House of Commons Hansard Debates for 24 Jun 1993

Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : I have to thank my own Front Bench Members for allowing me to come in at this stage and forgoing their own right to reply. I will try not to bite the hand that fed me on this occasion.

My position with regard to Northern Ireland is that we should be doing everything we can to try to establish peace and reconciliation, which involves an understanding of the

Column 497

existence of different communities and the need for respect for the different traditions. At the same time, we must take as strong a stand as possible against terrorism and acts of abuse. Those positions do not seem to me to be in conflict ; they are bound together, and there must not be any ambivalence on any side about objecting to acts of terrorism and abuse and organising to stand out against them.

I have been disappointed, however, with certain aspects of the debate so far. If we cannot have talks on the future of Northern Ireland elsewhere, at least opportunities such as today's should be taken to have our own talks about what we believe should be done. Some of the debate that has taken place across the Floor between Northern Ireland Members has tended to reflect the difficulties in discussing the various positions. A good debate is one in which new ideas emerge and there is some sort of synthesis of the best points from the arguments on all sides. This is not always possible when the opposite sides are diametrically antagonistic.

I am sorry that certain things were not referred to by the Front Bench spokesmen. It was not until the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) spoke that we had any mention of the Opsahl Commission, and then it was only to condemn its findings. The commission's report should be examined seriously. It has 25 recommendations, and I for one will have great difficulty with a number of them. Nevertheless, the commission engaged in some 3,000 interviews in Northern Ireland, often with people within community groups. It had some good discussions with sixth forms, for instance. A whole host of views and attitudes emerge in the report which are not necessarily part of the conclusions and recommendations, but they help hon. Members such as myself who are not from Northern Ireland to begin to gain some understanding of the situation there.

The points about direct rule in the report are very relevant to this debate. I do not have time to quote any of them, but I refer hon. Members to page 113. A number of points have been made about the inadequacies of the procedure in the House. I would have thought that the Secretary of State would at least have recognised the existence of the Opsahl Commission.

There are bodies of people in Northern Ireland which are not the major political parties, organisations or forces, but which work continuously for reconciliation and object very strongly to terrorism. Groups such as Families Against Intimidation and Terror are cross-community and adopt the same attitude to sectarian terror in their own communities. There is also the Peace Train organisation, and a body with which I am associated, called New Consensus, which has particular ideas about what should be done. Indeed, some of the best work is being done at community level, sometimes involving political parties, religious groups and others, and working on a cross-community basis.

I also believe that the debate should cover--the Secretary of State mentioned it--the economic and social elements of the problems of Northern Ireland, including those connected with direct rule. In this connection, I disagree with the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who felt that this was irrelevant.

However, the Secretary of State said the wrong things about economic and social development. He stressed such things as electricity privatisation, on which a unanimous position was taken across the political parties, apart from

Column 498

the new Conservative party in Northern Ireland, which opposed that measure. When there is some unity in Northern Ireland on such a wide political issue, we should look very carefully at the situation. It may have been that the Government were playing a cautious role and trying to get everybody united against them in the interest of other forms of development, but I doubt whether there was that kind of subtlety. I believe that what happens is that the economic programme of the Cabinet and of the Government generally spills over on occasion to Northern Ireland, and almost runs counter to many of the other things that are being done.

The Northern Ireland Office will point to the valuable work that it does, the amount of money that is being spent in Northern Ireland and the encouragement of different forms of activity. Then it will come up with something that is in the ideological tradition of Thatcherism and apply it to Northern Ireland, although it is felt to be quite irrelevant by the organisations within Northern Ireland.

I feel that the appropriation debate offers a great opportunity. I hope that the timetabling of that debate will be re-examined and that it will not be just a one-and-a-half-hour affair. What opportunity do we have to discuss economic and social affairs in Northern Ireland? This is the nearest we come to a Northern Ireland budget. Because of the problems of Northern Ireland and because there is no proper local government structure, Northern Ireland Members are obliged to raise under this heading many issues that are local constituency concerns. They are matters that in another sphere would be dealt with in councils and other bodies. We cannot therefore get to grips with the economic and social issues. The political parties have not, it seems, analysed these issues and are not in a position to put forward an alternative.

