House of Commons Hansard Debates for 22 Nov 1991

Dr. Reid : I shall not tempt fate by asking what the hon. Gentleman has on me, although I was rather disturbed that I was omitted from the litany of abuse this morning. Since the hon. Gentleman was putting numbers on record and was good enough to give way, I want to put it on record that the party that defends Britain--and regards that as the highest priority-- could find only four Back Benchers for this debate, out of more than 300 Members of Parliament.

Sir Philip Goodhart : We are broadly satisfied with my right hon. Friend's policy, with some reservations, which I shall explain in a moment. Although nuclear debates no longer attract large numbers of hon. Members on either side of the House, we are entering an age of nuclear proliferation, which increases the risk of nuclear conflict, rather than decreases it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave his imprimatur to a report of the International Security Information Service, which noted that countries already deploying nuclear-capable ballistic missiles include Afghanistan, China, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Libya, Syria and Vietnam.

Earlier this week the American Secretary of State Mr. James Baker completed his discussions in Peking, where he

Column 562

tried--sadly it seems unsuccessfully--to stop the Chinese communist authorities from selling systems with nuclear capability to other countries.

I am glad to see the chairman of the political committee of the North Atlantic Assembly is with us--or he was with us. I see that the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) is returning to the Chamber. The assembly discussed a report last month which suggested that Kazakhstan would be a more important nuclear power than France or the United Kingdom by the end of the century. That view was reinforced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Last week the American Defense Secretary, discussing the problems of proliferation, said on a television programme :

"The thing I'm really concerned about would be the fact that the Soviets have 27 to 30 thousand nuclear warheads and that the Soviet Union is coming apart literally, that will result in dissemination of knowledge, about weapons of mass destruction in the form of individuals who've got technical expertise going to work for other countries, and possibly even the flow of some of those weapons themselves to third parties."

At that point the interviewer said, "Sales ?"

Mr. Dick Cheney replied :

"Possibly sales. You have to be concerned about the size of that stockpile and what happens to it over time."

Even if we discard the idea of a further military coup in Moscow, it is plain that we live in a dangerous world with dangerous states standing on the brink of owning nuclear missiles. In those circumstances it would clearly be lunacy

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : The hon. Gentleman's argument about the problems of proliferation is extremely important. It was disappointing that the Secretary of State had only one approach to proliferation--that we have to keep a deterrent. Rather than merely talking about a deterrent, he should have been telling the House to try now to replace the non- proliferation treaty, which runs out in three years' time, and which has proved so ineffective. The Secretary of State ought to have made a positive statement about how we will achieve a replacement for the non-proliferation treaty which would provide an alternative to a simple deterrent.

Sir Philip Goodhart : I somehow doubt whether a non-proliferation treaty, however improved, would have much impact on Iraq, Libya, Syria and North Korea, without mentioning the other countries on that list. I believe, and I am sure that the majority of people in this country believe, that in a proliferating world, it is essential for us to keep our nuclear defences. It would clearly be lunacy for this country to abandon the Trident system and quite wrong not to build the fourth boat, whatever the terms of the contract may be. There is rather less unanimity about the proposal that we should develop a new tactical air-to-surface missile. On 14 October the Secretary of State argued :

"The key point, however, is that the credibility of strategic nuclear forces depends on the existence of a credible sub-strategic deterrent to provide the link with conventional forces. The fact that ground-launched weapons are now being scrapped puts increased emphasis on the need to ensure that the air-launch element is kept up to date."--[ Official Report, 14 October 1991 ; Vol. 196, c. 58.] He repeated that argument this morning.

Frankly, I doubt whether we need the sort of tactical air-to-surface missile that the Secretary of State is talking about. It will be very expensive. The Americans reckon

Column 563

that they are saving $2.3 billion by cancelling their short range attack missile SRAM T and SRAM 2 development programmes. If we go ahead with the joint development of the ASLP French alternative or the other American, Martin Marietta, proposal the cost could be very high indeed. It could well be about £2 billion.

