Home Page

Column 129

House of Commons

Tuesday 17 December 1991

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[ Mr. Speaker-- in the Chair ]

Oral Answers to Questions

DEFENCE

Defence-related Jobs

1. Mr. James Lamond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the number of jobs in the north-west region of England which are related to defence requirements.

7. Mr. Bill Michie : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his latest estimate of the impact upon jobs in the defence industry of his Department's plans for the future.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark) : Historical figures, broken down by region, for the number of jobs related to defence requirements are published in volume 2 of the 1991 "Statement on the Defence Estimates", a copy of which is in the Library.

The future level of employment in the defence industry is a matter for the commercial judgment of the companies concerned. Mr. Lamond : That answer is in line with what we have had before, so it is not unexpected. If we are prepared to participate in a European bank for reconstruction and development to help countries in eastern Europe which are facing the same problems as Britain's defence industry workers, could we not at least set up a defence diversification agency to help the tens of thousands of workers in the north-west and throughout the United Kingdom who will be thrown on to the scrap heap?

Mr. Clark : I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, which is shared by my Department, but I do not think that on reflection he would want the defence industry to be singled out for particular treatment from our other manufacturing industries. We are particularly concerned about the anxiety and deprivation that result when people lose their jobs as a result of the changing international climate. I am in constant touch with defence industry leaders through the National Defence Industries Council and the Defence Manufacturers Association, and my Department participates in the regional seminar staged by the DTI for small and medium-sized defence industries. An agency such as the hon. Gentleman suggests would do little more than we are already doing unless it were funded and empowered to make grants and loans which, as he will realise, is not a practical suggestion, because it would mean singling out a particular sector of British industry.

Column 130

Mr. Bill Michie : Opposition Members will obviously be disappointed at the Minister's reply which is characterised by his usual laid-back approach to the matter. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that our competitors in Europe and elsewhere will ensure that whatever happens to future orders their defence industries will be compensated by alternative diversification? Once again, the Government seem not to give a damn what happens to our skills and to the jobs of the future. As always since the Government came into power, we are in the slow lane.

Mr. Clark : The hon. Gentleman's question is completely misleading. Among our so-called competitors, the United States and west German defence industries are suffering much heavier job losses than we are. The job losses in United Kingdom defence industries as a result of the change of emphasis in British procurement are as nothing compared with those that would be suffered under the Labour party's defence policy--if so dignified a term can be used for something so confused, contradictory and misleading. Such job losses would be horrific and far more widespread.

Mr. Dover : My right hon. Friend will no doubt be aware of the importance of British Aerospace as a major employer in the defence industry in the north-west. Will he accept its deep gratitude for the way in which his officials are explaining his Department's needs so as to ensure that the right commercial decisions are made about the markets to go for in future?

Mr. Clark : My hon. Friend makes an important point about markets. It ill behoves Opposition Members constantly, for ideological reasons, to decry my Department's sponsorship of the sale of arms to friendly countries wishing to defend themselves within the terms of, for example, article 51 of the United Nations charter.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Is not my hon. Friend delighted with the $450 million order-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. This is most unseemly.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : --that British Aerospace has just won for 20 RJ70s that is especially designed for the United States market and fills a niche that no one else could have filled?

Mr. Clark : My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that good example of the special skills and capabilities that the British defence industry still has, and which I do not doubt will serve it well in future in both domestic and export markets.

Mr. O'Neill : The Minister has repeatedly said that he does not want to single out the defence industry for special consideration. He surely recollects the precedents set in the steel and coal industries, in which the Community was involved in Europewide initiatives to limit the impact of the decline in demand for the products of the companies concerned. If the Minister is not prepared to shoulder the burden on behalf of the British taxpayer, is the time not right for him to work with the European Community in establishing a Europewide diversification initiative?

Mr. Clark : I have not heard of such an initiative, but if one were to be promulgated by the Community, we would consider it carefully.

Column 131

Surplus Land

2. Mr. Hunter : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on his policy regarding the disposal of land surplus to his Department's requirements.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton) : It is Government policy that the defence estate should be no larger than necessary for defence purposes. We continually seek opportunities for rationalisation and the release of land surplus to our requirements. To ensure that the best return is achieved for the taxpayer, it is our normal policy to offer property not needed by the services for sale on the open market.

Mr. Hunter : May I ask my hon. Friend urgently to investigate why his Department declines to release to Basingstoke and Deane borough council land in the village of Bramley that is earmarked for a playing field under our local plan? Is he aware of the concern and indignation that perceived unwarranted delay causes?

Mr. Hamilton : Yes, of course. My hon. Friend will know that that is part of a parcel of land of about 45 acres in total. We are in negotiations with the local authority for planning permission, and we hope to obtain it for housing on some of that land. We are also talking to potential purchasers. I know of my hon. Friend's concern, and I will make sure that my officials are also made aware of it.

Mr. Viggers : Where the Ministry of Defence has occupied land for generations or even for centuries, will my hon. Friend ensure that in disposing of it the Ministry will work as closely as possible with local authorities to ensure that it is developed consistently in accordance with the wishes of local people?

Mr. Hamilton : I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend in that regard. To enhance the value of any land of which we are disposing, we often need planning permission, which we can obtain only with the help of local authorities. We therefore work very closely with them.

Dr. Godman : Will there be any disposal of surplus Ministry of Defence land in Scotland, or is it likely that, due to the redeployment of British forces from Germany, the Ministry will be looking to purchase land in Scotland?

Mr. Hamilton : It is difficult to say where we might want to purchase land. Where we have training areas, we are keen to enlarge them if possible. Many of the weapons systems that we use now are bigger than before and have longer ranges, and so on. Also, a degree of armour will return from Germany which will need space for use in training. We do not have a closed mind, but we should like to rationalise our training areas, enlarging some that we already have and disposing of smaller ones.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : When the Broughton moor site in my constituency is disposed of, will its environmental sensitivity be taken into account?

Mr. Hamilton : I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman would pay tribute to the Ministry of Defence for owning more sites of special scientific interest than anyone other than the national parks. We are extremely good stewards of the land that we have. As to Broughton moor, we shall do all that we can to take environmental considerations into account.

Column 132

Dame Janet Foulkes : May I impress on my hon. Friend that in Plymouth we are tired of waiting what seems like years for land to be released? All that we ask is for sufficient land so that we may then help ourselves.

Mr. Hamilton : I am well aware of the anxiety of people in Plymouth to get on with the whole business of the release and development of Ministry of Defence land. We are doing what we can, but I take my hon. Friend's point that it has been an ongoing saga for some time now.

British Nuclear Deterrent

3. Mr. Cryer : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the cost of refitting Polaris submarines in the current financial year.

4. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the British nuclear deterrent.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King) : HMS Renown, now nearing the completion of her refit, is the only Polaris submarine under refit during the current year. The cost of the work to date has been about £150 million.

Britain's credible and effective independent nuclear deterrent is the ultimate guarantee of our security. The strategic deterrent will continue to be provided by the Polaris force until Trident comes into service from the mid-1990s.

Mr. Cryer : Is not the Polaris fleet plagued with cracks to the nuclear reactor, and has not the game been given away by Mr. Reg Farmer, a former member of the Ministry of Defence safety of nuclear warships committee? Is it not time that the Secretary of State came clean and admitted to the House that the boats are dangerous, the cost of repair and renovation is beyond reasonable expenditure and the boats should be withdrawn? By taking that action, the right hon. Gentleman would be conforming with the United Nations nuclear non-proliferation treaty for the first time.

Mr. King : That question shows the weakness of preparing a supplementary before hearing the answer to the main question. If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to my reply, he would have realised what rubbish his supplementary was.

Mr. Jacques Arnold : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, given the collapse of the Soviet Union and the distribution of its nuclear weapons around the country, it is extremely important for Britain to maintain its nuclear deterrent and to be ready for any eventuality?

Mr. King : Certainly I agree. At a time when the world's largest nuclear power is in the process of disintegration into separate republics, if not worse, and when 27,000 nuclear weapons exist there, the vast majority of which are capable of inflicting considerable damage on this and other countries, it would be lunacy for us to undermine our nuclear deterrent. It is the one nuclear shield that we have. Had the advice of some hon. Members been followed over the years, we might now be in a very exposed position.

Mr. Douglas : The Secretary of State must reflect a little on the answer that he has given about the Soviet Union. Does he accept that one of the reasons for the United

Column 133

Kingdom's continued possession of a strategic deterrent was the fact that it would provide another centre of power, and thus create disequilibrium in the mind of a potential foe? If so, how does he justify the fear that there may be a number of fingers on the disintegrating Soviet strategic deterrent, when at the same time he seeks to justify the proliferation of nuclear strategic deterrents in the hands of France, the United Kingdom and the United States?

Mr. King : That is a fairly complicated question, which may confuse people and prevent them from seeing our present need clearly. It is vital that we preserve our own independent nuclear deterrent as protection against nuclear blackmail ; it is equally important that we take every possible step--as we are doing--to ensure that the process of rapid political change, and the change of authority that has taken place in what was the Soviet Union, do not lead to a more dangerous situation in regard to the present control and authority over nuclear weapons. To try to wrap up that question in the way in which the hon. Gentleman has suggested, or to lose sight of either of those objectives, would be extremely unwise.

Mr. Cryer : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of that highly unsatisfactory and inadequate reply, I give notice of my intention to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Air-defence Frigates

5. Sir John Farr : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to replace type 42 destroyers with a new air-defence frigate.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle) : There will be a requirement to replace the type 42 destroyers from around the turn of the century. An 18-month period of exploration with France is under way to consider the prospects for collaboration on an anti-air warfare frigate to meet this requirement.

Sir John Farr : I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Can he give us any timetable for the construction of the new vessels, and will he give an assurance that at least 50 per cent.--and preferably more--of the hull and interior construction work will come to United Kingdom shipyards?

Mr. Carlisle : We certainly welcome this collaboration and wish to bring it to a successful conclusion. The timetable that my hon. Friend asked about is as follows. After the exploratory period of 18 months, we hope to proceed by mid-1993 with full development, leading to a first order by the mid-1990s. We aim for an in-service date in the early years of the next century. As for equipment, part of the purpose of the exploratory work is to agree a memorandum of understanding to cover all procurement aspects.

Mr. Michael J. Martin : Naval construction work of this type will obviously lead to work for subcontractors. In the past six months, two of my constituents have had their passes removed by Ministry of Defence navy police. Both are respectable men and one of them worked on the facility at Faslane for eight months. It is a great pity that passes

Column 134

are being taken away from hard-working people, who are not even given any right of appeal. Will the Minister comment on that?

Mr. Carlisle : If the hon. Gentleman will send me details, I will look into the matter. With regard to subcontractors, we are proud of the quality of work produced by them. Any shipbuilding orders feed through into other employment, apart from the main shipbuilders.

Mr. Boscawen : While my hon. Friend is considering replacement of the type 42 destroyers, will he bear in mind the urgent decision that he and his colleagues have to take very soon about the future of HMS Polar Circle as a replacement for HMS Endurance? Some of us have recently seen that vessel. We believe that she is a very fine ship and that she is needed by the Royal Navy and the Foreign Office. We therefore hope that a favourable decision will soon be reached regarding HMS Polar Circle.

Mr. Carlisle : As has been said in the House previously, my hon. Friend will know that we are committed to the work being done in the south Atlantic, which HMS Polar Circle will shortly be carrying out. I take this opportunity to say that not only that ship but our collaboration in relation to the French frigate and the type 23 frigate orders which will be given shortly show our commitment to naval orders. That is in stark contrast to what would happen if ever the Labour party came to power, with its plans to reduce our spending on equipment by many billions of pounds.