Few Members attend Northern Ireland debates, apart from Northern Ireland Members of Parliament, the Front Bench spokesmen on both sides and those who support them. Only four Conservative Back Benchers and two Labour Back Benchers who have an interest in Northern Ireland affairs are here at the moment. There are many reasons. One is that we are considering a statutory instrument that cannot be amended. The ability to table amendments is not available to us. If we could do so, we should be able to put forward our own ideas about the way forward, or ideas that we had picked up as a result of our studies and of our talks with members of the Hansard Society and others. The procedures of the House deny us the opportunity to discuss Northern Ireland matters properly. There is an overwhelming case for setting up a Northern Ireland Select Committee. Such a Committee could discuss properly Northern Ireland concerns. Representatives of all the political parties in Northern Ireland would be able to serve upon it and publish reports that the House could consider.

It is a mistake that the Ulster Unionists decided not to be members of the British-Irish parliamentary group, which does valuable work. Its work would be even more valuable if a Northern Ireland Select Committee could be set up. Some members of the British-Irish parliamentary group would be keen to serve on that Committee, which might lead to a valuable exchange of ideas. The opportunity for discussion and argument is lacking at present, with the result that only individual views are put forward. Discussion and argument could lead to compromise and reconciliation and possibly to agreement.

Column 499

As for privatisation in Northern Ireland, it would be interesting to know how much money was spent on advertising shares when the electricity industry was privatised, compared with the amount of money spent on the development of the political process in Northern Ireland. When I asked the Prime Minister how much money was spent on the registration of United Kingdom electors, I was given an answer for Great Britain, but I was told that support for advertising electoral registration in Northern Ireland is not provided. In 1990, £705,000 was spent on getting people from overseas to register so that they could vote in Great Britain, but there is no such expenditure in Northern Ireland, which is disturbing.

However, that issue is only part of what is needed in a democracy. Many people believe that the franchise does not matter all that much, for there is little that they can do with their vote to influence affairs in Northern Ireland.

6.54 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Michael Ancram) : May I begin by thanking those hon. Members whhave paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates). I shall certainly ensure that their tributes are passed on to him. May I also pay tribute to my predecessor, the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) who, I know, is very much respected by all Northern Ireland Members.

This has been a lively debate which has centred mostly on the political question. I realise that I have only a short time in which to reply to the debate. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not answer all the points that were raised. I listened carefully to the speech by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). This is the first time that I have attended one of these debates in an official capacity. His speech--I am told that this is not unusual--was strong on analysis but not very strong on answers. There were one or two inaccuracies in it that should be corrected.

The hon. Gentleman accused my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of not backing the three-strand concept in the talks. My right hon. and learned Friend has always backed the three- strand concept and has made that clear on a number of recent occasions. It is right to put on record the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend has strong feelings about that matter.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to proposals and made the point that the British Government have left the Irish with no alternative but to go forward with their own proposals. It is right that I should make it clear that we have been formulating our proposals, which we hope may serve to give direction to the talks when they resume. We shall present our paper to all participants at that stage. In the meantime, we want to test and refine our ideas and judgment by means of dialogue with all of them. We are trying to carry out that process at the moment, through discussions with the party leaders and the Irish Government.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) made a helpful and constructive speech. I welcome what he said. We shall wish to consider his speech

Column 500

carefully. He said that the prospect of joint authority appearing over the horizon was a matter of some concern to him. I should stress that my right hon. and learned Friend is already on record as saying that the political talks will not conclude with Northern Ireland becoming subject to the joint political authority of the United Kingdom and Irish Governments. Apart from the question of practicality that such an arrangement would raise, my right hon. and learned Friend does not believe, nor do the Government, that such an outcome would be acceptable to public opinion in Northern Ireland. I want to stress that too.

