| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Lost Medals
8. Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy in reissuing lost medals for ex-service men. [12034]
Mr. Soames: Where evidence of genuine loss is produced, replacement medals can be supplied. Replacements are charged at cost.
Mrs. Gorman: Will my hon. Friend accept the grateful thanks of my constituent, Mr. Edwin Rymer, who lost his war medals but was able to regain them, although at a cost of £70--almost a week's pension? Will he also accept that Mr. Rymer and his generation of war heroes would be absolutely devastated if the freedom to run our country for which they fought were ever to be lost? Would not a Labour Government hand over that freedom lock, stock and barrel to Europe?
Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend does well to highlight again Labour's imperfect understanding of defence matters. I am grateful for her tribute to the work done by the medals office of the Ministry of Defence. We realise how distressing it is when treasured medals are lost or stolen. Claims for replacement take some time to process, as it is important that they are properly verified. As the years go past, such requests will increase, and we must make sure that they are properly satisfied by having an effective and efficient operation in place. As for her question about the Labour party, defence and Europe, the least said the better.
Mr. Foulkes: Will the Minister consider issuing medals to the service men who advised against the route of the gas pipeline across Beaufort's dyke? Will the Government examine the route of the proposed electricity interconnector with the same degree of care--
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is abusing Question Time. He stood to ask a supplementary question on the subject of Beaufort's dyke, but was not called. He now seeks to ask his question, but he will not do so.
F16 Aircraft
9. Mr. Pope: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his American counterpart concerning leasing American F16 aircraft. [12035]
Mr. Portillo: The question was discussed briefly during a meeting with him in October last year.
Mr. Pope: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the plan to lease American F16 aircraft was the brainchild of David Hart? Will he further confirm that the plan is bitterly opposed by the chief of the RAF, Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon? Does he agree that to proceed with the F16 will be a kick in the teeth for Lancashire aerospace workers who are working on the Eurofighter?
Mr. Portillo: I do not agree with any of that. It is a perfectly simple matter of ensuring that the United Kingdom has the best equipment for its defence. In deciding whether to upgrade the Tornado F3, it is necessary for us to make a comparison with the other courses that we might follow, which include leasing the F16.
If the hon. Gentleman is trying to tell me that, if the Labour party were in power it would not compare one option with another to get the best solution for the country, he would serve the country even less well than I had imagined.
Mr. John Greenway:
Will my right hon. Friend go a little further and confirm the Government's absolute commitment to the Eurofighter project? In the long run, will that not give the RAF the multi-role aircraft that it needs for the future?
Mr. Portillo:
Yes, my hon. Friend is right. The Government have on many occasions made clear their commitment to Eurofighter, and I am pleased to do so again today. Thanks to the good work of my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, that project now has the green light. This discussion about the F3 and F16 is about how we fill the gap for that capability between now and the day that we have the Eurofighter. I am pleased to say that the latter will be an excellent aircraft for the RAF.
Dr. David Clark:
Does the Secretary of State recall grumbling to his American counterpart just two weeks ago that Britain had placed defence orders worth more than £5 billion with the United States and arguing that it ought to reciprocate with some orders for British defence equipment? In the light of that grumbling, will he drop his obsession with this one-way deal to lease F16s, which will cost thousands of British jobs and be very expensive, as we shall have to adapt the refuelling arrangements and the aircraft will require new support systems?
Mr. Portillo:
I went to Washington not to grumble, but to represent my country and to say that we demand a two-way street in defence procurement. It is true that, last year, we placed orders worth £5 billion with the United States and, therefore, we look to that country to buy defence equipment from us. I am pleased to say that it is buying at the rate of about £800 million a year, and I want to see more of that. The hon. Gentleman is the Opposition defence spokesman and he wants to hold my job. He cannot be so irresponsible as to say that, if he were in my position, he would not compare one project with another. If he is saying that, there will be no value for money and no way of ensuring that Britain has the defences that she requires.
10. Sir Roger Moate:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the export potential of United Kingdom defence industries; and if he will make a statement. [12036]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
British defence equipment manufacturers continue to enjoy success in the export market. In 1995, they won contracts worth about £5 billion. That achievement makes us the second largest exporter in the world.
Sir Roger Moate:
Can my hon. Friend give any estimate of how many hundreds of thousands of jobs are dependent on our defence industries? Is it not the case that, if ever the Labour party were in a position to carry
Mr. Arbuthnot:
My hon. Friend is right. Around 400,000 jobs throughout the United Kingdom depend on the defence industry. If we were to reduce spending on defence by £4.5 billion every year, it would be devastating to the British defence industry. That is why it is plain to the British people that we cannot trust Labour on defence, or even on industry for that matter.
Mr. MacShane:
Is the Minister aware of the large export potential for British arms in Europe, both in the European Union and the wider continent? Does he find helpful the continuing public hostility of the Secretary of State to European integration and co-operation? Does he find helpful the speech that the Minister of State made in Munich last week, in which he invited Germany, in effect, to re-arm? The last person to say in Munich, "Deutschland Erwache!" which means "Germany Arise, Germany Awake!", caused some little trouble in Europe. Is it not the case that, while we have a Defence Department that is so hostile to European integration and co-operation, the future for Britain's defence industry is poor indeed?
Mr. Arbuthnot:
That question was total, unmitigated drivel. When British defence exports have risen from 15 per cent. of world market share in 1994 to 19 per cent. in 1995, we should feel proud of what the country has done and realise that that shows the strength of British industry and the support of the British Government and the armed forces. We should talk about, for example, the Red Arrows' recent tour, which was a fantastic aerial display. They are excellent ambassadors for British industry. For the hon. Gentleman to come up with a question such as that is pathetic.
Mr. Mans:
Given the importance of the arms industry to the north-west, when my hon. Friend next speaks to his American counterpart, will he ensure that there is fairness in the export of arms to eastern Europe and that certain statements made by the Americans to the effect that eastern European countries will be more likely to be able to join NATO if they buy American combat planes are stopped?
Mr. Arbuthnot:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have some sympathy with what he says because whether countries join NATO does not depend on their buying high-tech US equipment. That is something that they need to be well aware of before they make their decisions
11. Mr. Dalyell:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will evaluate the "Time Watch" programme on prisoners from the Korean war, a transcript of which has been sent to his Department; and if he will update the evidence produced by his Department during the meeting between a Minister of his Department and the hon. Member for Linlithgow on this subject. [12037]
Mr. Soames:
I have great sympathy for the families of service men who remain unaccounted for following the
Mr. Dalyell:
As it now seems not entirely inconceivable--I put it no higher--that national service contemporaries of mine in the Royal Armoured Corps could still be in remote Russian camps after 45 years, and as Russia is becoming more free, will the Government follow up any possibility that there are British people, all these years after the Korean and Vietnam wars, still in those camps?
Mr. Soames:
I wholly understand and applaud the hon. Gentleman's honourable concern and sympathy for those who still remain unaccounted for. His words will, I am sure, have been recognised by those families that are affected. As he knows, most careful and detailed investigations were carried out by successive Governments and Administrations to resolve the cases of service men unaccounted for. No evidence has been found of any British service men being detained, but I assure him that we will, and are, taking advantage of greater openness in Russia. My Department has in recent years carried out detailed research and exchanged information with US and Russian experts to see whether any evidence could be found. No new evidence has emerged. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to work hard where any leads emerge.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |