| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Military Equipment
5. Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will review the suitability of private contractors to repair and maintain military equipment. [814]
Mr. Arbuthnot: No. Military equipment is manufactured by private contractors and private contractors are perfectly capable of repairing and maintaining it.
Mr. Griffiths: What is the final bill for the damage done by the private contractor Airwork Ltd. to the Tornado aircraft that it was supposed to repair? Was not the Government's decision to take that work away from dedicated and skilled RAF personnel and give it to a private contractor another example of the Government being penny wise and pound foolish?
Mr. Arbuthnot: The final bill is the matter of a claim and it would not be right for me to comment on the precise figure at this stage. It is true that we have learnt several lessons from the difficulties that have arisen over the repairs to the Tornado. The fact is that private contractors make defence equipment, and we think that it is a good idea for them to be closely involved in work which relates to defence equipment because they know very well how to do it.
Mr. John Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that the contractorisation provided by Hunting Engineering for the supply and maintenance of flight training aircraft has been extremely successful? Can he say when the contract for the extension of the joint elementary flight training scheme will be concluded? When does he expect to announce the outcome of his review into the replacement of Bulldog?
Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend and I are in correspondence about that issue. I congratulate him on once again standing up for his constituents, something that he does so well. I agree with all that he says about Hunting Engineering.
Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister accept that the damage done by private contractors to the 18 Tornado
aircraft at RAF St. Athan's will cost at least £120 million, and that about 4,000 hours of extra work will have to be carried out on each aircraft? Does he agree that such wasteful bungling raises basic queries about the Government's ability to manage some of our most vital defence capabilities, as well as giving us another example of how they have become wholly complacent in their financial management?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's figures. We have given many contractors work on defence equipment over many years. That always has been, and always will be, the case. They have the expertise, of which we need to make use. We have made hundreds of millions of pounds of savings by putting work out to private industry. That has benefited the Ministry of Defence in many different ways, such as defence procurement, repair of defence equipment and recruiting.
Western European Union
7. Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what aims the Government have for their presidency of the Western European Union. [816]
Mr. Portillo: We intend to concentrate our efforts during the United Kingdom presidency on ensuring that the WEU can fulfil its operational role more effectively as the European pillar of the transatlantic alliance.
Mrs. Gorman: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that Great Britain was a member of the WEU long before it joined the Common Market? Does he agree that other European countries, such as those in eastern Europe, should not be excluded from membership of the WEU just because they are not yet members of the EU?
Mr. Portillo: I agree that the WEU has a long and distinguished history and we believe that it also has an important future. I also agree that it should be willing to extend its membership to new applicants. It would be most unhelpful if the criteria for membership of the WEU and of the EU were made the same, because we do not want to place in the way of eastern and central European countries, which may be able to join a military alliance, economic barriers that they might not be able to cross.
Mr. Hardy: I do not dissent from the Secretary of State's view, but does he accept that, over recent months, he and his colleagues have devoted a great deal of energy to berating Labour Members who expressed concern that our defence burden is somewhat greater than that of our colleagues in Europe? During our presidency of the WEU, should not he and his colleagues ensure that our neighbours are persuaded to bear a greater share of the burden? If he does not achieve that, the presidency will be a disastrous failure.
Mr. Portillo: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I believe that we have not yet spent nearly enough time berating Labour Members--I intend to put that right in the months to come. On the question of burden sharing, he seems to be hinting at what we have been saying all afternoon, which is that the Labour party wishes to reduce the amount that this country spends to the European average. The fact is that this country has special and global responsibilities and we are not prepared to cut our defences in the way that Labour Members want.
Mr. Colvin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the principle of mutual security is as important to the WEU
as it already is to NATO, and therefore that no country should be admitted as a new member of the WEU until it is a full member of NATO?
Mr. Portillo: It is extremely important that we distinguish between, as it were, political clubs and military alliances. NATO and the WEU are military alliances. That means that countries that want to join have important responsibilities, which they must understand, and it means that we are prepared to give guarantees to those countries. They are solemn guarantees, and we must be very careful about how we give them. I believe that NATO and the WEU will expand in future, but they are important matters, which are worthy of careful thought. We must not proceed imprudently in any.
