House of Commons Hansard Debates for 27 Jun 1991

Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport) : The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) put the knife into the Labour party very effectively. As an ex-member of the Labour party, he had specialist knowledge which allowed him to do so. He will understand if I do not try to add to his questions. I look forward with great interest to see whether the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman can answer any of the questions that the hon. Gentleman posed, but I rather suspect that he will not be able to.

In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister paid generous and totally appropriate tribute to the men and women of our armed forces who served in the Gulf. I wish to add, from my constituency knowledge, that the families of the men and women who served also deserve generous praise. They did not know when their kinsfolk went to the Gulf that there would be few casualties--and in the case of the Royal Navy, none. They did not know that no chemical or biological weapons would be used. They faced the challenge of watching their loved ones sail off to the Gulf with tremendous determination, courage and calm. That goes for all the families--the wives, parents and children. They all deserve our tributes and praise.

There are many service families and service establishments in my constituency. I am particularly grateful to the personnel in those establishments for allowing me to visit them, for giving up so much of their time, for briefing me and for their hospitality on several occasions- -all of which I greatly enjoyed.

Sailors realise that defence is in no sense a job creation agency. They are there to respond to and to deter a threat to our essential interests. What is the threat? First, it remains the Soviet Union. After the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in the last war, the Soviets built up an enormous military-industrial complex, and the power of the generals and those associated with them still remains in the Soviet Union.

NATO responded to that threat, but there is still an imbalance between the Warsaw pact forces and NATO forces of about 3 : 1 in most arms. Since 1985, there has been a diminution in the threat of the Warsaw pact, and we associate that mainly with Mr. Gorbachev and perestroika. However, it is not just Mr. Gorbachev who is

Column 1205

responsible for the diminution of the Soviet threat. It is also a result of the fact that the Soviet Union is bust--economically, politically and morally. One aspect in respect of which it is not bust, however, is the military--the Soviet Union remains a massive military power.

The CFE negotiations have led to a reduction of army forces in the central plain of Europe, but there is no real indication yet that the Soviet navy is to be diminished in much the same way. There are some signs of diminution, but they are not as considerable as in the army. The Soviet Union continues to have the largest general purpose submarine fleet in the world. It is still building at the rate of about 10 a year. Ten new submarines of an advanced design were built during 1990. There are now plans for further designs with cruise missiles and other armaments. Those submarines cannot conceivably be needed for defence. There is no need whatever for the Soviet Union to have submarines to defend its frontiers with China, Turkey or elsewhere. Those weapons can only be intended for offensive use. Admiral of the fleet, Admiral Chernavin, makes it quite clear that the purpose of the Soviet submarine fleet is to attack NATO sea lanes in the event of a further world war.

That poses a serious threat because of the instability of the Soviet Union. We do not know where the military currently stand in terms of reforms within the Soviet Union. Although 60 per cent. of the production of the defence-industrial complex is now geared to civilian products, the military -industrial complex is still under the command of the military.

Some matters cause serious concern. For instance, it is not fully appreciated that, if the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were permitted to secede from the Soviet Union complex, this would leave the important area of Kaliningrad, with its large Soviet port and hundreds of thousands of Soviet citizens, cut off from the rest of the Soviet Union. I cannot imagine that the Soviet Union would be prepared to allow that to happen. Indeed, I have seen reports that admirals and generals would not be prepared to see that happen. Clearly, the Soviet bear has not gone away. That is the first threat.

In a period when the world is shrinking, when weapons are becoming much more effective, and when the means of transport and delivery of weapons are improving all the time, the second threat to us is from tyrants on the make. For example, I refer to Gadaffi, with his support for terrorism-- terrorism linked with tyrants on the make can be a potent mixture-- Galtieri, and recently, of course, Saddam Hussein. We do not know all the threats that can be posed to us. There is a saying in the Royal Artillery and the Royal Air Force that "it's the one you don't see that gets you". We need to defend ourselves against the one that we cannot see--the unseen threat. Clearly, if we are defending against an unseen threat, the key must be flexibility. That is my approach to our need for naval forces. First, we have a need for a nuclear deterrent, and the Conservative party stands four -square behind it. Secondly, we need command carriers, frigates and SSN submarines to fulfil our role within NATO to defend the east Atlantic. Thirdly--I am not sufficiently confident of the Government's intentions--we also need flexible smaller ships. We need fast patrol boats, vessels that are suitable for fishery protection and smaller ships capable of operating inshore. In particular, we need more conventional submarines.

Column 1206

I read with keen interest the report of the Select Committee on Defence, the Chairman of which, my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) is sitting beside me. That Committee takes the view that conventional submarines are extremely important to our defence need. There was to have been a class of 12 Upholder submarines, but that has now been cut to four. I have been following that class of submarine with keen interest. I visited Barrow in Furness some time ago, and I visited Birkenhead to see the second-in-class Unseen under construction. I have been keen that it should be stationed, as it currently is, with No. 1 submarine squadron in Gosport.

Much of the role of those conventional submarines is not widely publicised. I fear that there may be a danger that people regard conventional submarines as second-rate nuclear submarines which do not have sufficient performance. People may not realise that SSK hunter-killer conventional submarines, the diesel-electric Upholder class, have special roles and can fulfil special tasks. Those special tasks include listening in to all sorts of communications. Because the Upholder class is so very quiet, they can travel where other submarines might be perceived. Of course, they have a special forces capacity and are capable of landing special forces behind enemy lines.

It seems very peculiar that we should currently be contemplating a diesel- electric conventional submarine class of only four submarines, when we needed two, for use in the Gulf conflict. Otus and Opossum served in the Gulf area and returned in the camouflage used in that area. It is peculiar that we should have used as many as two submarines in that small area and that we should now believe that we can fulfil that important role in the future with only four. Paragraph 4 of the report of the Select Committee on Defence, which was published today, states that Flag Officer Submarines and the Ministry of Defence

"should look at ways of increasing professional, parliamentary and public understanding of the Submarine Service."

I am not too bothered about public understanding of the submarine service-- I do not think that it needs to blow its trumpet in that way. I should be entirely satisfied if I felt that those taking decisions on the ordering of submarines fully understood the situation. It concerns me that we should have only four submarines so planned. My main point is about shore establishments and ship bases. I suppose that a planner, starting with a clean sheet of paper, would choose to base most of the fleet in Scapa Flow, because it would be near to the eastern Atlantic and the area where its operations are most likely to be concentrated. Of course, that is not an option, because we have to start with where we are. Most of the shore-based Navy is based in the Gosport-Portsmouth area. There are major establishments in my constituency--for example, HMS Sultan, HMS Collingwood, HMS Dolphin, HMS Daedalus, HMS Centurion and RNH Haslar. All of them are centres for naval training. Therefore, they are areas in which Royal Navy people will know that they will spend much of their shore time, because training is obviously the main activity for shore-based service men.

Whereas the Ministry of Defence previously built housing for naval personnel as they travelled around the world, increasingly in recent years naval personnel have chosen instead to buy their own houses. To put it very crudely, the Royal Navy lives in south Hampshire--and

Column 1207

rightly so, as in most cases personnel know that they will be based in the Gosport-Portsmouth area rather than anywhere else because that is where the major training establishments are. [Interruption.] I hear noises from others who have interests in this matter. Perhaps they will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Training establishments are predominantly in the Gosport-Portsmouth area and naval personnel have chosen to live there so as to be near their place of work. Can we move the men and women of the armed forces? The answer is no, because their homes are where they are, their wives are there, and their children are at school. Service personnel wish to remain where they are. We no longer have press gangs or Royal Marines posted on the fo'c'sles of ships to shoot deserters, so we need to make sure that people want to stay in the Royal Navy.

The name of the game in the Royal Navy is retention. The great enemy is premature voluntary retirement. Service personnel are now highly skilled and highly trained. The longer they remain in the Royal Navy, the higher their skill levels will be, the more highly trained they will be, and the more valuable they will therefore be to civilian employers outside. Good personnel practice therefore demands that we seek to keep people in the Navy--retention is the name of the game.

We should try to do all that we can to make the Navy an attractive career, not only to those just joining the Navy, but to those who are trained and skilled and have years of experience behind them because they are the people that we need to keep in the Navy. Therefore, the logic to me is irrefutable--we should move more ships to the Portsmouth area and focus more of our onshore activities at the onshore establishments in that area. If we are constrained in our resources, it is logical to focus those resources in one main area. Of those local establishments, HMS Sultan is the marine engineering school. As it is central to our marine engineering, I do not think that there is any question of its being threatened. In my view, exactly the same applies to HMS Collingwood in relation to weapons engineering and to HMS Dolphin in relation to submarine training. It follows from what I have said that I believe that No. 1 submarine squadron should continue to be based at HMS Dolphin. The previous Labour Government carried out a detailed study of the possibility of moving HMS Centurion, which is the pay and postings centre, to Glasgow, but that was ruled out when it was found that the computer facilities at Centurion were central to those operations. It can be argued that more personnel functions should be moved to the Gosport-Centurion area to take advantage of those facilities. Royal naval hospital Haslar has benefited from a considerable spending programme and has superb facilities. It would be therefore be logical to base more of the Royal Navy's medical services at Haslar. If we are focusing our main activity on the

Portsmouth-Gosport area, as I hope is the intention, it is essential that we maintain HMS Daedalus, which has many roles--among them its unique facility to provide a runway for fixed-wing aircraft, and its slipway which provides a unique facility on the south coast for amphibious operations and which can be used for a wide range of military activities.

