House of Commons Hansard Debates for 24 Jun 1993

Column 520

scheduling of work. One is dealing with a reasonably small number of ships over a long period and with substantial technical work. My belief, which is shared by my constituents, is that the arrangement gives the Government an opportunity to duck their commitments, as they have done in previous years.

We shall probe the Government on many outstanding issues. The main task of Labour Members is to secure the largest number of jobs for Rosyth. The statement today will not do so. That is why my hon. Friends have expressed anxieties about it.

I have heard much hypocrisy from the Conservative Benches, but also from the Scottish National party. I wish to remind the House of a recommendation made by an SNP health council to a district council in Scotland on 25 November 1992. There was a debate about the future of Rosyth. The recommendation was that the district council

"totally oppose the deployment of Trident to Rosyth Dockyard". The Conservatives then said the opposite. They wanted Rosyth to get the Trident refit. My friends in the party on that council moved that, in order to reach an agreed resolution that would satisfy all involved, the council should invite the management and work force to come to the council to make their case. The vote was 12 : 11. All the SNP members voted against inviting the management and work force to make their case. That is hypocrisy. I await with interest the comments this evening of any SNP Member.

Scots know the guilty party in the betrayal of the promise of the Trident refit for Rosyth. They will not accept the overtures from the SNP, which did nothing to assist the campaign to help the work force to secure that contract. Scots will admire honesty and hard work on their behalf, but they will not accept the treachery of both the SNP and the Conservative party on this vital, strategic, industrial, employment and economic issue. That is the agenda. We shall continue our campaign.

8.13 pm

Mr. Gary Streeter (Plymouth, Sutton) : I am pleased to make a brief speech in this important debate. Naturally, the news that Devonport has won the Trident contract has been well received in Plymouth tonight. It has been a long and fierce battle. However, there is an affinity between Devonport and Rosyth dockyards. Of course, there will be an understanding in Devonport tonight of how the workers at Rosyth feel. There will be pleasure that the Government package announced this afternoon was a substantial package of jobs, hope and future for Rosyth. That news is also well received in Devonport and Plymouth tonight. It is what we want and we welcome it.

We have heard a great deal about Rosyth in the debate tonight. That is right, but it is important for a few minutes to paint some of the background of the case for Devonport. I begin by thanking my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and his colleagues in the Government for the way in which they have handled this difficult process of the contract race. My constituents understand what a difficult decision it has been and they respect the way in which my right hon. and hon. Friends have conducted themselves throughout.

I wish to explain why the issue is so important to Devonport and paint the economic backdrop. All the traditional industries in the west country-- agriculture, fishing, defence-related industries, tourism and so on--are

Column 521

in decline for a range of reasons. Many Members of Parliament regard the west country as a pleasant place to go on holiday. So it is, but the backdrop to the region is economic decline. We have high unemployment and the economic trends are going against us. Our dockyard has a fine history. Devonport exists because of the dockyard. It has been there for 300 years. It is the reason why we are there. Since 1985, when the private management of the dockyard took over, we have lost 7,500 jobs through scaling down our defence needs. We have paid our part of the peace dividend. All of us in Plymouth know families who have lost jobs in the dockyard in the past seven years. We have taken our fair share of the pain, believe me. In addition to that backdrop, Plymouth is peripheral. As the engine room for the west country and the dockyard is the dynamo for that engine. That is why the issue is so important to us in Devonport. That is why we fought so hard.

What was our case? It is perfectly true that some years ago there was no question but that the nuclear submarine would be maintained at the RD57 project at Rosyth ; that was everyone's assumption. It would cost the taxpayer more than £450 million. But two years ago, the management at Devonport, headed by Mike Leece and Peter Whitehouse, realised that all the skills, equipment and facilities necessary to maintain the Trident submarine were found at Devonport. The dockyard could have a part of that work.

The dockyard put forward a scheme to the Ministry of Defence. It was painstakingly put together. It drew on the experience that Devonport had of refitting nuclear submarines. It drew on the skills of our work force in Plymouth. It was substantially cheaper than the RD57 project. It would save the taxpayer more than £150 million. The bid had to be taken seriously. No responsible Government could have turned their back on that bid.

Suddenly, there were two possible options for maintaining the Trident submarine. Rosyth rightly realised that the RD57 project was too expensive. It bravely made a bid based on upgrading its existing docks. The Government had to decide between the bids. The Devonport bid put its capital cost at £236 million. Its operational costs were lower than those at Rosyth. It met the safety requirements. The two bids had to be taken seriously.

Collocated with the dockyard at Plymouth is the Navy base. That is another reason why the dockyard is there. As it was so important to maintain the dockyard in Plymouth, the whole community swung behind the bid of Devonport Management Ltd., including the local authority under both Conservative and Labour control, the trade unions, the county council, the chamber of commerce and local Members of Parliament. They did so because it was vital to our community. It is perfectly true that we pressed the case. During the election campaign in April last year, the bid was the biggest issue that faced Plymouth, probably Devon and Cornwall and perhaps even the whole of the west country. In the election campaign, we saw the grotesque spectacle of the Labour defence spokesman coming to Plymouth and shouting for Devonport, then going up to Scotland and saying that the work must go to Rosyth.

Column 522

Mr. O'Neill : That is not true.

Mr. Streeter : That is what the west country had to put up with all these years. I am bound to say--

Mr. O'Neill : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As I am the person to whom the hon. Gentleman is referring, I must tell him that I did not do that--it is just not true. If he looks at the press clippings from both parts of the United Kingdom, he will see that what he said may be in a Tory party brief, but it is not the truth.

Madam Speaker : That is not a point of order for me. The hon. Gentleman might have sought to intervene--which he seems to have done.

Mr. Streeter : I am grateful for that intervention/point of order. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to look at the press clippings again and at the leaflets distributed by the Labour party at the general election because he will see a different story. He is directly quoted as rooting for Devonport.

For all the reasons that I have outlined, the community of Plymouth got behind the Devonport bid. We were fighting for our lives, for our city and for jobs for our young people. That was why there has been such a fierce debate and such a fiercely fought competition. I pay tribute to the management and work force of Devonport Management Ltd. which made the running in the contract race, and handled itself skilfully. I pay tribute to its tenacity and professionalism. Those are the reasons why its bid was successful.

Why did we win the contract race? It was simply because our bid complied with the specifications of the Ministry of Defence. It was £64 million cheaper than the Rosyth bid in terms of capital and operational costs. What choice would any responsible Government have in those circumstances? The Navy was happy with the Devonport bid and clearly there was little choice for the Government but to accept it. The competition process has thrown up one successful result : the taxpayer has gained enormously--to the tune of about £250 million. No responsible Government could turn their back on that. No wonder the Conservative party espouses competitive tendering and market testing as an essential part of government--it is the best thing for the taxpayer. The Devonport bid was cheaper than the Rosyth bid, which is why we won and why the west country is tonight grateful to DML for the way in which it conducted itself.

It is also recognised in the west country, however, that only a Conservative Government would have delivered Trident to the west country. That fact is now abundantly clear--the Labour Front-Bench team has made its position clear. Despite the burdens on the taxpayer and the costs, the Labour Front-Bench team would have buried their heads in the sand and given the contract to Rosyth. There is news in that, but what has shocked the people of the west country is the revelation that the Liberals' official party policy--despite what the party was saying locally--was to give the contract to Rosyth. That has devastated people in the west country, who will not forget or forgive that.

Mr. Menzies Campbell : When did the hon. Gentleman first learn that that was our policy?