There will also be problems with basing dual-capable aircraft equipped with stand-off nuclear missiles on the continent of Europe. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact, a number of our European NATO allies have become increasingly reluctant to have any nuclear weapons on their soil. I am sure that German doubts about accepting aircraft with short-range tactical nuclear missiles were a factor in the Americans' decision to stop developing their short-range attack missile systems.

We must also face the uncomfortable fact that the new nuclear threat comes from countries thousands of miles from our airbases. Libya, for example, is 2,300 kmfrom this country. The range of the Tornado GRI is about 2,000 km--

Mr. Wilkinson : That is an invalid point. My hon. Friend will remember the effective raid from this country conducted by the United States air force with conventional weapons against Libya. It had a salutary effect.

Sir Philip Goodhart : I supported that raid, but I must point out that it involved a great deal of complex in-flight refuelling to get the aircraft from Upper Heyford base, near where I live, to Libya. That is not to mention the political complexities that were involved.

The new stand-off weapon carrying a nuclear warhead with a yield of between 10 and 300 kilotonnes should add about 20 per cent. to the range of the Tornados. Even so, reaching Libya would be difficult. So the Secretary of State is planning to spend a great deal of money on a weapon of questionable effectiveness. Is there a cheaper, simpler and more effective means of producing a small sub-strategic nuclear force? I accept the argument that there is a need for such a force. Some hon. Members have argued that the new Trident system, with or even without the fourth boat, gives us more nuclear strategic capacity than we need. Against that, it has been argued that anti-ballistic missile systems are being developed and may appear within the next 30 years.

Given the state of Soviet collapse, it is extremely difficult to imagine that that country will be capable of mounting an effective anti-ballistic missile defence within the foreseeable future, and I do not believe that Iran, Iraq, Syria or Vietnam are working on anti-ballistic missile systems.

I note that, because of the extra strategic capacity that we will have, some nuclear theorists have argued that we should build the fourth boat and seal up some of the missile tubes. That seems an odd suggestion. I think that some of our Trident missiles should be single low-yield nuclear missiles with small warheads, in the 10 to 300 kilotonne tactical range. Trident missiles are expensive. We read today that they will cost about £15 million each ; but if 20 of the Trident missiles that we are to purchase were converted to a sub-strategic role that would be much cheaper than developing a brand new stand-off weapon.

A new tactical sub-strategic system would be wholly secure, for Trident is the most secure delivery system there

Column 564

is. There will be no range problems, as their effective range will be between 2,500 and 12,500km--and their accuracy is already proved. We would need a new low-yield warhead, but that would be needed for our new tactical air-to-surface missile in any event. It can be developed within the time available.

Will this relatively cheap and simple sub-strategic option be seriously considered? I doubt it, because it would sharply diminish the nuclear role of the Royal Air Force ; and in the battles over "Options for Change", senior Air Force officers and what one might call Air Force civil servants ran rings around their opponents in the Department and even around some of my ministerial friends. I urge the Secretary of State to abandon this extremely expensive project and to deploy a Trident sub-strategic option, using some of the savings that could be obtained to keep some of the infantry battalions that he is proposing scrap. Unlike the TASM, those battalions constitute a force that we are going to need.

11.35 am

Mr. John McWilliam (Blaydon) : The hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) has frightened me to death. Imagine the reaction of Soviet missile controllers when they see a boost phase Trident missile : they do not know what is on it or what fired it or where it is going, but they do know that they must get ready for Armageddon. Faced with a choice between that and the tactical air-to-surface missile, I would prefer TASM--although I would not want either. I thank the Secretary of State for the way in which he conducted the debate, although I did not appreciate his McCarthyite question, "Were you or were you not ever a member of CND?" Yes, like some of my hon. Friends, I was--but times have changed. The speed of change in defence matters has become increasingly rapid, more so between 1987 and now than between the start of the cold war and 1987, with the possible exception of the building of the Berlin wall.