Column 1208

Similarly, as both the Royal Naval aircraft yard at Fleetlands and the Royal Naval armaments depot are doing very good jobs, I see no reason why they should be changed. Those facilities have the advantage of the spirit and atmosphere of the Royal Navy. There is good teamwork with mutual respect at all levels. Many of the civilians working in those establishments have served in the armed forces.

My final point relates to the people who serve in the Royal Navy. The quality of training will continue to rise as the Royal Navy concentrates on high technology. That will be matched by personnel policies that are designed to promote initiative on the one hand and reliability on the other. The Royal Navy now has more sophisticated equipment per man and woman than ever before, and provides more training for its use. It remains an exceptional career for adventure and excitement. I am always delighted to see the young men and women in my constituency taking advantage of those opportunities. The defence of the realm is a noble and worthy cause and, for the individual, it can continue to provide unique challenges, travel and comradeship.

8.12 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) for his stout defence of the work force at Scott Lithgow in relation to the Challenger. As he rightly said, the Select Committee on Defence has now reported that the blame lies with the Ministry of Defence, not with the local work force. The hon. Gentleman knows the shipbuilding industry on the upper and lower Clyde perhaps better than I do, because he served his apprenticeship there, while I served mine elsewhere. He knows as well as I do the stigma that still clings to that yard because the tabloids heaped the blame on the work force at the time. As I have said, I am grateful to the Select Committee for belatedly pointing out that much of the blame, as was admitted, rests with the Ministry of Defence. The report states that a rewiring problem could be blamed on the management of the yard, but that had nothing to do with the work force.

That work force are now dispersed. Some of their most highly skilled people are now in Australia, Canada and America. An electrician whom I know and who worked on that ship is now a chargehand in a small yard in Sydney, having emigrated with his wife and young children. Other members of that work force work for Vickers at Barrow. Although, like all Lancashire people, the people of Barrow are extremely hospitable and friendly folk, those employees would naturally like to return to the Clyde. However, the yard now employs only 30 or 40 people whereas in its prime it had a work force of about 5,500.

Until fairly recently, Scott Lithgow at Greenock was the finest conventional submarine builder in the world. Most submariners who have worked in diesel electric submarines will say that a Scott-built vessel is one of the finest. That fact was readily acknowledged by the Australian navy when it purchased a vessel. Although that is Scott Lithgow's position at the moment, I hope that the yard can be resuscitated, perhaps for other work.

I thank the Minister for his letter about the invitation to tender for the type 23 frigates. As he knows, Yarrow is on the upper Clyde while my constituency is on the lower Clyde, but, as several of my constituents work in the upper

Column 1209

Clyde yard, the Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that I hope that Yarrow wins all three orders. Two would do nicely for the time being, although, as a realist, I suppose that I should say that just one would do.

Yarrow is one of the finest warship building yards in western Europe. At the moment, it is in serious difficulties. However, I am not here to make a special plea--not even for my constituents who work in the yard--because I think that Yarrow can win one or two if not all three of the orders on merit. It is a leading yard in terms of design and has a first-class work force and management under the leadership of Sir Robert Easton. The work force will be spurred on by the Minister's announcement today. Incidentally, I hope that it goes without saying that I kept the contents of that letter to myself. I turn now to the Select Committee's sixth report, "Royal Navy Submarines", which is excellent. I am not an ex-Navy man, although my father served with the RNVR as the skipper of a minesweeper in Scapa Flow. It might make sense to have a naval establishment there, but I do not wish to cross swords on that with the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers). My family has been associated with the Royal Navy for generations principally because grandfathers and great- grandfathers on both sides have been fishermen and have served their country in the Navy in times of war.

That leads me to ask about the position regarding our fisheries protection vessels. From information given to me in a written answer, I believe that there is no intention in the near future of building replacement vessels. The men of that fleet do an important job in protecting our fishing grounds as, indeed, do our fishermen themselves when the need arises. The worst predators on fishing grounds are the Spanish fishing fleet. I am not hostile to the people of Spain, but I become angry on occasion at the activities of some of the Spanish fishermen, especially off the west coast of Scotland. There is a need to look again at the procurement policy for fishery protection vessels. If I may make another constituency point--I am afraid that it is that sort of speech--the finest fisheries protection vessel building yard is, of course, Fergusons, which happens to be in Port Glasgow. It produces fine fisheries protection vessels. Part VIII of the Select Committee report on Royal Navy submarines deals specifically with the sinking of the Antares, which was a terrible tragedy. I knew the skipper, Jimmy Russell, personally. He was a constituent of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), who is not in her place. He was from Carradale. He was a member of the Clyde Fishermen's Association. That association honoured me by inviting me to be one of its honorary presidents, an honour which I was delighted to accept and which I still hold, along with the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). The report contains some sensible words and some important recommendations on the tragedy. In paragraph 104, it states that, the day after the sinking and the loss of the four-man crew,

"the Minister of State for the Armed Forces announced that, in addition to a Department of Transport inquiry, there would be a Royal Navy Board of Inquiry."