Column 523

Mr. Streeter : I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention because I have in my hand a statement that he made yesterday when he spoke on Radio 4. It was a shock because we in the west country have been bamboozled by the Liberals, who gave us the impression that they were fighting for Devonport as that was their official party policy. However, that is not so ; yesterday, the hon. and learned Gentleman said :

"Well, I have made a judgment in my capacity as the Defence Spokesman for my Party I believe that the two yard solution which the Secretary of State has argued for can best be exemplified by sending the nuclear submarines to Rosyth and the surface ones to Devonport."

That statement has gone down like a lead balloon in the west country. The Liberal Democrats tried to pull the wool over our eyes ; they have been exposed for what they are--a party that has turned its back on the west country.

The outcome of the important contract race is that Devonport has won because it offered the best value for money for the taxpayer. We have seen that competitive tendering works--it has saved money for the Navy and the taxpayer. The Government have clearly committed themselves to a two-yard solution. They have proved that that is their intention ; they have given assurances and provided the people of Rosyth with a package of compensation of work and hope which the people of the west country support.

8.24 pm

Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) : If nothing else, the speech of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) has confirmed that today's decision was not a financial or strategic but a political decision. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton chose to interpret it in that light.

If hon. Members had any doubt about the winners and losers of today's events, they needed only to look at the south coast Members of Parliament who were celebrating opposite the House of Commons earlier today. No doubt the Secretary of State for Scotland would use the phrase that he used in a Scottish newspaper this morning--a phrase that I would never use--and describe them as the "bloody English". I think that they are merely politicians celebrating a victory. The Secretary of State for Scotland should be present now to explain why he was defeated.

We are trying to find a guaranteed future for Rosyth. Various parties will have different ways of finding that future. The question before us today is whether the announcement from the Secretary of State for Defence will provide that guaranteed future. The information that we have received and our experience of Government guarantees and commitments show that the answer must be no. As has been said, there is a difference between allocated work and guaranteed work, although--given the loose words that he used on television earlier this evening--that difference seems to have escaped the Secretary of State for Scotland. Even on the basis of the allocated work, I suggest that the reduction in personnel at Rosyth will be much greater than the estimate of 450 that we have been given.

The Secretary of State for Defence gave us some new figures this evening. He said that, over and above the 18 major surface ships that he had mentioned this afternoon, a further 49 surface ships would be allocated. A quick calculation suggests that 67 surface ships in the next 13

Column 524

years will be allocated, which is fewer than the 79 that the Secretary of State for Defence mentioned in his statement this afternoon.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson rose

Mr. Salmond : If the hon. Gentleman sits down, I might be generous to him later in my speech, which is more than can be said for the Secretary of State for Defence who refused to give way to me earlier.

As I was saying--if the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson) would care to listen--those figures would result in a total of 67 surface ships in the next 13 years being allocated--fewer than the 79 which have been turned around by Rosyth in the past 10 years. In addition, there are the five nuclear refits that Rosyth completed in the same period, using the huge dedicated work force that it has for this purpose. That seems to show that the estimated 450 job losses on such a programme--even if we accept that the allocated programme will go to Rosyth--is a serious underestimate.

What is the competitive position that Rosyth will face? As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said--he has most successfully made the point--Devonport will still be in a position to compete for the unallocated surface work. Due to the overheads which Devonport will be able to carry on a range of activities, the price that it submits will inevitably be lower than that of any other shipyard or dockyard. The chances are that its tender price will become the prevailing price which Rosyth will be expected to meet for the allocated work. That will place Rosyth at an unfair disadvantage to Devonport in a competitive market.

Dr. Godman : The fate that the hon. Gentleman is spelling out for Rosyth is precisely the fate suffered by the employees of Scott Lithgow. At the time the then Mr. George Younger made all sorts of promises, but there was no way in which Scott Lithgow could compete with Vickers of Barrow-in- Furness in terms of submarine building. That sent Scott Lithgow down the Clyde.

Mr. Salmond : The hon. Gentleman's point is well made. In an interview in The Herald yesteday, Mr. Alan Smith said : "If they get the submarines, they will be strong enough to do us down Yes, they will be in a position to knock us for six, fighting vigorously to get the surface ships as well. It would spell the beginning of the end for Rosyth."