Mr. Boyes : What assurances can the Minister give that in attempting to develop a common requirement for a new air defence frigate we shall not end up with another fiasco of expensive and fruitless bickering between countries with different design requirements? The NFR90 project suffered difficulties of that kind and our involvement in it led to almost two years being wasted. Can the Minister tell us whether Britain's shipyards will be assured of a very early decision on a type 42 replacement, thus allowing for some continuity of work and ending the grave uncertainty in the shipyards so that men and management can get on with what they do best-- building ships in British yards?

Mr. Carlisle : We have certainly learnt the lessons of the NFR90. One of those lessons was that we had to align the needs of the platform with those of the systems. We are already doing work on that with the French. That is part of the exploratory programme. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the project, but he must face the harsh reality that if we ever had a Labour Government there would be no money available to pursue this project, let alone order any more type 43 frigates.

Competitive Tendering

6. Dr. Michael Clark : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are being taken to encourage competitive tendering for military research and development.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle : Equipment procurement including development is already subject to competitive tendering wherever practicable. As regards research, once a full trading relationship has been established between the

Column 135

Ministry of Defence and the Defence Research Agency, we intend to implement a progressive extension of competition.

Dr. Clark : Does my hon. Friend accept that military research and development provides a significant technological spin-off for civilian use? Does he accept, therefore, that if more of the research sponsored by his Department were replaced by competitive tendering by universities, research associations or private companies, the benefits for non-military use could be greatly enhanced?

Mr. Carlisle : I respect the point made by my hon. Friend. It might be of interest to the House to hear that already about 40 per cent. of the research undertaken by the Defence Research Agency is subcontracted from the Ministry of Defence to universities and industry--indeed, almost the whole of the development work goes to industry. We certainly welcome collaboration with the civil sector and industry, a good example of which is our work on jet engine technology. We wish to develop that interaction.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith : Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to have a research and development policy and a future procurement policy? Unless there is a prospect of orders, research and development in the military sector is bound to suffer.

Mr. Carlisle : My hon. Friend makes a good point. As he knows, the research effort in the Ministry of Defence is undergoing substantial change in terms of the Defence Research Agency. Our aim is to ensure that we become more efficient and enhance the effectiveness of our sharp end research.

Nuclear Weapons (Transport)

8. Mrs. Mahon : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the transport of nuclear weapons.

Mr. Archie Hamilton : Safety and security are of paramount importance in our nuclear weapons transport methods and procedures. We do not move any nuclear weapons by road, and would not do so, unless it was safe to do so.

Mrs. Mahon : Why are such weapons transported at all? Have the Government not in effect acknowledged the findings of the Drell panel report on the safety of nuclear weapons by setting up their own review? Will the Minister assure us that he will stop the transportation of any nuclear weapons until the Drell panel findings are issued?

Mr. Hamilton : Certainly not. The hon. Lady, like many Opposition Members, probably does not realise that her party's policy on nuclear weapons has changed. Nuclear weapons must be kept up to date, and they must be serviced at intervals ; if that is not done, they become ineffective. If there is a policy of having nuclear weapons, those weapons must be serviced at intervals to keep them running properly.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson : Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there have been no leakages of radioactive material in any of the convoys travelling to and from the establishment at Burghfield in my constituency?

Column 136

Mr. Hamilton : I can certainly confirm that. As I said earlier, the safety of the carriage of radioactive material is paramount. Although there have been mechanical breakdowns, they have merely affected the vehicles carrying the material. There has never been any question of nuclear radiation seeping out.

Mr. McFall : I welcome the establishment of the Ministry of Defence working party under Professor Oxburgh in the light of the Drell report, even though the Government had to be dragged a little to achieve that. On the transport of nuclear weapons, which is covered in the Drell report and should therefore be part of the Oxburgh report, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to give local authorities notice when nuclear weapons are to be transported through their localities?

Mr. Hamilton : When there is any question of those materials being transported, we deal with the local police. I believe that that is quite adequate. The local police are responsible for the safety of their areas. One problem is that some of the local authorities with which we have to deal are extremely left wing and anti-nuclear. They leak information about convoys to members of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, resulting in convoys being disrupted and people's lives being put in danger.

Royal Naval Reserve

9. Mr. Sayeed : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the Royal Naval Reserve ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Archie Hamilton : As my right hon. Friend said in his statement on 10 December, our aim is that the naval reserves should be "streamlined but more closely integrated with the Royal Navy."--[ Official Report, 10 December 1991 ; Vol. 200, c. 733.]

Mr. Sayeed : My right hon. Friend will recognise that mine counter-measures is a hazardous undertaking--the penalty for getting it wrong is a very large bang and lots of little bits. As the best way to reduce that risk is regular training, can he explain the logic of mothballing two of the River class MCMVs belonging to the Royal Naval Reserve which undertakes mine counter-measures and of leaving two divisions, including the largest-- London division--without a ship?

Mr. Hamilton : We have had to take into account the changes in the international situation when considering the RNR, including the lengthening warning time. In those circumstances, it was thought right to reduce some of the activities of the RNR and to make them more relevant to the future.

Sir Patrick Duffy : As the Minister reconsiders the regular-reserve mix of the Royal Navy, as he promised on 10 December, will he ensure that a proper study of task threats is completed and will he create a supplementary list of personnel whom it is planned to axe until that review of task threats is complete?

Mr. Hamilton : Clearly, the regular-reserve force mix study will have to take into account what we see as threats and how we intend to deal with them. We expect to make a statement on that in the new year.

Column 137

Mr. Robert Banks : While welcoming my right hon. Friend's reply, may I ask him to accept that the best training for Royal Navy reservists is with the regular Navy and will he give that priority in the coming operations for the Royal Naval Reserve?

Mr. Hamilton : I hear what my hon. Friend says and we shall see whether more opportunities can be given to the RNR to train with the regular Navy.

Mr. O'Neill : Will the Minister ensure that before the review is completed we shall be able to have adequate information so that we can determine the implications for the various areas and for particular bases which are under threat? Will he give an undertaking today to give us information on recruitment levels, retention levels and the position of one base as compared with another before such a report is produced?

Mr. Hamilton : The whole process of rationalising the RNR will be progressed in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence and with the RNR itself and it will make proposals.

Mr. Wilkinson : Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that the air squadrons of the Royal Naval Reserve have been especially effective and exceptionally well recruited and that there have even been one or two Harrier pilots in the reserve? Could not that be an example for the flying service, the Royal Air Force?

Mr. Hamilton : The position of the Royal Air Force Reserve is, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows, that does not have the opportunity to fly aircraft. I do not believe that the Harrier pilots who found themselves in the Royal Naval Reserve will have the opportunity to fly either, but it is certainly useful to have them in the reserve should they be needed.

Options for Change"

10. Mr. Kirkwood : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates he has made of the costs of providing accommodation for those leaving the Army as a result of the reductions in the Army under "Options for Change".

Mr. Tom King : Considerable work has been done on arrangements, not only for accommodation but for the resettlement of those who will be leaving the service in the course of the rundown. We are considering a number of new proposals. I will keep the House informed.

Mr. Kirkwood : Does the Secretary of State accept that the current level of 14,000 service families who are resettled every year by the Ministry of Defence is certain to increase dramatically during the restructuring? Does the Ministry of Defence yet have an estimate of the number of personnel families who will not be able to make provision for their own housing? Is he aware that that situation will be compounded substantially by the fact that there are about 1,700 ex-service families currently inhabiting Ministry of Defence premises to which, strictly, they have no title? Is not it time that some urgent policy measures were introduced by the Ministry of Defence to deal with the major problem from 1992 onwards?