I listened to the speech by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) with great care. Most of his speech was addressed to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, but he asked us why there was a difference in the Government's attitude towards Scotland and towards Northern Ireland. There is no difference. The only circumstances in which Northern Ireland might leave the Union would be on the basis that that was the will of the majority of the people who live there. Equally, the Prime Minister has made it clear in respect of Scotland that no nation could be held irrevocably in the Union against its will.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) referred to what has occurred in his constituency today. I join him in his expessions of horror at that incident. He raised the question of security. The Government will not shirk their responsibility for dealing with terrorism. There is no acceptable level of violence. The Government are responsible for ensuring that the law effectively protects the rights of citizens, including the right to life. There is no compromise on that.

The Government have made it clear that we believe that at the end of the day there has to be dialogue if we are to find a solution to the problem. Many hon. Members have made it clear today that they find this debate distasteful because we are, in effect, debating the question of renewing direct rule. I can only reiterate the hope expressed by many hon. Members today and by my right hon. and learned Friend--a hope which I am sure has been expressed by many others over the years in such debates--that it will not be much longer before an end can be put to the present temporary arrangements for handling Northern Ireland affairs. That is what the process of political development is all about. If, in the coming months, we can come to a system of restoring the dialogue again--of trying to find that lasting accommodation--I hope that these debates will, in the near future, become a thing of the past.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.

Rev. Martin Smyth : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish, first, to welcome the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) to his office. We did not have an opportunity earlier in the debate to do that. I wish him every success in his new job.

When replying to the debate, he referred to the question of dialogue. I appeal to the Government to try in future, when arranging business affecting Northern Ireland, especially in relation to renewing emergency provisions legislation, to try to provide time for adequate dialogue across the Floor of the House so that we may better explore and expose the issues.

Column 501

Madam Speaker : The hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order for me, but I have no doubt that it will have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench.

Column 502

Trident Refit (Scottish Economy)

7 pm

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.

Leave having been given this day under Standing Order No. 20 to discuss :

The decision by the Cabinet on the Trident refit and its effect on the Scottish economy.

I wish at the outset to thank you, Madam Speaker, for granting this emergency debate, which represents a recognition, at least by the Chair, of the gravity of the Government's announcement today, particularly as it affects Scotland.

Today's announcement represents a vague promise made on the back of a broken promise. The Government have had to promise a programme of work to Rosyth because previous promises to Rosyth about the Trident contract have been shamefully and completely broken. One cannot disguise the extent to which the workers of Rosyth have been let down by a Conservative Government.

It is not simply I who am saying that. Unfortunately, the only Conservative Scottish Members here today are lickspittle Scottish Members. I wish that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) had been in his place today because

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson (Aberdeen, South) : He is ill.

Mr. Foulkes : I know he is ill, but he can still speak to the press. He speaks forcibly to the press and he speaks for Scotland far more than his hon. Friends on the Government Benches speak for Scotland. He is reported by today's Glasgow Evening Times as having said :

"I have no faith in a Government which has behaved in such a diseased way."

That is the voice of a real Scots Tory with guts.

The promises that the Government made to Rosyth were unequivocal. The Minister of State for the Armed Forces said in November 1984 that the Government had settled where the Trident refits would be carried out, and he said that they would be at Rosyth. That position was repeated by Ministers from the Dispatch Box month after month, year after year, throughout the 1980s.

By the time the Government eventually reneged on that promise, over £100 million had been spent on a purpose-built facility for Trident. That money has now been poured down the drain. The taxpayers in the south- west of England and in Scotland will not be rejoicing at that waste of their money.

Lord Younger, Secretary of State when the commitments were given, wrote in his famous letter to The Times that

"a matter of good faith is involved here."

He made it clear in that letter that he had given his word, on behalf of the Cabinet and the Government, to the people of Scotland that the submarine refit would go to Rosyth. He is now aware that his word of honour has been abused by the Government in backtracking on the clear pledges that were given.