Rosyth will face unfair competition over the unallocated sections of the surface work, which will affect the prevailing price even of the allocated section. It comes ill from the Secretary of State for Defence to claim the benefits of competition for the nuclear refit when his announcement this afternoon ends such competition. What guarantees were given by Lord Younger in his statement in The Times earlier this month? Once again the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East put his finger on it when he pointed out that the Secretary of State for Defence was reduced to partially quoting the man who was his predecessor as the Secretary of State for Scotland. The context of the letter makes quite clear the extent of the breach of faith that Lord Younger was fearful of--he campaigned and sold nuclear bases to Scotland on the argument that the refitting work would come to Rosyth. Clearly that is a substantial breach of faith.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Column 525

Mr. Salmond : I shall let the hon. Gentleman intervene later in my speech if he has a little patience.

However the extent of bad faith went further than that. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) quoted what Lord Younger said in the "Scottish Lobby" programme broadcast on 19 June and pointed out that Lord Younger had already anticipated exactly the solution that was announced and defended by the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Defence this afternoon, and said that it would be inadequate and would not guarantee the future of Rosyth.

Later in the same interview in "Scottish Lobby", he was asked whether it was just a personal breach of faith, a personal commitment that he made in the mid 1980s when he had responsibility, or whether he interpreted it as a breach of faith by the entire Government. The interviewer said :

"So it seemed then a terrible breach of faith--I mean you yourself have talked about the concern that you personally would feel about this. But it would be a terrible breach of faith by the government wouldn't it?"

The answer from Lord Younger was :

"Well, I think it would. If you take it we were persuaded in Scotland that there were the jobs and we therefore agreed to go along with all the other bits of it. I think to let it be fixed up in Scotland and then take away some of the jobs is something you should only do with a very very overwhelmingly good reason".

Perhaps Lord Younger found his overwhelmingly good reason when the Secretary of State for Scotland phoned him up earlier today and said, "I am in the most incredible political fix. I cannot persuade my Cabinet colleagues, but can I rely on you to keep quiet and pretend that the breach of faith is not as extensive as you have indicated in your letter in The Times ?"

It was a breach of faith by the Government and not just by Lord Younger. That is why it is incredible that the Secretary of State for Scotland should be heralding his announcement as an extraordinary victory for his lobbying power in Parliament. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to intervene now because I am about to deal with the point that I am sure he is going to make.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson : The hon. Gentleman is talking about guarantees and allocations. What guarantees could he give the people of Rosyth on the basis of the first paragraph of his own party's defence manifesto which said :

"The SNP is committed to a non-nuclear Scotland. An independent Scotland will immediately withdraw from the UK's Trident programme and will order nuclear weapons and installations off our soil. There will be no place for scandalously expensive, impractical and ultimately useless nuclear weapons."?

What guarantee could the hon. Gentleman give the people of Rosyth when that was his manifesto?

Mr. Salmond : I thank the hon. Gentleman for that free publicity for the Scottish National party manifesto. I was coming to exactly that point.

Rosyth in an independent Scottish context would be a non-nuclear first-line base. An independent Scotland-- [Interruption.] Believe it or not, Denmark, which is a similar maritime country to Scotland, has naval bases and dockyards. The difference between Rosyth in a British context and a Scottish context is that in a Scottish context it now is the No. 1 nuclear base and dockyard on the east

Column 526

coast of Scotland whereas in a British context it is a second division, B-league base and is now subject to a very uncertain future indeed.

Mr. Home Robertson : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salmond : If the hon. Gentleman cares to examine the budget proposals that we put forward for an independent Scotland, he will see that, because of the distortion and concentration of defence expenditure in the south and south-west of England, it is possible to reduce the overall defence budget in Scotland and still maintain around the current expenditure on procurement because Scotland lost out so badly in the last United Kingdom defence budget.