Under Scots law there must be a fatal accident inquiry into the sinking of the Antares, because four men lost their lives as they went about their employment. Has the Minister been given any idea by the Scottish Office or, perhaps more

Column 1210

importantly, the Lord Advocate's office of when that fatal accident inquiry is likely to take place? There must be such an inquiry. I cannot understand the delay, especially as the Royal Navy board of inquiry has published its report.

I believe that the procurator fiscal in Kilmarnock has prepared a report about the deaths of those four inshore fishermen. Can I assume--I have no doubt that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong--that the officers and crew involved in that terrible tragedy, which, of course, was an accident, will give evidence at the inquiry? Presumably the logbook will have to be handed over to the sheriff who conducts the inquiry.

Paragraph 104 of the report also states :

"While fully appreciating the necessity for thorough examination of the implications of the findings of the Board, we are also mindful of the desire of all those involved to see the issues dealt with speedily as well as properly. Given the Minister's earlier assurances, the delay in publishing the summary has been unacceptable." I agree with that statement. The summary has now been published, but I am mindful of those sentiments. All those involved are anxious to see the issues dealt with speedily and properly. In the civil context, that means that a fatal accident inquiry must be set up as soon as possible. The widows and families of those four men deserve no less than that an inquiry be set up as soon as possible. I hope that it goes without saying that the close relatives of the men lost in that terrible tragedy will, if need be, obtain legal aid so that their interests can be adequately represented at the inquiry. The report deals with other aspects of the tragedy. I promise that I shall not detain the House much longer, but this matter deeply worries those of us who represent constituencies along the firth of Clyde. I hope that it deeply worries every hon. Member who is present tonight. As an honorary president of the Clyde fishermen's association, I have views which are in conflict with those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), for example. I disagree with a few of the statements made in the report. For example, in paragraph 106 of its otherwise excellent report, referring to the difficulties of submarine sonar in detecting fishing gear, the Committee states :

"We accept that there are good reasons why this should be so". The report rightly says that pelagic trawls are especially difficult to detect. From my knowledge of fishing methods, I know that that is correct. With pelagic trawls there are few if any heavy metal objects to record an impression, whereas with demersal gear, which, as you well know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has heavy trawl doors to keep the mouth of the net as wide open as possible, the sonar equipment on the submarines can pick up a signal. I submit that the equipment is clumsy. I think that I am right in saying--no doubt I will be challenged if I am incorrect--that the Antares was bottom- trawling when its gear was snagged. It did not have pelagic gear down. Pelagic gear is mid-water gear which must float at a certain level above the sea bed--hence the absence of heavy materials. The Antares was fishing the bottom, yet the doors and other heavy equipment were not picked up by the sonar equipment.

In paragraph 106 the report states that :

"the solution must lie in deconfliction of submarines and fishing boats".

I can only suggest that "deconfliction" is a military term. I have not had a chance to look in a dictionary today because I have been in Committee, but presumably

Column 1211

deconfliction of submarines and fishing boats means keeping them apart. If that is what is meant, I agree wholeheartedly. The submarines that I see almost every day of my life in and around the Firth of Clyde, when I am away from this place, are massive in comparison with fishing vessels the size of the Antares, which was a 16 m trawler. The huge nuclear vessels on the Firth of Clyde should be kept clear of the fishing vessels.

The report goes on :

"We are confident that submarine commanding officers go to great lengths to avoid confrontation with fishing boats and welcome the instruction given to avoid vessels engaged in fishing by as much distance as is navigationally prudent".

I accept that wholeheartedly, because it is right and proper. When I visited Holy Loch I implored the United States navy commanders--my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton will confirm this because he was there--to submit their submariners to refresher courses, to acquire among other things knowledge of different fishing methods used by our fishermen in the approach to the Firth of Clyde and elsewhere in inshore and shallow waters. I was assured by them and by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces that they would ensure that training programmes would familiarise United States submarine commanders with the gear used by fishing vessels.

That is important, because when a vessel, even a quite small one, is fishing, the gear is often hundreds of yards behind the vessel. The submarine can pick up the vessel and detect that it is moving slowly, and hence may be towing gear, but it cannot pick up the gear unless, as the report rightly says, appliances are fitted to the fishing gear. In other words, unless the gear is fitted with pingers, as the Select Committee calls them colloquially--electronic bleepers fitted to the heads of the nets to ward off submarines--the gear cannot be detected.