Policies change to take account of what is happening, the speed of what is happening and the direction in which events are headed. I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) admirably outlined the reasons for the policy change that my party has adopted.

It is not good enough for the Government to tell us, "You would say this." Of course, many members of the Labour party are still members of CND. There are a lot of members of CND in the Liberal Democrat party.

Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East) : Wrong.

Mr. McWilliam : There are still a few. Many CND members do not belong to any party. When I first joined CND it was not even unilateralist, although it subsequently became so. I think that the conclusion is that times have changed.

The Secretary of State was slightly disingenuous when he tried to suggest that the cut in sub-strategic munitions that has been agreed was not a unilateral decision by President Bush, with the British Government hanging on his coat-tails. The Soviet Union responded positively a few days later. To suggest that that decision was anything other than unilateral is wrong. Therefore, presumably, the old argument used by the right hon. Member for Henley

Column 565

(Mr. Heseltine) when he was Secretary of State for Defence about one-sided disarmament is no longer valid. The Government accept that, because they have already gone along with the Bush initiative that produced the kind of response that many of us argued was necessary to break the log-jam.

The second-zero goal has been sought and we have already had successful START negotiations with the Soviet Union. START 2 has already begun, but who knows what reductions will be agreed in those negotiations? No doubt there will be even greater reductions in the strategic weapons of the United States and the Soviet Union than were agreed under START 1. Therefore, the proportion of NATO nuclear weapons held by the United Kingdom--and by France, which is outside the military command structure-- will be of even greater significance in the future. It is, therefore, important that we adopt the approach advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and that we join the negotiations on the basis of our current capability. Those negotiations will present considerable difficulties.

I had an interesting visit to NATO on Tuesday and I entirely accept the Secretary of State's point about the present control and security of the existing Soviet arsenals in the Ukraine, Byelorussia and in Kazakhstan. However, those republics have already said that they want to be independent. None of those countries has ever had any democratic tradition and it will be extremely difficult for them to achieve our level of democracy so that we can debate such things openly. It will be extremely difficult for them not to use the nuclear weapons on their territory as bargaining counters in an eventual exchange.

The Secretary of State reminded us that President Yeltsin has argued for a dual-key approach to the control of nuclear weapons, which means that the republics and the central Government would each have a key. I remember the arguments that we had in the House about such a dual-key approach for cruise missiles. It seems that it is a good idea for President Yeltsin to have the second key, but it was never considered a good idea for the right hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger)--then Secretary of State for Defence--to have such a key from the Americans. What double standards.

The Government have tried to suggest that they are the custodians of our defence and future nuclear capability, and that we are not. I must remind the House that it was not the Labour party which decided to privatise our atomic weapons production establishments on the same basis as the American model--that model resulted in Rocky Flats. Now the United States does not have the ability to make new warheads for its Trident missile and it will have to use recovered ones from other missiles. The Conservative party took that decision, but it did not appear in its manifesto. At the last election, the Conservatives did not go to the country and say, "We believe in nuclear defence, so we will privatise atomic weapon manufacturing in this country." They knew what the reaction would be, but they went ahead. The Minister may state all the arguments about a compliance officer, but I am not confident that safety standards will be maintained. I do not believe that safety will be paramount over production schedules and costs. I am not satisfied that the Government have paid sufficient attention to the Drell report on nuclear safety in America and how that applies to the manufacture of nuclear weapons here.

Column 566

People speak about the WE177 as though it is about to fall apart tomorrow. It may be an old dog, but there are many years left in it. It remains an effective and extremely flexible weapon. There is no need to jump for the TASM option. A recent report from the Select Committee on Defence stated that we should acquire the technology to build such a missile, but that we should not build it or deploy it because there is no identifiable threat against which it could be used.

