House of Commons Hansard Debates for 6 May 1993

Mr. Newton : I cannot immediately undertake to provide time for a debate, but I can of course--and do--undertake to bring the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : Would it be possible for the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary to make a statement early next week about Mr. Nadir--certainly if he does not return to this country? Is it not absolutely essential, in the interests of justice, to counter the view that is held by many people outside this place, that a person in much humbler circumstances would not have been able to flee the country and justice, and then boast about it immediately after he had done so? A statement by the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary is absolutely essential.

Mr. Newton : There seems to be a good deal of unanimity in the House this afternoon. I think that everyone would deplore what happened and support my right hon. Friends in doing everything that they can to achieve Mr. Nadir's return to this country. That said, I cannot promise the statement that the hon. Gentleman wants, but I can happily say that, on two successive days next week, those people to whom his question was most clearly directed will be here to answer questions--the Foreign Secretary on Wednesday and the Home Secretary on Thursday.

Mr. Richard Page (Hertfordshire, South-West) : My right hon. Friend will be aware of the crossrail project, which will have a considerable effect on a number of

Column 297

constituencies, including my own. Can he give any idea of when he feels that the measure may be presented to the House in the shape of a Second Reading?

Mr. Newton : I hope that that will not be delayed too much longer, but I cannot give an immediate undertaking, let alone a date. My hon. Friend, whose interest in the matter I well understand, will be aware that consultants were asked to re-examine the crossrail proposals to ensure that the project can be taken forward as a joint venture with the private sector. They have just completed their re-examination, and my right hon. Friends are considering their conclusions.

Mr. Derek Enright (Hemsworth) : Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate next week on my early-day motion 1947, which has already been signed by more than 100 people?

[That this House recalls the pledges made by the President of the Board of Trade on the consultative processes in the 10 pits, and equally remembers the pious utterances of concern expressed by British Coal ; and therefore calls upon the former to condemn, and the latter to cease, the practice of blackmailing miners into voting for closures by placing artificial and very short time limits for the receipt of enhanced benefits, as exemplified in the Grimethorpe closure.]

In particular, can he ensure that the President of the Board of Trade speaks from the Government Dispatch Box to assure us that he stands by his clear and unequivocal promises to the House that enhanced redundancy payments would be maintained until the end of the normal consultation period, and that, before the closure of any pit, it would at least be offered for sale to private enterprise? It is proposed that Grimethorpe pit should close on Monday, so the matter requires some urgency.

Mr. Newton : While I cannot promise the debate that the hon. Gentleman seeks, I can as ever undertake to ensure that my right hon. Friend is aware of what he has said. British Coal's assurances still stand- -its redundancy terms will be calculated on earnings before the October closure announcement or up to the date of redundancy, whichever is greater.

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale) : May I thank my right hon. Friend for his announcement that the House will have the opportunity next week to progress the Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Bill, and welcome the support given to the measure by the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett)?

Is it intended that all stages should be passed next week? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to encourage commerce and industry to avail themselves of that important facility is for the House to give the measure a speedy passage? Having visited Bishopsgate today for a second time, and seen the devastation, may I ask my right hon. Friend to take the opportunity to send the good wishes and congratulations of the House to the police and contractors who are working to restore normality to the area?

Mr. Newton : The answer to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question is an unequivocal yes. On the first part, in announcing the business as "proceedings on" the

Column 298

Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism) Bill, my phrasing was intended to indicate the hope that we would be able to complete all the stages. Mrs. Beckett indicated assent.

Mr. Newton : Once again, I am happy that the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) is nodding in a highly responsible and helpful fashion.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : As always.

Mr. Newton : Or as she mostly is, but I am happy to see that that is her hope, too.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : Will the Leader of the House press the Attorney-General to make a statement next week about the criteria that the courts observe when granting bail? Does he agree that many people suspect that there are two laws : one for the rish and powerful with friends in high places, who are often facing serious charges and are granted bail which enables them to skip the country with ease ; and another for poorer people without such influence, who are often facing minor charges and are banged up on remand for months and invariably acquitted when they at long last reach the courts? Is that not an intolerable situation, and do not the courts need clear guidance on the criteria that they should observe?

Madam Speaker : Order. Before the Leader of the House replies, may I again make a plea to hon. Members to be brisk with their questions? I attempt to call all hon. Members but I cannot do so if some make long statements and comments instead of asking direct questions.

Mr. Newton : I must make it clear that I know of absolutely no basis for some of the suggestions and implications in the hon. Gentleman's question. However, he will know that there is concern about bail affecting people of all types and in all conditions reflected in the support from all parties, which has been expressed in the Chamber several times in recent weeks, for the Bail (Amendment) Bill, sponsored by one of my hon. Friends.

Madam Speaker : Mr. Cran.

Mr. Christopher Gill (Ludlow) : Christopher Gill, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker : I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Gill : I am sure that it was the sun in your eyes, Madam Speaker.

Will the Leader of the House consider early-day motion 1950, which I and a number of hon. Friends have signed and which refers to a bilateral treaty between the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation which will be ratified within the next few days? [That this House asserts that ratification of the bilateral Treaty with the Russian Federation, laid before this House on 1st April, which requires that relations between the two countries be governed in particular by their commitments under CSCE documents, would be inconsistent with ratification of the Maastricht Treaty which requires Britain's external relations to be governed by the Common Foreign and Security Policy.]

Will my right hon. Friend give the House the opportunity to debate these matters and, in particular, to establish the relevance of that bilateral treaty, and the

Column 299

other bilateral treaties which Russia has signed with other European countries, to NATO and other institutions of the western European community?

Mr. Newton : I have noted my hon. Friend's early-day motion. The note that I have is to respond by saying that there is no inconsistency--if that is what my hon. Friend is getting at, which seems possible--between the United Kingdom's obligations under the bilateral treaty with the Russian Federation and its obligations under title V of the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : May we have a debate early next week on the Serious Fraud Office so that we can discuss its failure to hold Asil Nadir even though I understand that it was notified of his imminent departure? May we at the same time have a debate on the Government introducing legislation to require political parties to publish their accounts, and thereby remove some of the sleaze around the Tory party?

Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman will have heard the exchanges during Prime Minister's Question Time. I should be more willing to respond to the hon. Gentleman's latter point if we were hearing rather more about the late Mr. Robert Maxwell, and if there were perhaps some contribution from the Labour party to the pensioners' funds.

As for the first half of the hon. Gentleman's question, he will be aware that the circumstances in which Mr. Nadir left the United Kingdom are currently under investigation, and I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to predict or speculate on the outcome.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) : Will the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State for Transport to give a clear explanation next week of why British Rail is being allowed to increase its fares for Regional Railways, with no notification to passengers and in advance of privatisation, thus driving more people off the railways?

Mr. Newton : The House is likely to have considerable further opportunities to debate railway transport matters in, I hope, the not too distant future. I would not wish to excite the hon. Lady's hopes of a statement of precisely the type she seeks, but I shall bring her request to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test) : Is my right hon. Friend aware of the dispute in Hampshire social services about the qualifications of foster parents because two lesbians have been allowed to adopt a child? May we have a debate on this very serious matter, which does not seem to be getting the necessary exposure in the House but which is becoming increasingly prevalent?

Mr. Newton : My hon. Friend will be aware that the law relating to adoption is primarily the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who, I am sure, is aware of the matter that he has raised. However, I shall bring his question to her attention.

Ms Estelle Morris (Birmingham, Yardley) : The Prime Minister's comments this afternoon about Government policy on paying pensions through banks and building societies seemed to contradict answers previously given in the House by the President of the Board of Trade. In view of many pensioners' fears about possible closures of

Column 300

sub-post offices, and of the apparent confusion in Government policy, will the Leader of the House find time next week for a statement on that important matter?

Mr. Newton : As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made some fairly clear-cut remarks on that matter only an hour or so ago, I cannot see a basis on which I could sensibly ask for a further statement next week.

Mrs. Bridget Prentice (Lewisham, East) : The Leader of the House will be aware that elsewhere in the country people are voting in county council elections today. Yet the 7 million people in London have been denied that right--denied the opportunity to vote for an authority in London. Will the right hon. Gentleman make time available for us to debate the democratic rights of Londoners, so that we can discuss the possibility of a strategic authority for London, which would give Londoners the democratic right available to everyone else in the country--the right to vote for their own authority?

Mr. Newton : Having voted in Essex at about 10 seconds past 8 o'clock this morning, I fully appreciate such democratic opportunities. However, I do not detect any massive agitation in London for the opportunity to vote for the Greater London council again.

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : The Leader of the House will know of the concern felt about the oil tax changes that we shall debate next week, with 10,000 or more jobs at risk. Although a Committee of the whole House will debate clause 183 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, relevant amendments to other clauses may follow on from amendments made to that clause. Can the Leader of the House guarantee that, if such an amendment is passed, the Government will accept the consequential amendments in Committee?

Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman is asking me to become involved in some rather detailed procedural issues concerning debates that may take place next week. I shall be rather cautious about doing so. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the intention is that the main clause dealing with the petroleum revenue tax should be debated in the House on Tuesday. I have no doubt that, were consequential amendments to arise, the Government would take the appropriate action, or recommend such action to the House.

Mr. Ray Powell (Ogmore) : Further to his reply concerning the Shops (Amendment) Bill and early-day motion 1929, which carries 250 signatures of right hon. and hon. Members, will the Leader of the House consider whether the Attorney-General could make a statement next week about those who continually break the law, although the Law Lords have already made a definite decision to uphold the Shops Act 1950 ? When will the Government ensure that that law is enforced in this country, as they try to enforce the laws on other matters ?

Mr. Newton : The hon. Gentleman knows that the primary responsibility for the enforcement of the law on that matter rests with local authorities. I shall, of course, bring his request to the attention of the Attorney-General, but I am afraid that I cannot add to what I said earlier to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton).

Column 301

Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton) : The Leader of the House may be aware that controversy has burst out again concerning the unique Scottish verdict of "not proven", used in criminal trials. The controversy has contemporary significance in connection with the tragic case of the murder of a young girl in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson).

So far, the Government have refused to act until the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure in England and Wales reports, but that is an extraordinary pretext when used by those who glory in the independence of Scots criminal law. In order to maintain that independence and integrity, will the Leader of the House and the Secretary of State for Scotland ensure that we have a debate soon on the "not proven" verdict ?

Mr. Newton : I am afraid that I cannot encourage the hon. Gentleman in the expectation of a debate on that matter, but no doubt he will find various ways of pursuing it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central) : May I press the right hon. Gentleman further about the matter raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)? In the light of the facts that the Serious Fraud Office has now admitted that it was tipped off on Saturday night that Mr. Nadir might leave the country, and that the police say that they took appropriate action--many of us think that the action cannot have been entirely appropriate, as Mr. Nadir is not here any longer--does not the Leader of the House think it important for the appropriate Minister to make a full statement about why the authorities, having been put on their guard that there might be a problem, were apparently unable to prevent that man from leaving the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Newton : I will, of course, bring that question and the earlier question to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. However, I am not going to go beyond what I said earlier. These matters are under investigation, and I do not think that it would be right for me to speculate about the outcome or to draw immediate conclusions.

Column 302

Mr. John Butcher (Coventry, South-West) : May we have a debate on the salaries of Members of Parliament and of Ministers? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the words of the Maastricht treaty mean what they say, over the next five of six years there will be a gradual transfer of powers from this House to Brussels and, morally, there should be a commensurate reduction in the salaries of Members of Parliament accordingly? If my right hon. Friend thinks that I am wholly wrong in the analysis, is he prepared to bet the level of an MP's wages that I am wrong?

Mr. Newton : I think that the only response that I can make to that is that I am glad that my hon. Friend appears to have exempted Ministers from his proposals.

Several hon. Members rose --

Madam Speaker : Order. We must now move on. I am not prepared to call the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) who has already been called in business questions. As for the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I understand that he sent apologies to the Chair in respect of the fact that he was outside the Chamber working when the statement was made. I cannot accept that, because, if I did, I would have to accept such a reason from hundreds of hon. Members who went into the Library to work and then returned to the Chamber wanting to ask a question. I know that the hon. Member for Linlithgow is a very experienced parliamentarian and that he entirely understands my reasoning and will accept it.

BILL PRESENTED

Reinsurance (Acts of Terrorism)

Mr. Secretary Heseltine, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Clarke, Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Secretary Hunt, Mr. Secretary Lang and Mr. Neil Hamilton, presented a Bill to provide for the payment out of money provided by Parliament or into the Consolidated Fund of sums referable to reinsurance liabilities entered into by the Secretary of State in respect of loss or damage to property resulting from or consequential upon acts of terrorism and losses consequential on such loss or damage : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 191.]

Column 303

Royal Navy

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Patnick.]

4.26 pm

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken) : It is a privilege to open this debate on the Royal Navy, a subjecton which this House has not had the opportunity to hold a full day's debate for nearly two years. During this period, the global security environment in which the Royal Navy has long played such an important and successful role has undergone momentous changes. So momentous indeed that as many of the old cold war certainties fade away only to be replaced by new and more imponderable challenges, some of us in the business of naval forward planning these days occasionally yearn for the stark simplicity and clarity of Lord Nelson's famous signal at the battle of Trafalgar : "England expects that every man will do his duty."