Mr. King : The hon. Gentleman has correctly established that there is a considerable turnover every year

Column 138

in any case. The rundown and the changes involved in "Options for Change" will add to that. Off the top of my head, I think that the figure is about 25 per cent. on top of what usually happens annually. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the changes will take place over a four-year period. However, we are actively involved and a number of steps are being taken. I have appointed to a new post--the director general of resettlement--Major-General Burden who has returned from the British Army on the Rhine. He has an excellent record in this field. A number of proposals are being worked on by housing associations, by voluntary housing bodies, by the Royal British Legion and by the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association, which are working with the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and the Department of Employment on a whole range of opportunities. I think that the hon. Gentleman will get the feeling from that that a considerable effort is being made by many people to try to tackle the problem in the most effective way.

Mr. Bellingham : Will the Secretary of State ask Major-General Burden to come to west Norfolk to have a look at houses on two RAF bases, Sculthorpe and West Raynham, which may close in the future? Will he consider urgently the possibility of the married quarters at the bases being made available to Army personnel who are being made redundant?

Mr. King : I assure my hon. Friend that that matter is one aspect that we are considering. Some service housing is already available to service men on discount purchase, which gives them the opportunity to get on the home ownership ladder. There may be opportunities to rent out existing service property or surplus service property. We are trying to see how we can employ the whole of the defence estate, including married quarters, to help resolve the problem. We will do everything that we can in the area.

Dr. Reid : Is not the truth of the matter not only that the Secretary of State is doing nothing about the housing needs of the service men and women who will be made redundant, but that he does not even know the facts? That was confirmed in a written answer from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. He said :

"Information on the private housing arrangements or plans of those Army personnel who have applied for redundancy is not held by the Ministry of Defence."--[ Official Report, 22 November 1991 ; Vol. 199, c. 356. ]

Is not the Secretary of State aware of the deplorably low level of home ownership among other ranks in the armed forces and of the dearth of easily affordable council properties as a result of Government policies? Does the Secretary of State intend to thank those who have given service to Queen and country by making them not only jobless, but homeless?

Mr. King : I am afflicted today by people who prepare their supplementaries and do not bother to listen to the answers. After the answers that I have given, I do not know how anyone can say that nothing is happening on the matter. The hon. Gentleman should have the courtesy to recognise that a considerable amount is being done. There is a challenge to be faced and the hon. Gentleman would make a more constructive contribution if he played a part in helping instead of trying to score cheap party political points when there is a genuine problem to be tackled. For once in his life he should stand up and support service men who need help.

Column 139

Jobs (South Dorset)

11. Mr. Ian Bruce : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of studies affecting his Department's employment in south Dorset.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle : My hon. Friend is already aware of the studies into the rationalisation of the Defence Research Agency, the relocation of the Procurement Executive and the review of the Army training base. My hon. Friend will also know that as part of "Defence for the 90s" we are reviewing the scope of naval support, although as I made clear in July, there will be a continuing naval presence at Portland.

Mr. Bruce : May I place it on record that I know that my hon. Friend is doing his best to ensure that south Dorset continues to have a large amount of Ministry of Defence employment? I urge him to look at one current study which concerns the possibility of moving the sea systems control first to temporary accommodation and then, in 1995-96, to permanent accommodation. Will he ensure that the sea systems control moves only when the permanent accommodation is available? Will he locate the naval support command, which would be ideally suited for Portland, in the premises that are then vacated?

Mr. Carlisle : My hon. Friend is tireless in trying to protect defence jobs in south Dorset and to increase their numbers there. I am aware of the concern of the people of the Procurement Executive about the move to Bristol. I hear clearly what my hon. Friend said about seeking to avoid a double move. The uncertainty is unsatisfactory. We are carrying out a study now and we shall seek to resolve that uncertainty as soon as we can.

Trident

12. Mr. Canavan : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is now the estimated total cost of acquiring and maintaining the Trident nuclear weapon system.

Mr. Tom King : The current estimated cost of acquiring the United Kingdom Trident system is £9,863 million. We expect the level of running costs of the Trident force to be well below 2 per cent. of the defence budget, not significantly different from those of Polaris.

Next Section

  Home Page