The Government have been extremely reticent about discussing the problems that we are encountering with the Polaris submarine and the hunter-killer submarines because of the reactor and the power system. If I were the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) I would be arguing for the replacement of the hunter-killers on safety grounds. That would give Barrow more work. That is a far more sensible suggestion than the hon. Gentleman's argument that the future of the Barrow work force hangs on the fourth Trident submarine. It used to hang on the Upholder class, production of which was brutally slashed by the Government, equally, it now hangs on the next class of the hunter-killer submarines. As a maritime nation, we will need such submarines.

Mr. Franks : Although I accept that to those who are unfamiliar with the time involved in constructing a submarine, the hon. Gentleman's suggestion may sound plausible, what would happen to employment opportunities in my constituency as a result ? Let us assume that there was a general election on the Thursday, a Labour Government on the Friday and the Labour Cabinet met on the Saturday and cancelled the fourth Trident submarine. What would the people in the shipyards do on the Monday morning ?

Mr. McWilliam : They would go to work.

Mr. Franks : How ?

Mr. McWilliam : Presumably they still have buses in Barrow, but, given the Government's transport policy, who knows ?

Those workers would go to work and say to the VSEL--Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Limited--management, "What are we tendering for? What is the long lese? What are we going to use that hull for? What are the components for?" The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness has outlined an extremely unlikely scenario because he is not privy to the contents of the first three Trident contracts. As a member of the Defence Committee, I am privy to that knowledge, but I will not tell the hon. Gentleman about it because I am bound by commercial confidentiality restraints. If the fourth contract is the same as the other three, the decision to be taken by the Labour Cabinet will not be about whether the workers should start work on the submarine on the Monday morning, but whether they should complete that work and, if so, whether they should install the weapons system.

In the meantime, if NATO insists that we have to have a nuclear deterrent, we must decide what we should do about Polaris, because it is a busted flush. The Secretary of State may argue that we may have to have one submarine on patrol at a given time to give us a credible deterrent, but the Secretary of State has already given it away--we do not have a credible deterrent.

Mr. Franks rose --

Column 567

Mr. McWilliam : I will not give way as the hon. Gentleman will get his own kick. I am not afraid to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but, as other hon. Members want to speak, I shall resume my seat and listen with interest to what the hon. Gentleman has to say when he is called.

11.48 am

Mr. Cecil Franks (Barrow and Furness) : It is a rare occasion when I, as an hon. Member representing a northern constituency, am able to participate in a debate on a Friday. The last time I had that privilege was about eight years ago when I introduced a private Member's Bill on cycle tracks. That Bill was concerned with safety and today's debate concerns a matter of vastly greater importance, the safety of future generations.

I am sure that my constituents appreciate that I have cancelled various engagements and appointments so that I could be present to put their case. There can be no debate in the House on any subject that affects a constituency more than today's debate affects Barrow, for the immediate economic future of the area that I represent depends on the future of the fourth Trident.

The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) could not answer my earlier question, but, as a member of the Defence Committee, he ought to appreciate more than most that one cannot build Land-Rovers and the next day decide to switch to building Rolls-Royces--any more than one can decide on Friday to build a Trident submarine, and on Monday to switch to hunter-killers. There are considerations such as tendering for an order from the Ministry of Defence, negotiating it, winning the contract, ordering materials and producing the design work. It takes a minimum of 18 months to two years before construction can start.

I pose to the hon. Members for Blaydon and for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) this question : what would the workers in Barrow's shipyards do on Monday morning if a Labour Government cancelled the fourth Trident on the previous Saturday? The answer is painfully obvious. They would have no alternative but to go to the local unemployment and benefits office to seek unemployment benefits.

Mr. McWilliam : The hon. Gentleman omitted to mention long-lead items that have already been ordered and paid for, and partially made as well. If the hon. Gentleman will listen carefully, I will say this slowly. If the contract penalty clause for the fourth submarine is the same as it was for the others, and if the cost of the long-lead items is taken into account, no Labour Cabinet would take the decision that the hon. Gentleman suggests has already been taken. He is misleading the House. No such decision has been taken and, from my knowledge of the contracts for the other three submarines, the likelihood of its ever being taken is very slim.