As hon. Members pointed out earlier in the day, the present Secretary of State for Defence was then Secretary of State for Scotland and was party to the decision. Perhaps we shall have the spectre in five or 10 years' time

Column 503

of Lord Rifkind writing to The Times complaining that the pledges that he has made today to Rosyth have been cast aside in another display of bad faith.

The future of Rosyth as the largest industrial concern is vital to the future of much of industry in Scotland. It is therefore vital that the Government fulfil their obligation to Rosyth, and get the figures right. In that connection, why is there not a consultative document before the House? When we ence of the naval base at Rosyth is inextricably linked to the future of the dockyard. The overall effect of the closure of Rosyth dockyard--were that to take place--would be the loss of up to 18,000 jobs in an area of already high unemployment. Hundreds of companies throughout Scotland are involved in work for the dockyard. Will the Secretary of State now do what he would not do earlier and estimate how much it would cost the taxpayer if all those jobs were lost?

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) : Does the hon. Gentleman not have a little shame in standing at the Opposition Dispatch Box complaining about job losses, when for many years Labour spokesmen called for the cancellation of Trident and for massive cuts in defence spending? Is he aware that, if those demands had been met, there would have been many more job losses at Rosyth and elsewhere?

Mr. Foulkes : I feel no shame whatever. The hon. Gentleman should feel shame as the PPS to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who will be imposing many cuts on the people of Britain, not just on people of Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind) : The hon. Gentleman did not answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim) asked him. In 1987, the hon. Gentleman signed an early-day motion calling for the cancellation of Trident. He knows that, if his proposals and that motion had been accepted, there would be no jobs at Rosyth or Faslane for Scotland or for any other part of the United Kingdom. Does he regret signing that early-day motion? If not, how does he reconcile it with his protest today?

Mr. Foulkes : I am flattered that the Secretary of State pays so much attention to my signature on early-day motions--[ Hon. Members :-- "Answer."] It is clear that the Government gave a commitment-- [Interruption.] --that Scotland, having the Faslane base on the west coast of Scotland, should have the benefit of the refitting on the east coast of Scotland.

Mr. Rifkind rose --

Mr. Foulkes : The right hon. and learned Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his own speech, when perhaps he will answer some of the other questions that I am putting to him.

The defence arguments for the survival of Rosyth are also pressing. It is common sense that all the nation's ship refitting facilities should not be located at one yard. The same argument applies to retaining a nuclear submarine refitting capability at one yard.

Column 504

For those strategic reasons, the Opposition have consistently campaigned for both yards to be kept open. Remember, submarines and their missiles are designed to be used in time of war, and at such times it is not inconceivable that refitting facilities would be targets. Having only one centre would leave us extremely vulnerable. The pledges given in the past to Rosyth, including those by the recently deposed Chancellor when he was Minister for Defence Procurement, about the purpose-built facilities, are not irrelevant today. Are we to believe today's promises any more than we should have believed the false promises that were given in the 1980s? One need only examine the Tory election manifesto to find further evidence of promises made and broken--on taxes, benefits and tax cuts--in the past 12 months.

Until we have the real, full details of the announcement from the Secretary of State, we, the people of Rosyth and the people of Scotland will remain highly sceptical. When will the consultative document be published? Why is it not ready today? What sort of consultation will be carried out, and how long will it go on? Can we believe that it will be any different from the other consultations which the Ministry of Defence has had recently and which have turned out to be nothing more than rubber-stamping exercises, whether they were about Royal Naval stores, the Defence Research Agency or the Portland base? We need to know a lot more before this vague promise can be accepted as a copper-bottomed guarantee.

As I said earlier, the strong feeling in Scotland is that 18 ships is not enough. That is tiny compared with the 79 surface ships refitted at Rosyth over the past 10 years. The Secretary of State said in reply to my earlier questions that some of those 79 were smaller ships, unlike the 18 large ships. Will he tell us what guarantees there are of those smaller ships in the future?

Mr. Rifkind : I am happy to. The hon. Gentleman asked about the minor warships. There are 49 minor warships due to be refitted over the next few years, and all 49 will be refitted at Rosyth. [Interruption.]