I have the greatest respect for the submarine commanders and I feel deeply sorry fo the officers concerned in this case because the vessel was engaged in a training exercise. It was almost at the end of the exercise when the incident happened, and I can imagine how dreadful the man in charge must feel. He may be facing a court martial and the whole matter may be sub judice. Perhaps I should not say more about it. He and his crew have my sympathy.

In seeking an answer to the problem, I part company utterly from the Defence Committee, which says in paragraph 107 :

"It is unrealistic to expect submarines to give up submerged operations in coastal and inshore waters."

I do not expect the members of the Committee to accept my view, which is that submarines when entering or leaving the firth of Clyde should always be on the surface. When sailing--submarine commanders call it transiting ; I call it steaming, an old-fashioned word--through traditional fishing grounds, submarines should remain on the surface. I know that the Minister of State disagrees with me about that. He argues that, for security and operational reasons and for reasons concerned with the testing of equipment following the refitting of vessels, it is necessary at times for them to dive or submerge in shallow waters.

Shallow waters anywhere around the coastline are fishing grounds. My plea tonight--I reiterate it--is that,

Column 1212

when they are steaming through traditional fishing grounds, they should stay on the surface, particularly following the collapse of the so-called cold war. It does no harm for them to stay on the surface. Once they are through the fishing grounds they can dive and carry out their training exercises. They should not be doing that in and around the firth of Clyde.

I have the greatest respect for, and trust in, the members of the Royal Navy of all ranks. I have a great deal of sympathy for submariners going into and out of the Clyde. They must now be dreadfully worried every time they go through fishing grounds. The massive burden that has been placed on their shoulders could be lifted to some extent by a clear instruction to them that, when sailing through fishing grounds, they must remain on the surface. That would be a simple--some would say too simple--solution and it would bring great relief to the fishermen of the Clyde and their wives and children.

I hope that the Minister will think again about allowing submarines to sail through fishing grounds close to the sea bed instead of being on the surface. He should also consider shifting the training areas away from the traditional fishing grounds.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean) : Mr. Michael Mates.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate, on account of Monday night, that I am not the flavour of the week. I raise this point of order not by way of a personal complaint. May we have an explicit statement from the Chair that the convention that has existed for many years--that hon. Members who hear the opening speeches take precedence over hon. Members who come into the Chamber at 7.30--no longer operates?

I appreciate the difficulty of the members of the Defence Committee and do not think that what has occurred has been their fault or the fault of their Chairman. Frankly, the Government should arrange business in conjunction with the Committee before alighting on a day that is likely to affect the Committee's activities. May we have a statement from the Chair to the effect that the convention no longer operates?

Mr. Deputy Speaker : The Chair must take into account a whole series of factors in deciding who to call in debates. I cannot go further than that.

8.36 pm

Mr. Michael Mates (East Hampshire) : It had been my intention at the outset to apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House for not having been present for the opening speeches, for reasons which I gave to you last week, before the members of the Defence Select Committee left for a visit to France. I am sorry that we were not able to leave Brest, the French naval submarine base, until 5.30 pm, and for that reason I was not here for the opening speeches. But I have read the Minister's speech, and I shall comment on it. It is fitting that, on the day we publish our report on submarines, we should have had such an interesting and constructive day at the French navy's nuclear submarine base at Brest. As the House may know, the French have six ballistic missile submarines, three of which are required to be at sea at one time. We have four, of which at least one is at sea on patrol at one time. It was instructive for us to

Column 1213

see the different, although similar, way in which they operate the only other strategic underwater European nuclear deterrent. After today's visit, and a week of discussions in Paris with our colleagues at the defence committee there, meeting the French chief of the defence staff and the Minister of Defence, I came away having learnt one lesson. It is that in this area we might perhaps now, in the new situation in which we find ourselves, be able to co-operate to the best effect, if only we could get over the hurdle of the fact that we have always done things one way, and individually, while the French have done them another way, individually as well.

I see the most hugely fruitful area for co-operation. I know that both navies are more than ready to co-operate. Indeed, the Royal Navy and the French navy work closely at sea, where perhaps matters are less politically sensitive. There would be no difficulty if we, the politicians, and the Ministers in both Governments, could show the necessary will be perhaps drawing a line under what had happened when the cold war ended and see whether we can do things differently in the coming decade. Both nations wish to continue with our deterrent policy. That makes every sense to us, as it does to all the parties in France.

Given the changing situation, there is scope for huge financial savings if only we could co-operate more closely--indeed, we do not co-operate at all- -in terms of the number of boats that we would need, the amount of time that they would need to be at sea, the number of crews and many other matters. That would be a fruitful area for us to address rather more robustly than we have been doing.

I know from my conversations yesterday with Mr. Joxe, the French Defence Minister, that he had some good talks with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, when they were in Dunkirk on Monday. We could be at the opening of a new era of co-operation between ourselves and the French, who have traditionally been perhaps a shade too independent for anyone's tastes. I hope that we will not let that occasion slip by.

Because I do not want to trespass on my hon. Friend's indulgence, I shall be brief, but I wish to make a few comments about our submarine report. Its publication was brought forward to today so that the House would have it for the debate, and I hope that hon. Members have found it useful. We have worked hard to produce it and are grateful to all those who helped us : to the Royal Navy at Northwood and the headquarters of the fleet at Gosport, to Devonport, to VSEL at Barrow which we visited, to Rolls-Royce and Associates and to the Ministry of Defence. I hope that the House will find it a useful and perhaps an authoritative report.

As regards the SSN20 concept, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary announced that we shall shortly begin studies of a design of a new SSN to replace the Swiftsure class around the turn of the century, based upon the Trafalgar class. I think that we foreshadowed that in our report. We said, "So far, so good," but we also made it clear how important it was not only for a firm statement of intent to be made but for clear guidance on the time scales involved to be given to retain the sectors of UK industry that are vital to production. As far as I can tell from his speech, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has not done that. I hope that he will realise that it is uncertainty over that which is causing most of the trouble and some frustration.

Column 1214

I must emphasise another point that we make in paragraph 46 of our report, and perhaps the Minister would like to comment on whether the Ministry's study will be looking at some version of the PWR2 to power a submarine on which some £400 million or £500 million has already been spent. It seems inconceivable to us that that should not be the case.

As regards the nuclear submarine fleet--both SSNs and SSBNs--a problem of increasing concern can be referred to in a word--disposal. I know that that problem is exercising the minds of the Government. I mentioned it today to Admiral Orsini, who commands the French nuclear submarine fleet today and I asked him how the French were coping with the problem. It may surprise the House that he told me that two major French sea ports, Cherbourg and Brest, are fighting for the honour of having the first retired SSBN in their harbour as a museum so that the public could see it and it could be a symbol of the association between those sea ports and the navy that they serve. I found that an encouraging suggestion.

Alas, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) is not here at the moment, but as he was asking for everything to be retained in his constituency, I wonder whether I might suggest--tongue not very far in cheek--that the Royal Navy submarine museum there should accommodate one of our retired SSBN submarines, on which a great deal of money will have to be spent, as is being spent on the Dreadnought. Why not have it there, so that the public can see where their money goes and what an excellent job our deterrent force has done? It is food for thought ; we mentioned it en passant in our report, but I am reinforced by what I heard today from an admiral of the French navy and I wish that our public were as robust about nuclear submarines as the French seem to be.

Another matter that we mentioned in the report is the Government's proposed reduction in the number of Upholder class conventional diesel class submarines from 12 to four. As we were compiling the report, we looked for any sign that the tasks of the Royal Navy submarine force would be reduced, and we could find no such sign. There is certainly talk that the threat has been reduced, but there has not been a single reduction in the directed tasks that the Royal Navy is carrying out. Yet the surface and submarine fleet is being considerably reduced. That can only mean either that the new small fleet will be much more stretched than it was before or that it will not do the job properly.

I hope that there will be the time and the will for the Government to look again at the Upholder class, because four is below the barest minimum when one thinks of the reconnaissance tasks, of listening in the anti-submarine warfare role, of intelligence collection in session with special forces as we understand might have happened in the Gulf, to say nothing of training and trials exercises and our submarine force's commitment to NATO. That, out of all the decisions that we are questioning, seems to be arbitrary, and one cannot but be left with the conclusion that it was totally driven by the Treasury's desire to cut the defence budget rather than by any logical decision by the Ministry of Defence that the Upholder submarines can manage to do the task that they still have to do with so many fewer than planned.

I was going to add to the remarks by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about fishing, but he covered the subject so well ; while he finds fault with our choice of words, I think he made a

Column 1215

well-considered and balanced conclusion on a difficult situation. I suspect that the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) will want to refer to that subject if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall not go down that road.

In his opening speech, my hon. Friend said :

" Options for Change' has confirmed the importance of the amphibious force, and we intend to maintain this capability. We have been studying the best way to maintain the capability and expect to make announcements shortly."

I have questioned many officials from the Ministry of Defence about what "shortly" means. Let me remind my hon. Friend that our right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger), when he was Secretary of State for Defence, told the Select Committee, in terms, that, if he had not made an announcement by the end of December 1990, he would consider that he was not giving the Navy enough time to make the necessary dispositions to keep the amphibious force efficient. That date is getting on for six or seven months ago. Even with the most optimistic interpretation of "shortly", I suspect that it will be two or three months before the Minister makes a decision. That is very nearly a year late.