Mr. Franks : It is not I who is misleading the House, but the hon. Member for Blaydon. He has just heard with his own ears, as did every right hon. and hon. Member in the Chamber, Labour's official policy on the fourth submarine. Long-lead items also apply in respect of the hunter-killers, on whose construction he hopes the people of Barrow could be employed in the event of a Labour Government's being elected.

Column 568

As most right hon. and hon. Members appreciate, my constituency is one of the most difficult to travel to in logistic terms. It is a six or seven-hour journey from my office in Westminster to my office in Barrow. I therefore apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, and the hon. Member for Clackmannan if I am not able to stay until the end of the debate. In those circumstances, I shall be more than happy to allow any right hon. or hon. Member--particularly from the Opposition Benches--to intervene. Within reason, I will gladly give way, so that right hon. and hon. Members may raise any points that occur to them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks) should bear it in mind that a number of hon. Members have been waiting since the start of these proceedings to take part in the debate.

Mr. Franks : I am one of them, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I waited patiently for two and a quarter hours for this opportunity to speak. This debate gives the House the first-ever opportunity to debate Labour's nuclear defence policy, in so far as it has one. There is nothing dishonourable about an individual or a political party, if they are genuine, choosing to change their minds and policies. However--and this is not meant to be a personal remark, because I sympathise in many ways with the hon. Member for Clackmannan--this morning we heard the hon. Gentleman espousing at the Dispatch Box a policy that he does not have his heart in, and he knew also, in advance, that he would have the greatest difficulty carrying his party with him.

That policy is based on a hope and a prayer that the general election will be delayed long enough to allow the Government to order the fourth submarine, which would get Labour off the hook. I give the hon. Member for Clackmannan full marks, because, after innumerable debates on the Royal Navy and defence estimates, we have at last heard a crystal clear statement of Labour's policy. If I am wrong, the hon. Member for Clackmannan will correct me, but my understanding is that a Labour Government would not build the fourth Trident submarine unless the order was placed by a Conservative Government and there were clauses in the contract that compelled Labour to decide that for commercial--not military, social or economic--reasons it would have to allow the construction of that fourth submarine.

One can only construe from that policy and the speeches made by Labour Members this morning--they will be well noted in my constituency, if nowhere else--that the only party that can guarantee employment in my constituency in the foreseeable future is a Conservative Government, in placing an order for the fourth boat and, after the next general election, seeing it through. There is no other interpretation possible of the remarks of the hon. Member for Clackmannan.

Mr. McWilliam : Why does the hon. Gentleman encourage VSEL and its shop stewards to press the Government to export unemployment from Barrow to Tyneside and Clydeside, in attempting to win the type 23 follow-on orders?

Column 569

Mr. Franks : As a member of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member knows that four shipyards build for the Ministry of Defence, but that there will be sufficient work for only two of them. Of those four shipyards, VSEL is by far the strongest, in terms of its finances, order book, and skills.

In the mid-1970s, VSEL was obliged, rightly, by British Shipbuilders to come out of warship building and to concentrate on submarine construction. If the future requirements for the submarine fleet are such that VSEL must widen its product base, it is only sensible for the company to do so and tender for type 23 orders. I sympathise with the problems of the three other yards, but my responsibility as the Member of Parliament for Barrow and Furness is to look after my constituents. It is the responsibility of the Members of Parliament who represent the other shipyards to argue their own case.

Although we heard an unequivocal statement of Labour's official policy on nuclear defence and the Trident programme, the reality is that the party is peddling at least three policies, depending on the audience and which Labour Member is speaking.

First, there is Labour's official policy. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Clackmannan for making that policy crystal clear this morning, because he has saved me the necessity to quote what he said on 27 June, in a debate on the Navy. The hon. Gentleman has said, "We do not see the need for a fourth Trident submarine", and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) said the same on 15 October, during a debate on the defence estimates.