Of course, in one sense the duty of the Royal Navy is crystal clear. It is to play its part in the three defence roles which were set out in the foreword to the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1992" by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. Those three roles were : first, to ensure the protection and security of the United Kingdom and our dependent territories, even when there is no major external threat ; secondly, to insure against any major external threat to the United Kingdom and our allies ; and, thirdly, to contribute to promoting the United Kingdom's wider security interests through the maintenance of international peace and stability.

It goes without saying that the Navy's contribution to these tasks will be of pivotal importance for the naval assets of our island nation and have the mobility, reach, flexibility and sustainability to react to the unexpected and to offer maritime security and deterrence to our vital interests and dependencies across a globe which is two thirds ocean.

Therefore, today's debate is an opportunity to put, as it were, some naval flesh on the bare strategic bones of the three defence roles that I have just outlined, by telling the House how the Royal Navy fulfils its current commitment and operations and by giving some insight into our thinking on how the Navy will fulfil its changing tasks in the future. I will also at a later stage in my speech cover equipment, personnel, and force restructuring matters.

The last debate on the Royal Navy in the House took place on 27 June 1991. My hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement opened his speech by paying tribute to the men and women of the Royal Navy, Royal Marines and Royal Fleet Auxiliary for the part which they played in securing the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait. It is good to record that their fine contribution has now been formally recognised by the award, earlier this year, of the battle honour "Gulf 91" to 15 of Her Majesty's ships, six Royal Navy air squadrons and 10 ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. But the Royal Navy has not rested on those laurels. Since that previous debate it has been continuously engaged around the world.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : This morning I gave notice to the office of the Minister of State for the Armed Forces that I would like to ask about the role of the Navy

Column 304

in cleaning up the ecological problems of the Gulf. Will the Minister of State for Defence Procurement say a word on what the Navy is doing? The problems are continuing.

Mr. Aitken : We were grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice. As the hon. Gentleman gave notice to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, he will cover the point in his reply to the debate.

The Gulf is one of the most important areas in which the Royal Navy regularly operates. The Armilla patrol, which is now in its 13th year, continues to provide reassurance to British shipping and to operate in support of the United Nations sanctions on maritime trade with Iraq. Although Saddam's naval forces are quiescent for the time being, Iran has decided to raise the stakes of sea power among the Gulf littoral states by becoming the area's first submarine navy. Iran's neighbours in the region are watching Iran's naval build-up with increasing concern--a build-up which has been symbolised by the purchase and, more recently, the deployment of a Russian built hunter-killer submarine of the Kilo class.

Having visited the Gulf five times in the past six months and going on board Her Majesty's ships on two occasions during those visits, I have been left in no doubt by our friends in the area how much they appreciate the Royal Navy's important contribution to the stability of the area. That contribution is particularly well measured by those with long memories, for Britain has had a continuous naval presence in the Gulf for well over half a century. Although gone are the days when there used to be a common Arabic saying that when two fish are fighting in the Gulf the British are behind it, our more discreet presence today still has a valuable impact.

It is symbolised by the steady vigilance of the Armilla patrol and enhanced by special ship visits. Perhaps the most notable of those was the visit in March of HMS Triumph to Abu Dhabi. That was the first ever visit by one of our nuclear submarines to a Gulf port, and I believe that its presence left a clear and important message of reassurance to our friends in the region.

Referring to the security of our dependent territories, throughout past years naval forces have been deployed in support of garrisons in the Falklands, Belize and Hong Kong. The Royal Navy carries out joint operations with the authorities of those countries and of thehe hurricane season it is well equipped to provide humanitarian relief. Last year, HMS Cardiff, assisted by HMS Campbeltown and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Orangeleaf, provided valuable assistance to the island of Eleuthera in the wake of hurricane Andrew.

Ships of the Royal Navy are regular visitors to many of our dependent territories, from Hong Kong to St. Helena, and the new ice patrol ship, HMS Endurance, is just completing her second successful deployment to Antarctica in support of our interest in that region. Those regular deployments form part of a wider pattern of deployments and visits aimed at developing the Royal Navy's operational capabilities, exercising with friendly navies and supporting our foreign policy and defence sales objectives. In 1992-93, Royal Navy ships showed the flag in 90 countries. Of particular note was the deployment of Task Group Orient 92, which consisted of four warships and two RFA vessels, led by the carrier HMS Invincible to

Column 305

the far east for seven months. That was the first such far eastern deployment since 1988. We regard it as having been highly successful because of the tangible benefits arising, as they do, from joint naval exercises, growing export sales interest and general political goodwill, and all that in a region of growing political and economic importance.

I should also mention the visit of HMS Battleaxe to the Russian Baltic fleet base of Baltiysk. In its way, that visit was symbolic of the new spirit of naval co-operation that prevails between Britain and Russia in the post-cold war era, because Battleaxe was the first warship of the Royal Navy to participate in such joint manoeuvres with a cruiser of the Russian navy. More recently, we have seen Russian ships working alongside coalition naval forces in the Gulf helping to enforce UN sanctions on trade with Iraq. That has been very welcome as a gesture of international solidarity against Saddam and as an unprecedented opportunity for western navies to forge closer links with their former adversary. The Royal Navy has been at the forefront of those efforts and will continue to play a leading role in the important work of building on the new friendship between east and west in a practical way. In support of NATO, the United Kingdom continues to be a major contributor of maritime forces. We provide ships on a continuing basis in the Atlantic and the English channel. Since its formation last year, we have done the same for the standing naval force in the Mediterranean, which goes by the indigestible acronym STANAVFORMED. That force is currently engaged in the enforcement of United Nations sanctions and the arms embargo in the Adriatic--an example of how NATO's revised maritime force structure is adapting to new tasks.

As well as contributing to STANAVFORMED, the Royal Navy is involved, both afloat and ashore, in support of operations in the former Republic of Yugoslavia. A carrier group led by HMS Ark Royal is deployed in the Adriatic at present with an air group of Sea Harriers, recently enhanced with a laser-guided bomb capability, and Sea King helicopters as well as artillery. HMS Ark Royal is there to provide additional protection for United Kingdom forces ashore and, if necessary, to assist with the withdrawal or reinforcement of United Nations forces. That presence powerfully demonstrates the flexibility and utility of one of our capital ships with the air power that she is able to deploy if necessary to provide assurance and deterrence to friend and foe.

Mr. Dalyell : As the author of an excellent book on President Nixon, which I enjoyed greatly, the Minister is in a better position than most to be frank with the House about the Anglo-American relationship. Is HMS Ark Royal in any way related to or under American command in these circumstances?

Mr. Aitken : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving my book that commercial plug in the middle of our Navy debate. I am sure that my booksellers and publisher will be grateful. Reading about the life of President Nixon has perhaps endowed the hon. Gentleman with a certain degree of conspiracy theory about the Anglo-American relationship which does not exist, if he reaches the end of

Column 306

the book. As far as the episode to which I am referring is concerned, there is no United States control of HMS Ark Royal--it would be wrong to suggest that there was.

Mr. Menzies Campbell (Fife, North-East) : On the obverse side of what the Ministry has been saying, in the press release issued by the Ministry of Defence this afternoon there is reference to the task group comprising HMS Ark Royal, HMS Broadsword and what I take to be the Dutch frigate De Ruyter, which, on the face of it, appears to be under the command of the overall British commander of the task group. Is that an example of the sort of co-operation between European maritime nations that we should be in favour of and hope might be more frequent in the future?

Mr. Aitken : The hon. and learned Gentleman makes a good and timely point. There is good co-operation between European navies, especially in the matter of enforcing and increasing the pressure on Yugoslavia. It is going on in the Adriatic and the Danube. For some years, we have had a close relationship with the Royal Netherlands Navy through joint marine exercises. That is a natural extension and co-operation of how we work together. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing attention to the good relationship.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood) : Before my hon. Friend leaves the matter of the Netherlands and its marines, does he agree that the deployment of the task group to the Adriatic, and especially the deployment of HMS Ark Royal in a role for which she is not wholly designed, in addition to the normal naval air role--the deployment of soldiers-- exemplifies the need for a purpose-built amphibious helicopter carrier and that it should be procured at the earliest possible date?

Mr. Aitken : I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend. Although HMS Ark Royal has done good service in providing the possibility of that amphibious capability, it is not purpose-built for that task. That is one of the considerations we took into account when we announced that the landing platform helicopter carrier was firmly in the defence programme. I shall say a few words of encouragement on the subject of the landing platform helicopter carrier later.