Mr. Foulkes : No one can be ungrateful for what the Secretary of State has said, but I will come to the reality.

Mr. David Harris (St. Ives) : But leaving that aside.

Mr. Foulkes : I am not leaving anything aside. I will deal with it in detail. We need detailed figures.

The Secretary of State is surely aware that, given the Government's record, the workers at Rosyth will not be satisfied with blanket assurances and any overall total. If the Government have worked out a 12-year plan so exactly as to present it to the House, they should be able to set out a more exact timetable.

What ships will be refitted and when? What will be the level of work, under this so-called guaranteed programme of work, each year for the next 12 years? I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to tell us that in his speech.

Will the Secretary of State tell us how he arrived at the total number of job losses at Rosyth and Devonport? Is he aware that the management at Rosyth are saying that the best case scenario will lead to 700 job losses, not the 450 that the Secretary of State claimed. That best case scenario assumes the refitting of one type 42, one type 23 and one type 22 every 18 months in addition to three aircraft carriers and 10 Hunt class mine warfare vessels. Can the

Column 505

Secretary of State tell us precisely whether that is the level of work that will be offered to Rosyth? I am happy to give way to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Rifkind : If the hon. Gentleman inquires further of the management at Rosyth, he will find that the figure of 700 includes jobs involved in non-Ministry of Defence work. The hon. Gentleman should recall that in my statement I referred to 18 major warships in addition to the 49 minor vessels that I mentioned just now.

Mr. Foulkes : The Secretary of State is wrong. I did check. There are 2,700 jobs at Rosyth on Ministry of Defence work. The management at Rosyth said that they will be able to sustain a maximum of 2,000 on the best case scenario, which, as I have said, is the refitting of one type 42, one type 23 and one type 22 every 18 months, in addition to three aircraft carriers, and 10 Hunt class mine warfare vessels. That is the very least guarantee we need, and I hope that the Secretary of State can give it tonight.

What will be the minimum total value of contracts placed with each yard over the 12-year period that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has specified? That will give us an idea of the balance of work for Rosyth compared with that for Devonport.

Given the state of defence planning and the monthly abandonment of commitments by the Government, how much credence can we give to today's announcement? How can we take seriously the promise of a fixed number of ship refits from a Government who are not only running down the size of the surface fleet but refuse to give an exact number for the size of the frigate destroyer fleet? As one of my hon. Friends said to me earlier, allocated work does not mean guaranteed work. Other yards which have had refitting will testify to that.

After today's announcement, we must ask what will happen to Rosyth after the year 2000, as its programme of work is run down over five years. There is the question of what will happen to the shipbuilding yards in the commercial sector which may have expected some of the surface refitting work to be allocated to Rosyth.

Has the Secretary of State made an estimate of what will happen to those shipyards? How many job losses will there be in those yards over the next 12 years, as the size of the surface fleet continues to reduce? The Secretary of State may remember that Lord Chalfont, chairman of Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd., said on "Panorama" in March that, if Government policy continues as it is at present, the seven private yards could be as few as one or two by the end of the century.

Mr. Ian Bruce (South Dorset) : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foulkes : If the hon. Gentleman catches your eye, Madam Speaker, he will have a chance to speak. I said that I would be as brief as possible, because many of my colleagues wish to speak.

The Secretary of State has acknowledged in a very

Mr. Bruce : The hon. Gentleman will know that there is good liaison on the shipyards between the south-west and Scotland, and I pay tribute to Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen for the help that I often receive from them. However, if the announcement today had been that the refitting contract was going to Rosyth, will he tell the workers at Devonport whether there would have been an

Column 506

emergency debate? Are not those on the Opposition Front Bench having their strings pulled by the Opposition Members sitting around them?

Mr. Foulkes : The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that I did not receive a copy of the Secretary of State's statement until 3 o'clock this afternoon. My request for an emergency debate went in before noon.

The Secretary of State has acknowledged in a limited way the importance of planning. He sought to assure the House that strategy for Rosyth will be set out and guaranteed for the next 12 years. Leaving aside the doubts that I have expressed, which are felt by all Opposition Members, over the validity of guarantees from the Secretary of State, will he concede the value of such strategic planning ? His defence policy completely lacks such strategic planning.