Labour fought both the 1983 and the 1987 general elections on the unilateral programme that they had probably adopted long before that. They proposed not merely to negotiate away our nuclear

deterrent--Trident--but to abandon it altogether. On both occasions, the party paid a heavy electoral price. It is understandable that, having received the message that the public do not like its policy, any political party should tend to experience a change of heart. What the public must then ask, however, is whether that change is genuine.

I have dealt with Labour's official policy ; let us now leave the Front Bench, and concentrate on those in the rows behind. The majority of Labour Members belong to the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. There is an almost endless list of quotations that I could use, but let me quote the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). In defence questions on Tuesday, he said that he regarded the cost of Trident as prohibitive.

Mr. Cryer : Why is this taking such a long time?

Mr. Franks : I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman finds what I am saying so embarrassing, but I intend to continue to embarrass him, and all the members of CND, for as long as they choose to put their points of view. While conferring on themselves the right to put those points of view, they deny the same right to Members of Parliament who disagree with them.

Mr. O'Neill : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has told us that he will have to be discourteous and leave early, because he has a train to catch. If he is so anxious to catch it, should he not make some progress with his speech?

Mr. Franks : I take it as a great compliment that Labour Members want me to complete my speech as quickly as

Column 570

possible, and thus get them off the hook. For the past five years, I have heard one after another say that Trident is only being built to save the seat of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness ; and I have let it go. They should appreciate, however, that--if they are speaking the truth--Conservative Members apparently set some store by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, and that, moreover, his constituents recognise that their Member of Parliament can deliver the goods.

What the hon. Member for Islington, North said on Tuesday was echoed by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), and again today by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). If he manages to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will no doubt express his views far more eloquently than I can. He will argue the case against the Trident programme in its entirety. The Front-Bench policy is, "We will not build the fourth boat" ; lurking on the Back Benches, however, is the majority that would cancel the whole programme, lock, stock and barrel.

Dr. Reid : I am sorry to interrupt, but this must go on the record-- although I realise that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) does not want it to. The hon. Gentleman has just said that Labour's policy is, "We will not build the fourth boat." Let me repeat that that is not our policy. Labour sees no strategic need for the fourth boat ; no one would make a final decision irrespective of costs, and the costs are not yet known. If Conservative Members release that information today, we shall make a decision within a week ; while they continue to refuse to do so, we shall do what any responsible incoming Government would do.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. Interventions are made at the expense of the rights of other hon. Members.

Mr. Franks : The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) is now suggesting that programmes depend not on strategic needs but on costs. Is that now Labour's official policy? The hon. Gentleman is saying one thing, while the hon. Member for Clackmannan sitting next to him on the Front Bench, says another. Will the two of them make up their minds, and present the House with a single policy?

Labour's third defence policy has apparently been enunciated by the Leader of the Opposition. I intervened on the hon. Member for Clackmannan earlier to confirm beyond doubt that what he was saying was official Labour party policy. Let me draw the House's attention to early-day motion 49, which is not in my name or that of any other Conservative Member, but in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) and other members of the Scottish National party. Dated 31 October and entitled :

"Mr. Peter Mandelson, Labour and the Fourth Trident Submarine", the motion states

"That this House, noting that the Labour leadership has, since its somersault on nuclear weapons, insisted that a Labour Government will have only a three boat Trident fleet ; calls upon the Shadow Cabinet to explain why Mr. Peter Mandelson, on a visit to Barrow, told the North West Evening Mail on 15th August that all parts of the leadership are aware of the case for a fourth boat'."

That is very interesting. Mr. Peter Mandelson is currently a Labour party candidate in Hartlepool ; he is also a

Column 571

former campaign director for the Labour party machine. He is not just any individual ; he is a person of some influence and consequence in the Labour party. It was following that comment, and those of the hon. Members for Clackmannan and for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) on 14 October about the SSNs--the nuclear-powered submarines with conventional weapons--that we were astonished to hear the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington say that the Labour party would abandon the fourth Trident submarine and also the SSNs. Instead, it would go for the SSKs--conventional submarines with conventional weapons. That has tremendously damaging prospects for employment in my constituency. [Interruption.] I know that the Opposition have not denied it ; they cannot do so, as it is on the record. What is said in the House is, presumably, meant to be believed. What is said in Barrow by visiting Labour Members of Parliament and visiting Labour party dignitaries is equally meant to be believed.

Not surprisingly, at my advice bureau on Saturday 19 October representatives of the workers in the Barrow shipyards came to see me. They said, "We know what your party's policy is. You're going to build the fourth submarine. But what is the Labour party's policy?" I told them that I would go right to the top--that I would write on their behalf to the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). I did so on 23 October. So that I do not misquote, and am not misquoted, I shall read to the House my letter to the right hon. Member.

"On Saturday 29 October I received a visit at my surgery from workers who are employed at VSEL in Barrow. Their concern, as you will appreciate, is caused by the present uncertainty in the defence industry as a whole and in particular how their jobs would be affected by Labour party policy on the question of the fourth Trident submarine and the SSN programme. I was able to give them an assurance that under a Conservative Government the United Kingdom would continue to have an independent nuclear capacity, with all that that implies for future work in Barrow. However, in view of recent statements made both inside and outside Parliament by spokesmen of the Labour party, it is clear that there is now considerable doubt about your policy, and it is for that reason that I would ask you to clarify the position. As you know, the Labour shadow defence spokesman, Allan Rogers, said in the Defence Estimates on 15 October 1991 that Labour does not believe a fourth Trident boat is necessary. If, however, an order for one were placed before a general election, an incoming Labour Government would have to examine the contract and cancellation charges associated with it before making a decision'. And in respect of the SSNs, the nuclear-powered submarines with conventional weapons, your spokessman, Roland Boyes, said in the same debate : We cannot afford it and it is increasingly ill suited to our real security needs.' Outside Parliament, however, a different picture is being presented. Workers at VSEL are being led to believe that the Labour party is committed to the fourth Trident submarine and to the SSN programme--a clear contradiction of what your spokesmen are saying in Parliament. For the sake of all those in Barrow who want and need to know precisely where they stand, can I ask you to state your unequivocal position on this matter and"--

this is the crux--

"are you intent on building the fourth Trident submarine and are you intent on continuing the SSN programme? I look forward to hearing from you."

That is a straightforward letter. It asks two short, succinct questions. There can be no confusion. It ought to have elicited a lucid, clear statement from the leader of the Labour party--a would-be Prime Minister of this country.

Column 572

You may be interested, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the reply that I eventually received. It was from someone called Neil Stewart, political and campaigns secretary. The letter is dated 12 November, three weeks after I wrote to the right hon. Member for Islwyn. It is a short letter, which again I shall quote for the sake of accuracy. "Dear Mr. Franks, Mr. Kinnock has asked me to thank you for your letter and to reply on his behalf."

I am sure that my constituents will note that when their Member of Parliament writes direct to the Leader of the Opposition he cannot be bothered to reply himself but gets some lackey to do it for him. "We have a first-class candidate in Barrow who is addressing the issues of the future of engineering and shipbuilding at Barrow far more realistically than the Conservative party, which appears to be inviting people to look at the past rather than face the future." Hon. Members : Is there any more?

Mr. Franks : No, there is no more. The letter concludes "Yours sincerely, Neil Stewart, Political and Campaigns Secretary."

You will not be surprised, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I have replied to that letter. I am sure that the House will be interested to know what I wrote in reply. Again, for the sake of accuracy, I shall read my reply. When I write to a parliamentary colleague I expect to receive a reply from him.

"Dear Neil, I acknowledge receipt of the letter dated 12th November from your political and campaigns secretary in reply to my letter addressed to you dated 23 October. As I doubt whether you have actually read my letter, and equally whether you have seen the reply, I am enclosing photocopies of both. My letter was very

straightforward and asked two specific questions : Are you intent on building the fourth Trident submarine ? Are you intent on continuing the SSN programme?' I should be grateful if you would now address your mind to these two specific questions and let me have a reply. I trust that this time you will have the courtesy to deal with this matter personally, since I am writing to you and not to your political and campaigns secretary. I await a reply."

In view of the clear statements that we have heard this morning from the hon. Member for Clackmannan, the shadow defence spokesman, I am sure that the leader of the Labour party will not wish to say anything other than what the hon. Member for Clackmannan told us. However, I have a little doubt. A few weeks after the defence estimates debate, four or five weeks ago, not surprisingly representatives of the Confederation of Shipbuilding Unions in Barrow, who are vitally concerned about employment prospects in Barrow following the enunciation of the Labour party's defence policy, came to London and met the leader of the Labour party who spent one hour with them. I understand that there was an agreed statement. However, the best efforts of my office, the BBC and X, Y and Z to get hold of a copy of that statement, have so far proved negative.

Following that meeting, the secretary of the Confederation of Shipbuilding Unions in Barrow returned to Barrow and said, via the local radio and the press, "We are fully convinced and satisfied that the fourth Trident submarine will be built." How does that square with what we have heard this morning? How is it possible that the Labour party's official policy is not to build the fourth Trident submarine, after union representatives from Barrow came to London to see the Leader of the Opposition, spent one hour with him and then felt able to say, "We are fully confident that the fourth boat will be built"? What did the leader of the Labour party tell the

Column 573

unions that his representatives are not prepared to say in the House today? That is the third strand of Labour policy.

In Greek mythology, there is an animal called Cerberus--a three-headed dog that stood at the entrance to the underworld. We have a modern Cerberus under a different name--her Majesty's loyal Opposition, who have three heads and three different policies. For all we know, if a policy is necessary in the north-east, they will have a fourth policy, and if a policy is necessary in the south-west they will have a fifth. The Labour party will find a policy to suit the occasion.

Mr. McWilliam : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not it in the rules of order that an hon. Member must rise in his place? The hon. Gentleman was speaking from the Gangway, which is out of order.

Mr. Franks : That point of order graphically shows how seriously the Labour party takes the subject.

I remind the House of the chilling but simple comments that the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made a few weeks ago : "If we changed our minds to win, we could change when we've won. What is wrong with that? We could not talk about nuclear disarmament because we might not win. But we have won so we can change back again. I mean, you can change one way, you can change the other." Those words have a chilling honesty. There speaks the real voice of the Labour party : "Whatever is necessary to try to win the next election, we shall cut our cloth accordingly, but once we have won we shall show the real face of the Labour party."

Since 1983, I have asked one question many times in the House and in my constituency ; nine years later, the question is still valid : if a Labour Government cancelled the Trident submarine over a weekend, what would the thousands of people who work in Barrow's shipyards do on the Monday? The blunt truth is that they would be thrown to the wolves, not only because Labour Members do not believe in the strategic value of the independent deterrent but because of the economic necessity to make cuts to pay for the innumerable promises that the Labour party has given one group after another. We all remember the TSR aircraft and the workers in Preston who were thrown out of work on a Monday morning. The same would happen in Barrow.

Mr. Corbyn : What has the hon. Gentleman been doing to promote the cause of arms conversion ? What will he tell Barrow's workers after the contract for the fourth Trident submarine has been completed ? Will he argue for a fifth, sixth or seventh submarine ? Should not he be arguing for the enormous skill of the work force to be put to making peaceful products, such as ships and bulk carriers ? Why is he so obsessed with the construction of nuclear weapons ? They can result only in mass destruction.

Next Section

Home Page