I should also mention as part of the record of our role in the Adriatic that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary's Resource and Sir Percivale are also in the area. They are in Split to provide accommodation and shore support for British forces ashore. There are also four Sea King helicopters of 845 naval air squadron based in Split. Although their primary role is to assist with casualty evacuation of UN forces, they also took part in the airlift of sick and wounded civilians from Srebrenica, and they stand ready to carry out such humanitarian tasks again if needed.

One other United Nations operation in which the Royal Navy is involved which I should mention is in Cambodia. Seventy Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel are deployed there on peace-keeping duties as part of the United Nations transitional authority. They are involved in the patrolling of the Cambodian coast and the Mekong river system. This is the first time that the UN has included a maritime element in its peace-keeping operations.

Moving closer to home, Royal Marine commandos continue to take regular tours to Northern Ireland, while

Column 307

the Royal Navy conducts patrols in Northern Ireland waters in support of the security forces. The fishery protection squadron patrols the United Kingdom's fishery limits and, following a review last year, Ministers agreed that that task should remain with the Royal Navy at least for the current year. The squadron acquitted itself well during the recent period of tension in the fishing grounds of Guernsey and will continue to ensure that fisheries regulations are fully and properly enforced.

In addition, the squadron is well placed to respond to a range of operational and humanitarian contingencies in United Kingdom waters. Some of the operations are in support of our law enforcement agencies. For example, last November HMS Shetland assisted customs officers in making a record seizure of 20 tonnes of cannabis worth about £60 million.

Lastly in this summary of our commitments, I should like to emphasise how well the Royal Navy has served our nation by continuing to underpin our national security by maintaining continuous deterrent patrols by our Polaris submarine for the past 25 years. In that period, the former Soviet Union has moved a long way from those dangerous years when Mr. Khruschev hammered with his shoe on the rostrum of the United Nations shouting the threat, "We will bury you". We were certainly glad then that we had such a sure shield against a possible nuclear attack.

Although that particular threat has mercifully receded, we should not forget that the world remains a dangerous and unstable place in many ways. It is imperative that we continue to safeguard the security of our realm against all possible external threats. It is vital that in Trident we maintain a deterrent which will be the ultimate safeguard of our nation's freedom well into the next century.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish) : The Minister has paid tribute to the Polaris regime and its deterrent effect. Would it not be far more logical to tell the House exactly what the Government intend to do in terms of developing the Trident programme? If Polaris is to be a deterrent, surely it is essential that people know what it is capable of. Would it not be a good time to break the tradition of secrecy about nuclear weapons and tell the House of Commons what is going on?

Mr. Aitken : The hon. Gentleman has a naive attitude both to the importance of deterrence and the surprise element in it and to the importance of not letting any potential adversary or enemy know exactly what Trident might or might not be able to do.

Within obvious constraints, we disclose a great deal of information to the House through the Select Committee. We have answered questions with considerable frankness about our studies of a sub-strategic role for Trident. Although we obviously keep matters such as warhead numbers and targeting secret, we are reasonably candid in our parliamentary democracy with the House and with the country.

Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey and Waterside) : Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that it is no use having nuclear submarines if they are locked into port because the approaches to their ports are strewn with mines? Will he say a word about the attitude of the Ministry of Defence to new orders for Sandown minehunters? Some years ago the Ministry of Defence invited tenders for seven new Sandown class minehunters. The invitations for tender

Column 308

were withdrawn in 1991. I gather that the minehunters will be required in 1994. Perhaps my hon. Friend could say when invitations for tender will be required once more.

Mr. Aitken : Yes, I shall do so. If my hon. Friend will be patient, I will answer his question when I come to our forward equipment programme.

I wish to say a further word about Trident. The Trident programme continues to make excellent progress. It remains on schedule to enter service from the mid-1990s and it is well within budget. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced in January this year, the currently estimated cost for procuring Trident is some £10.7 billion, which represents a total real cost saving of £2.8 billion against the original estimate. We were gratified that in its 1992 report on Trident, the Defence Select Committee commented on "the gratifying and unusual spectacle of a major defence programme coming in far below estimate."

Construction of all four Trident submarines is progressing well.

Mr. Bennett : The Minister tells us that Trident is coming in below cost. But as he has never admitted what was in the original specifications, how can we tell that it is below cost?

Mr. Aitken : I said that it was below estimate, which is different from below cost, as most numerate hon. Members will understand. Even though the hon. Gentleman is a staunch opponent of all nuclear programmes and weapons, he should, at least on the basis of value for money for the taxpayer, be pleased that we have brought Trident in well below estimate.

Mr. Bennett : But the specifications have been cut.

Next Section

Home Page