Turning to the point I was about to make on the general election campaign, the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), the then Secretary of State for Defence, was arguing with me in a radio interview. "Where would Rosyth be," said the right hon. Gentleman, "if it were not able to bid and compete for nuclear refitting work in an independent have a guaranteed future in an independent Scotland. What there surely should be agreement on tonight is that there is no guaranteed future for Rosyth in a British context. So next time we hear Conservative and Labour politicians arguing in general election campaigns in Scotland that the only way to secure the future of defence bases in Scotland is to maintain the union it will get the horse laugh from the Scottish people that it richly deserves after this afternoon's betrayal.

In conclusion, the Secretary of State for Defence said earlier today that he will find--

Mr. Home Robertson : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salmond : The hon. Gentleman has heard me say that I am not giving way, so perhaps he will resume his seat.

The Secretary of State for Defence told us earlier this afternoon that there would be an amicable solution to the question of whether the rotting nuclear hulks would be left at Rosyth or exported down south. The only amicable solution to that question is that these nuclear hulks should be removed immediately because no one in Scotland will accept a future for Rosyth as an elephants graveyard for nuclear submarines.

8.36 pm

Miss Emma Nicholson (Torridge and Devon, West) : Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me a few moments in this valuable Adjournment debate. I claim a right to two or three minutes on behalf of my constituents who provide perhaps 15 per cent. of the work force of Devonport dockyard. May I say how wonderful it is that we have won the contract on merit. The quality of the work in Devon is superb and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) who represents the constituency next to mine has pointed out, there is no question but that the best dockyard has won the contract. Of course it must be very difficult to have lost and perhaps that is why the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), in whose constituency the Devonport dockyard resides, is not in the Chamber and

Column 527

has not spoken. The reason is that he is in direct conflict with his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Labour Front Bench. Winning must be a somewhat bitter pill for him, just as the debate tonight is a bitter pill for Liberal Democrat Members, who have said such different things in the west country from the public pronouncements of their defence spokesman tonight and yesterday.

I should like to thank the Secretary of State for Defence on behalf of my constituents in Bere Alston, Bere Ferrows, Were Quay and the Yelverton area, who provide such a high proportion of the work force in the Devonport dockyard. I should also like to thank the Secretary of State for Defence on behalf of those at the Appledore shipyard in the northern part of my constituency who also assist in the repair work at the dockyard, and to whom other work is sometimes given. We have a fine sea-going and shipbuilding tradition, as hon. Members with whom we have been linked in Scotland know, and I want to make it clear it gives me no pleasure or happiness to learn of the unhappiness at Rosyth. It is sad when one cannot win everything. But it is not a case of winner takes all, because the Secretary of State for Defence has managed such an equitable division with only 450 job losses in Rosyth. That is remarkable. Many months ago, a trades union leader from Rosyth told me that he was expecting at least 2,000 or 3, 000 over the next four years. Now a Conservative Secretary of State has managed to prove him wrong, and I for one rejoice in that. This was a wonderful decision by the Secretary of State. On behalf of my constituents who work in Devonport I want to pay tribute to every west country Conservative colleague, regardless of whether he or she had a direct involvement. They have all banded together and fought for this superb decision.

I extend my good wishes to Rosyth ; I am delighted that only 450 job losses are forecast and that a full programme of work lies ahead for that magnificent yard.

8.39 pm

Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton) : The guilty man is the Secretary of State for Scotland. Throughout the 1980s, we had nothing but promises, promises, promises, but where have those promises led us? Between 1980 and 1993, promises were freely made every year. I remind the House of the promise in 1984 given by the Minister responsible for the armed services, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) :

"I should like to take this opportunity to announce that we have now settled where the refitting of the Trident submarines will be carried out ; it will be at Rosyth."--[ Official Report, 29 November 1984 ; Vol. 68, c. 1122.]

The former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), said, as reported in The Herald on 10 December 1985 :

"Commercial management of the Royal Dockyards offers the prospect of attracting even more work than there is at present, and it is the Government's intention to push ahead with this advancement. There is a brighter future for Rosyth."

The right hon. Gentleman should tell that to the workers of Rosyth and of Scotland on this day.

Rosyth has been betrayed--a fact of which I was clearly reminded when I received a phone call on Monday morning from the press to tell me that there had been a full nuclear alert on Sunday at the Faslane nuclear base. We

Column 528

were reminded of the consequences of having such bases in our constituencies. There is a price to be paid--a certain tension in the air. We have to live with those consequences.

At my surgery a couple of weeks ago, someone who works at the base came to tell me that he had leukaemia. I do not for a minute say that the base is responsible, but health and safety issues in a nuclear environment have to be faced by those of us who represent areas such as Faslane. If we bear such responsibilities, surely we should also have the benefits of the maintenance of Trident. This simple argument has been put to me and my fellow Members time and again.

As for the strategic considerations, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) pointed out, Rosyth is but a gentle two- hour drive from Faslane. On strategic grounds alone, therefore, the nuclear submarine refitting should be located at Rosyth.

I keep in regular touch with the workers at the base. Many of them tell me that they might prefer not to be working there, but it is at least a job : it keeps body and soul together. It keeps families intact. This decision, therefore, is taking effect against a background of the employment black spots in our constituencies. Rosyth will become an employment black hole after this.

In his short and eloquent speech, the Secretary of State talked about Rosyth but did not mention jobs or training. The defence industries are being run down, and we will lose jobs. In Coulport, a total of 800 jobs have been and are being lost. This is a continuing problem, yet the Secretary of State made no mention of alternative employment possibilities or of arms conversion possibly providing other jobs. The Government have simply failed to tackle that--a severe omission.

Rosyth trains half the engineering apprentices in Scotland ; in other words, it provides the skills base for Scotland. People gain a fine training and in Faslane, whose apprentices I also know. This whole skills base is to be lost as a result of the loss of Rosyth, and the Government have nothing to offer us--

Mr. George Kynoch (Kincardine and Deeside) rose

Mr. McFall : The Government have trumpeted the idea that competition prevails, although there is surely also a strategic dimension. In a letter to The Times on 11 June, the Earl of Perth said that, by giving the work to Devonport, we are putting all our eggs in one basket, and that makes no strategic sense. Competition alone will not serve the primary strategic interest.

As for the Navy's own preference, I believe that a number of dirty tricks have been played. It is claimed that the Navy prefers Devonport, but I spoke to senior naval ratings only a few weeks ago in my constituency. They described the differences, as they saw them, between the south of England, with its urban chaos, and Scotland, with its free open spaces and cleaner environment--much better to live in, in short. Hon. Members should not believe the stories about the Navy wanting Devonport. Dirty tricks have been played in this campaign.

One of the dirtiest tricks was the sleazy remark of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who sidled up to the Dispatch Box earlier. He has been mute on this issue all day, but he is the one who should resign. He claims that, in a covert conversation that cannot be corroborated, Lord Younger agreed with the Government's decision today. Let us remind ourselves what Lord Younger said :

Column 529

"One of the most powerful arguments deployed is that there would be many jobs for Scotland associated with operating and maintaining submarines."

Translated, that means that the submarines are operated from Faslane ; the maintenance of the submarines is undertaken at Rosyth. Lord Younger cannot go back on those words. They hang like a millstone around his neck and around the neck of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

The message of today's exercise is : never trust a Tory. A Tory promise is a broken promise, and it causes heartbreak for thousands of people in Scotland. That is the message of this despicable exercise. The Secretary of State for Scotland should be ashamed of himself for his lack of spunk. He should remove himself immediately from the Cabinet.

8.48 pm

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge) : Coming as I do from the west country, I too welcome today's decision. It was the longest, most sustained campaign in which I have ever been involved. In it, we put to the Government the position that seemed to me from the outset militarily and economically right and in every way unanswerable. But one can take nothing for granted in this life, and it was clear that political considerations might have impinged on the Government to make them, as some thought, turn their face away from what they would otherwise have done. I never thought for a moment that that was likely. I am sure that the Government have been greatly aided in coming to their conclusions by the sustained support of Conservative Members who had carefully considered the problem, and who believed that this option was military and economically right, and right for the west country.

The last thing that I would want to do on such an occasion is meddle in other people's grief. If I represented Rosyth, I too would be disappointed. I assure Opposition Members that I will not meddle in their grief--except perhaps to mention that there is something faintly ludicrous about a party which has for so long espoused the unilateralist cause, a party in which so many members once trumpeted their membership of CND, now queuing up to call for the maintenance of nuclear weapons in nuclear-free zones. It is bizarre.

However, I will give them this much credit : at least they were prepared to engage in bare-faced, brazen cheek with a straight face. Coming as I do from the west country, I know beyond doubt that no one in the west country ever thought that a Labour Government would safeguard their position in regard to defence ; no one looks to a Labour Government to support them in that regard.

If people do not look to a Labour Government for the defence of their country, they perhaps believe--in a misguided way--that the Liberal Democrats can be entrusted with it, and that they are sound when it comes to the maintenance of Trident. In assessing that view--even before the "Today" programme yesterday, with which I shall deal shortly--they might just have wanted to consider the record. Liberal Democrat Members told people in the west country that they too were doing all they could to ensure that the Tories did not backslide on their commitments to Devonport.

As long ago as 1983, the right hon. Members for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) and for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) appeared on a CND platform in Hyde Park. The right hon. Member for Yeovil said :

Column 530

"Let us be clear this country does not need Cruise, and NATO does not need Cruise."

Just a year later, he featured in a CND launch in the Morning Star , along with the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), who was then the parliamentary Labour CND chairman, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang). The occasion was a CND campaign against Trident, which the three declared to be an £11 billion white elephant.

Just to make his position clear, the right hon. Member for Yeovil described Trident as

"a monstrous folly which we should divest ourselves of as soon as possible".

In 1988, when asked in the context of his own election campaign for the leadership of his party, "What about Trident then, Paddy ?", he replied :

"No ! For Polaris at the last election, read Trident at the next". Let me bring the House right up to date--although there is never anything really up to date about the Liberal Democrats. Anyone who has ever tried to canvass in a road after a Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate hes from house to house. It is a case of "What do you want to hear ? What would you like us to promise ? We will promise it to you."

Only two years ago--for the Liberal Democrats, that is a very long time-- they drew up a policy document entitled "Reshaping Europe". It was produced in 1990. It stated :

"Last year, we called for a gradual reduction in spending as a proportion of national wealth'. In the changed circumstances of today we propose a bolder objective. We call for a reduction of at least 50 per cent. in real terms in UK defence expenditure, phased in over the remainder of the century' ".

It went on to explain those proposals, just in case people could not understand. It stated that its proposals envisaged

" reductions in the size of the army from 160,000 to 73,000 and in the Royal Navy of around half of its present size (to 24 frigates, 13 attack submarines and 2 aircraft carriers)' "

and just for good measure,

"the RAF being cut by 12 from the present 31 combat aircraft squadrons'."

The idea that a party that could propose such a programme and policy would be capable of throwing its weight meaningfully behind a proper option for Trident is ludicrous ; but, understandably, people can be beguiled. In recent weeks, in the west country, the Liberal Democrats made the same point time and again, particularly in the council elections. It would be almost incredible, were it not true. They said that the Tories were a bit soft on Trident, and were not putting their back into the campaign. They were saying that that last push to give the Trident contract to Devonport needed Liberal Democrat support--as the rope supports the hanging man, I suppose.

Mr. Menzies Campbell : Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) and the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie)--who came to a press conference last week and told the people assembled there that the Trident contract would definitely go to Rosyth-- did what they were entitled to do, and exercised their right to campaign on behalf of constituency interests?

Next Section

Home Page