Unless the situation has changed--and no one has told us that it has--the forecast of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ayr when he was Secretary of State for Defence will come true. We are going to let down our amphibious forces ; the two ships Fearless and Intrepid are rapidly becoming more out of date and obsolete.

It is necessary to take a decision. I know that it is a difficult one and I know that it is likely to be expensive, whatever it is. However, the worst service that the Minister could do to our very fine amphibious forces and to the Navy would be to delay that decision, tough as it may be, beyond the very near future. I hope that he will take that remark in the spirit in which it is intended. It is not a criticism. I know the difficulties that he is going through, but it is better to say something now than to leave it all in limbo and to leave our amphibious force, which has been the cause of so much pride in the past, to decay.

8.49 pm

Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton) : Like the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates), I must apologise to the House for joining the debate late, but I communicated with Mr. Speaker last week to advise him of my situation. Nevertheless, I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me. Like the hon. Member for East Hampshire, I found my visit to France very enlightening, particularly in the light of defence developments in that country.

I should like to address a number of issues this evening, but I will confine myself mainly to a constituency matter involving the Trident project, which is one of the largest engineering projects in western Europe --second only to the channel tunnel.

Last week, I tabled a question to the Secretary of State for the Environment regarding the number of projects issued by the officer at Faslane and Coalport on a nil value basis. He replied :

"Our contractual arrangements at the Clyde submarine base development are commercially confidential."

Although I accept that answer to some extent, there is great public concern in Scotland about that development. The Glasgow Herald in particular has reported on that

Column 1216

issue, and only last week, Construction News reported that continuous design changes had increased the operational costs at the base. The Glasgow Herald additionally reported that the contract was "careering out of control".

I cannot say whether that is true, but firms in my constituency and elsewhere are going bust, and many people are losing their jobs. Firms have been put into receivership because of what is known as subby bashing--that is, subcontractor bashing--at the Clyde submarine base. It is suggested that main contractors and some principal subcontractors are contravening Ministry of Defence codes of practice.

One case reported by the Glasgow Herald concerns C. and G. Roofing of Warminster, which was a subcontractor to Tarmac Construction Ltd. C. and G. was originally taken on with a start date of December 1988, but design problems caused the date to be put back. As a result, in June 1990 C. and G. submitted a claim to the Ministry of Defence for £873,000 in respect of delay and disruption in the period to April 1990.

When C. and G. was first taken on, it planned its contract and the number of employees that it would have on site, but the delay meant a doubling of its work force, which produced severe cash flow problems. Consequently, the company approached Tarmac for assistance, and it advanced C. and G. £80,000, on condition that Tarmac could claw it back over the next three months with payments of £25,000, £25,000 and £30,000 respectively.

C. and G. repaid the full £80,000 over three months, but was required to enter into a works contract with Tarmac that seems to conflict with the general conditions of Government contracts for building and civil engineering works. Its terms were much more onerous. It provided for a 2 per cent. discount to Tarmac on the contract. One paragraph from that contract requires C. and G. to accept a back-to-back situation for circumstances and costs resulting from a delay to the subcontractors, whereby it could recover from Tarmac only 60 per cent.

"of all moneys paid by the authorities to Tarmac against revised submissions for the circumstances outlined in Tarmac's conditions. That condition means that Tarmac could retain 40 per cent. of the £873,000 that C. and G. claimed from the Ministry of Defence, in addition to receiving a 2 per cent. discount on every subsequent job undertaken on site by C. and G. C. and G. was compelled to sign on the dotted line if it wanted to survive financially, but it is possible that Tarmac will make more than £300,000 from the company. C. and G. received its last payment from Tarmac in December 1990, on 1 February 1991 C. and G. laid off all its directly employed labour and by 1 April it had gone into receivership. I want the Minister to investigate that case, because it seems on the surface to be scandalous. Who takes responsibility in such circumstances? Is it Tarmac, as a main contractor, or the Properties Services Agency? That incident has such serious implications that the Minister cannot claim commercial confidentiality. People are losing their jobs daily and firms are going bust, and it is no use anyone hiding behind the main contractor or the PSA. I am not interested in the Minister drawing blood--only in his sorting the situation out. I want him to investigate and to give a definitive answer so that commercial propriety can be adhered to.

I have received letters from a number of other concerns. The Glasgow Herald reported also the case of Wilkie

Column 1217

Reinforcements, which claims that it is still owed £700,000 by Tarmac for work done at the base. The company's owner is quoted as saying :

"The exact figure is £702,433.47. It is a figure that is engraved on my heart, and it still haunts me."

That firm also had to contend with design delays to the extent that it has outstanding claims against the two main projects in Faslane and Carlport, which have accumulated to more than £3.5 million over three years.

Another local contractor who wrote to me is owed almost £12,000, which has accumulated over 14 months. If something is not done, that local business will go bust as well. One of my hon. Friends gave me the details of another firm which is in dispute with Taylor Woodrow. That subcontractor was asked by Taylor Woodrow to sign on the dotted line for a certain amount of money in complete settlement of any outstanding dues. The sum offered was £80,000 below the amount that the company was totally owed. Nevertheless, that subcontractor was compelled to sign. Taylor Woodrow imposed agreement because it had no recourse to the Ministry of Defence and could do nothing else in the circumstances. Those are extremely worrying examples.

Will the Minister take up the issues of the unjustifiably high discounts that appear to be extracted from subcontractors who are in considerable financial difficulty ; of main contractors not matching payments to the resources allocated by subcontractors, and of the possible failure of these firms to prosecute claims through the PSA on behalf of the subcontractors as is contractually required? It would appear that conditions 15, 16 and 17 of the code of practice for subcontracting issued by the Ministry of Defence could be contravened. Will the Minister investigate those matters and report back to us?

I have already mentioned supervising officers' instructions being issued at nil value. Those evaluations are carried out and examined by a number of people : the consultant who raises the supervising officer's instructions, the PSA, the quantity surveyor, the outside consultant, and Wimpey--the supervising officer. They require four signatures. About 60,000 supervising officers' instructions have been issued during the project, with more than 6,000 on the ship lift. Even if a small number of them have been issued at nil value, it means that something is seriously wrong with the project and, somewhere down the line, some poor subcontractor or possibly a main contractor will be the loser. That appears to newspapers and others to be a deliberate busting of subcontractors. I hope that that is not so. Will the Minister look into that as quickly as possible? Our sixth report on Royal Navy submarines mentions their defects. I raised that issue a year ago, but the Ministry of Defence has let it fester. Paragraph 9 of today's report from the Select Committee states :

"MOD has reassured us on two recent occasions that the operation of the strategic deterrent has continued uninterrupted with at least one SSBN remaining on patrol. It is, however, readily apparent that HMS Renown, one of the Resolution class submarines, has been in refit for considerably longer than anticipated. Despite requests for information about the present situation with regard to SSBNs, MOD have not been forthcoming to us in private or in public. In view of the concerns that have been expressed in public, we believe that it would be in the general interest, including that of MOD, to be more candid."

The Guardian newspaper today contained an article on those issues in relation to Polaris, headed

Column 1218

"Polaris faults scupper guarantee of keeping nuclear deterrent at sea".

It is general talk that only one submarine is ready and on patrol at all times. One has been in Rosyth and will not be out for another year or two, which means that it will have been in refit for four years--well beyond the normal time taken for refits.

It has been suggested that another submarine has been tied up at Faslane because, as The Guardian mentions, it has a weak hull structure. Again, it has been suggested that Revenge has a crack in it and has been ground down and that Resolution, the oldest of the submarines, is the only one on patrol.

It does the Minister of Defence no justice to hide information from the Select Committee on Defence or the general public. A safety issue was mentioned in The Guardian today. Jack Dromey, the national secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, and Paul Noon, the assistant general secretary of the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists say that they would not allow their workers' health to be jeopardised by letting them face excessive radiation doses to get Polaris submarines back to sea. Whether civilian or naval personnel are asked to do that, it is important that it should not be allowed to happen. The Minister should meet the union representatives to discuss this important issue.

Paragraph 76 of the Select Committee report issued today mentions radiation, and states :

"The recent increases in exposure levels at Devonport and Faslane are exceptions to a generally favourable and downward trend." Will the Minister give us an assurance that those radiation levels for last year were just a hiatus and nothing else? Will he assure me that, if there are defects to be attended to, neither civilians nor naval personnel will be put in jeopardy?

It ill behoves the Ministry of Defence not to answer such questions, particularly as its officials appeared before the Select Committee and said time and again that they needed four boats to form an effective deterrent. Issues of credibility and safety are involved, and I want the utmost assurance from the Minister tonight that he will look into them.

My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned fishing. We dealt with that in our report. We were impressed by the skill, competence and endeavour of the sailors and captains of those ships in avoiding fishing boats. They performed a difficult and highly technical task.

There has been an element of glasnost in solving this problem and I congratulate the Ministry of Defence on introducing the notification procedure for which the Clyde fishermen have been lobbying. I was privileged to be at a meeting between the Minister of State and the Clyde fishermen on that issue. I understand that it has been announced that the notification procedure is to extend outwith the Clyde, but I have been told by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) that the extension is not enough, and I defer to her local knowledge on that. Perhaps the Minister could have another look at the matter.

The Navy is making great efforts to avoid fishing boats, but I should like the notification procedure to be enlarged and I should like to see technical developments going ahead. I understand that the fishermen and naval

Next Section

Home Page