Gulf War Syndrome
8. Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his American counterpart concerning Gulf war syndrome. [817]
Mr. Soames: Senior medical officials from my Department frequently discuss the alleged Gulf war syndrome with their equivalents in the United States Department of Defense. I have also spoken to members of the United States Administration about it.
Ms Eagle: Why has the Minister not taken the same positive attitude to finding out the truth about Gulf war syndrome as his American counterparts? Given the searing criticisms of his Department in the recent Defence Select Committee report, which accused him and his Department of defensiveness and general torpor, will he now wake up and establish a full medical inquiry to establish the truth about Gulf war syndrome?
Mr. Soames: The hon. Lady is right to suggest that we were disappointed by the tone of the report of the Defence Select Committee. Clearly, the Government recognise that there were some people who went to serve in the Gulf who are no longer well. There is absolutely no evidence that any of those illnesses were caused by service in the Gulf, nor is there any evidence in this country, in France or in America that there is any such thing as a Gulf war syndrome.
Although the Defence Select Committee, in the most unreasonable fashion, accused my Department of suffering from torpor, the Royal College of Physicians gave a broad endorsement to our work in July 1995. It recommended that we should undertake some further work and research, which we are doing, and my Department retains an open mind about it. The hon. Lady is making mischief if she alleges in any way that there is any such thing as a Gulf war syndrome.
Mr. Robathan:
I am sure that everybody will welcome the further research and investigation into Gulf war syndrome. Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that a large number of the people who served in the Gulf--I should say the majority--and who took the unpleasant nerve agent tablets and who had the injections are highly sceptical about Gulf war syndrome and do not believe that it exists?
Mr. Soames:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and that is certainly the case. Only 700 people have claimed that they have been made ill by their service in the Gulf, only 350 of whom have come forward for
Royal Arsenal Site, Woolwich
9. Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the royal arsenal site at Woolwich. [818]
Mr. Soames: A development plan has recently been completed for the whole of the royal arsenal west site. That will form the basis of negotiations for the transfer of the site from my Department to English Partnerships. The east site was vacated recently and we hope to market the site next year, when investigations into the contamination are complete.
Mr. Austin-Walker: Does the Minister agree that the 75-acre site, which is derelict industrial land that once had 80,000 people employed on it, presents an unarguable case for a defence diversification strategy? Would he accept that the Royal Artillery Heritage museum is a project for the regeneration of that site, Woolwich and the Greenwich waterfront? Will he outline a timetable for reaching agreement with English Partnerships and for a start on the renovation of the 15 listed buildings on the site?
Mr. Soames: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has been a doughty champion of his constituency interest. It is an important site, with some extremely important buildings on it. I also agree that the Royal Artillery Heritage museum is--possibly--a worthwhile operation to have on that site. Other people are also interested in it. Negotiations for the transfer of the west site to English Partnerships are in train.
A master development plan for the whole area is, as the hon. Gentleman knows, being drawn up and will be finalised as soon as it can be, in consultation with the London borough of Greenwich. The hon. Gentleman may be assured that my Department will play its role to the full in achieving a satisfactory outcome in a very important matter for his constituency and the nation.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith:
Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many hundreds of thousands of gunners, including former gunners among hon. Members on both sides of the House, who have contributed millions of pounds to ensure that the site will be developed, not only in memory of the royal artillery as part of this country's heritage, but for very many other reasons which have been well advanced by the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker)? Will my hon. Friend look kindly on the fact that voluntary contributions are substantial and growing?
Mr. Soames:
My hon. Friend, as a former gunner, speaks with feeling, since Sir Martin Farndale has clearly already dipped his hand into my hon. Friend's pocket. He is quite right to say that many hundreds of thousands of former gunners, old comrades and present gunners, have generously donated money to the plan for the Royal
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |