| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Jobs
8. Mr. Batiste: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many jobs are provided in the United Kingdom by the defence industry. [22312]
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): The most recent figures available are for 1993-94, when an estimated 395,000 UK jobs depended on defence expenditure. About 80 per cent. of these--315,000--were sustained by my Department's spending, on both equipment and non-equipment items; the other 20 per cent.--80,000--depended on defence exports.
Mr. Batiste: Has my hon. Friend had a communication from Bill Morris, the leader of the Transport and General Workers Union, which sponsors the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor and which--[Hon. Members: "Withdraw."]--and which at its conference called for an £18 billion cut in Government defence spending? Can my hon. Friend confirm that if such a cut
were made, not only would there be no defence procurement budget, but there would be no armed forces at all?
Mr. Arbuthnot: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has, indeed, had such a letter, which has caused us some surprise. The proposal would reduce the level of our defence forces to some sort of volunteer militia. It would mean that we were spending £122 per head on our armed forces, which is less than half the amount spent in Luxembourg. We were surprised to receive the letter. The fact that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is sponsored by the trade union that put the proposal forward--[Hon. Members: "No."] Perhaps the union has abandoned his sponsorship. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman is sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union suggests that the proposal is firm Labour party policy.
Mr. Barry Jones: Will the Minister safeguard jobs and create more in the defence industry by going forward with the future large aircraft project? What is the status of the project now that the French have indicated that they may not go forward? Will he receive my deputation in his office later this month to discuss the project? Does he know that my constituents wish to make the wings of the future large airbus and that they have a very good track record in making the wings of the airbus itself?
Mr. Arbuthnot: The hon. Gentleman will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about the future large aircraft. The fact that France has withdrawn funding for its development phase throws the project into some jeopardy. As always, I should be delighted to receive a deputation from the hon. Gentleman--I have received more deputations from him than from any other hon. Member.
Mr. Atkins: Does my hon. Friend recognise the importance of Saudi Arabian exports to our defence industry? Does he think it helpful to British trade abroad and major contracts, such as those with which British Aerospace and others that employ many thousands of my constituents and those of other hon. Members, are involved, when programmes such as "Panorama" are made, which merely make life difficult for people who are trying to do business in the interests of the British economy and British jobs?
Mr. Arbuthnot: My right hon. Friend is right. Saudi Arabia has been and remains a very close friend of this country and we should bear that in mind in all that we do. We should recognise the importance of the defence industry for jobs, industry and the strength of our exports.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: Does the Minister acknowledge the paramount importance to Scotland of Rosyth in terms of defence and defence-related employment? Given the coverage in the Scottish media today about the likely decision to use Devonport for Trident refitting, will he comment on the great concern that is being expressed in Scotland, not least the view of local trade unions that the decision that the MOD appears to have taken will cost the taxpayer £100 million more? Is that the case and does he recognise that the feeling that there has been a sell-out in Scotland is running high?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I shall be announcing, in answer to a written question later this afternoon, that we have decided
to place the nuclear refitting at Devonport, but that decision was announced initially in 1993. The comparison between the comparator prices that were put forward in 1993 and today is not a real one because different levels of risk and other matters were included in the prices. I confirm that Rosyth will benefit from the allocation of a large proportion of work share in refitting ships, including aircraft carriers. That will be valuable for Rosyth in particular and for Scotland in general.
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Is my hon. Friend aware how important our defence industries are to employment, investment and manufacturing capacity, not least at Royal Ordnance at Radway Green in my constituency? In awarding the contract for 81 mm mortars shortly, will he bear it in mind that some competing countries do not open their tendering systems to Royal Ordnance? Is he aware of the success in gaining orders in overseas markets against tough competition which has reduced the costs of production to the MOD? For those and many other reasons, will my hon. Friend undertake to think British and buy British?
Mr. Arbuthnot: Perhaps I was unfair to my hon. Friend in saying that I had had more deputations from the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) than from any other hon. Member because she has been assiduous in backing her constituents on this matter as on others. I cannot say that we will always buy British. We will buy what gives us best value for money. About 90 per cent. of our money is spent on buying British weapons--not because we go out of our way to buy British, but because British industry produces the best weapons. That is partly because of the strength of British industry and partly because the MOD has insisted on value for money and competition. That has done much to strengthen British industry and make it the success that it is.
Dr. David Clark: The Minister's reckless attacks on the Labour party's defence policies show how bankrupt of ideas the Government have become. He knows full well that the Transport and General Workers Union policy is not the policy of the Labour party. At our party conference, we specifically rejected such a move or such cuts.
I have a specific question about the defence workers in the royal dockyards. Will the Minister give the House a categorical assurance that no moneys from the dock workers' pension funds will be used in the privatisation of the royal dockyards?
Mr. Arbuthnot:
So it is not the policy of the Labour party. When was it then, that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield signed an advertisement calling for the banning of nuclear weapons from British territory? When was it that, six years in a row, the Labour party passed a resolution demanding that this country reduce spending to the European average? I find it incredible that the hon. Gentleman, who himself calls for a defence diversification agency, thinks that we misrepresent the Labour party's policy. The idea of a defence diversification agency suggests that the Labour party feels that it is better able to tell industry what to do than industry itself. Labour Members, instead of being failed university lecturers,
Mr. Bill Walker:
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why we have so many jobs in the defence industry is that the United Kingdom armed forces are not only extensively involved in peacekeeping operations but are training constantly for high-intensity situations, such as proper wars? [Laughter.] There is a big difference, and those who have been involved in proper wars know that difference. Will my hon. Friend confirm that such training includes low flying, which is an essential part of high-intensity operations, and that many of the jobs at Prestwick depend on such operations?
Mr. Arbuthnot:
My hon. Friend is correct; with his experience of flying, that is the least that I would expect of him. It is true that our armed forces provide much support to the industry of this country. One thing that we comment on too little in the House is the quality and support provided by the Red Arrows. What they have done in support of British policy and the British image abroad is nothing short of fantastic. We should praise them more often, and I do so now.
9. Mr. Jim Cunningham:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research his Department has conducted into the failure rates of self-destruct land mines. [22314]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
My Department carried out a study of the reliability of timers associated with self-destruct mechanisms for mines in November 1995.
Mr. Cunningham:
Is the Minister aware that from Vietnam to Bosnia many innocent people have been maimed or killed by such mines? When will he agree with the Labour party and introduce a ban on their export? Is he further aware that in Coventry on Saturday many Church leaders of all denominations were collecting signatures for a petition to the Minister to introduce such a ban?
Mr. Arbuthnot:
The hon. Gentleman is right about the hazard that anti-personnel mines pose to civilians, and that is a matter that greatly concerns the Government. That is why we are playing a leading role in the United Nations weapons convention to ensure that anti-personnel mines will in future incorporate devices to ensure that they self-destruct and are detectable. We believe that that proposal is likely to come into effect and be enforceable. We do not want to make pious requests that we know will not be acted upon; we want to achieve a genuine increase in safety for civilians, and that is what we are fighting for.
Mr. Robathan:
My hon. Friend will know that the United Kingdom has an honourable record in its dealings with anti-personnel mines, and I am sure that he will speak about that. It is unfortunate that some Opposition Members use the issue as a stick with which to beat the Government. However, will my hon. Friend acknowledge that, if it were possible, a complete ban on the manufacture of anti-personnel mines would be welcome?
Mr. Arbuthnot:
My hon. Friend correctly used the phrase "if it were possible". We know that several countries would simply not agree to a complete ban on anti-personnel mines. We want to avoid a situation in which some countries agree to banning anti-personnel mines and some countries do not so that many anti-personnel mines are still lying around and posing a danger to civilians. We recognise that there are severe dangers to civilians, which is why we are going for a ban on mines that do not self-destruct and that cannot be detected. We think that such a ban is very important, and that is what we are aiming for.
Dr. David Clark:
Does not the Minister follow the logic of his case that some countries will not accept only self-destruct mines? Further, does he not appreciate that there is much dispute about the failure rate of self-destruct anti-personnel mines? Will he join the Labour party--[Interruption.]--in supporting a call for a ban on the import, export and transfer of all anti-personnel mines, self-destruct or otherwise, and their component parts?
Mr. Arbuthnot:
I shall not join the Labour party, Madam Speaker. We believe that a failure rate that is better than one in 1,000 is achievable. We have recently acquired some mines that have been investigated by the United States army, which has suggested that the risk of those mines posing any danger after 200 days is less than one in a million. So the chances of those mines becoming a danger to civilians have been very much reduced.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |