt of. However, at the same time we know that we have achieved progress towards disarmament from a position of strength. We make no apologies for saying that we will maintain the defence of this country and of NATO while we continue with the process of disarmament.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith : Although I accept what my right hon. Friend has said, will he bear in mind, when coming to a decision about the deployment of such systems, the fact that the Soviet Union has developed and deployed its own air cruise missile system for its own aircraft?

Next Section

Home Page