The suspicion is that this is not really the admission of planning into defence policy, but a manoeuvre brought about by political expediency. The concessions announced by the Secretary of State today--this is probably the most important thing I shall say--have come about as a result of the dedicated campaigning and pressure brought to bear by those at Rosyth.

That view was underlined today by the comments of Alan Smith of Babcock Thorn, who expressed thanks for the efforts of employees, trade unions and local councils. I pay tribute to those efforts, and to those of my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) and for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire), who campaigned so well. We all wish my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West a speedy recovery. We would not have had the guarantees from the Government without that campaign.

We will keep up the pressure to ensure that the Government fulfil in hard contracts the promises made today. The real test of this announcement is whether they are cheering at Rosyth today. They are not. Instead, cries of anguish are echoing across the Forth. Those are the people for whom we speak.

I hope that, in voting for the Adjournment motion, Opposition Members will show their support for a two-dockyard solution, for a strategic plan for the defence requirements of this country, and for the economic needs of this country into the next century.

7.18 pm

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind) : This evening, Babcock Thorn, the management of Rosyth dockyard, issued a statement saying that its objective is to become the premier yard in the United Kingdom for surface ship refitting. The management have identified an important and valuable role for Rosyth. I believe that the statement that I made earlier, which indicates that in addition to the 18 major warships there will be 49 other vessels to be refitted at Rosyth over the next 12 years, means that Babcock Thorn and its work force and the community in Rosyth can look forward to a large amount of work. That work will require thousands of people carrying out dedicated work in Rosyth in the interests of the Royal Navy and that will continue for many years to come.

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian) : Will the Secretary of State give way?

Column 507

Mr. Rifkind : I will give way in a moment. I must be allowed to begin my remarks.

I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and noticed that, as is the tradition with the Labour party at the present time, a number of things were set aside. He not only set aside the call that he made some years ago for Trident to be scrapped, but he refused to answer the direct question whether he regretted that call and, if not, whether he could now reconcile it with his passionate case for Trident work going to Rosyth. I am happy to give way now if he wants to answer.

Mr. Tony Worthington (Clydebank and Milngavie) rose

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) rose-- Mr. Home Robertson rose--

Mr. Rifkind : Three Labour Members want to answer that question, but the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley remains silent. That is probably a wise decision.

That is not all that is being set aside. A few days ago, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley called for a solution that involved two dockyards with a future and not one. Today's announcement ensures two dockyards with a future. Two days ago, he called for an allocated work programme to the non-nuclear yard of 10 years. Today, we announced one of 12 years. Why cannot the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that his request has been more than met?

Mr. Home Robertson : The Secretary of State said that Rosyth was to be the surface ship refit yard. Will he comment on the four submarines that are currently at Rosyth--Churchill, Dreadnought, Swiftsure and Revenge? If we cannot have refit work on the Forth, we certainly do not want scrapped nuclear hulks there. They should be down the Forth on the next tide.

Mr. Rifkind : We want to discuss the decommissioned submarines with Rosyth. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. There are no technical reasons why the submarines have to be at Rosyth rather than another port. That can be discussed and I am sure that we shall reach an amicable decision, which will meet the interests of the Royal Navy and reflect the current situation.

We shall shortly publish a consultative document. The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley got into a lather about why it was not published today. He knows perfectly well that the matters were concluded and endorsed by the Cabinet only this morning and it takes a little time thereafter to produce the document. It will be published and the consultative period will start from the date of publication. I believe that it is appropriate that we should offer those directly concerned the opportunity to offer views on what we have announced. The purpose of the consultative period is to ensure that we have missed nothing in taking our decision. At the same time, I must make it clear that we have not made today's announcement lightly and I would be surprised if anything new came out of that consultation period.

The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley made much of statements made in the 1980s about the future of nuclear refitting. Those statements were made

Next Section

Home Page