| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Procurement Budget
10. Mrs. Lait: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the defence procurement budget is spent on equipment designed to military specification; and what scope there is to reduce this percentage. [22315]
Mr. Arbuthnot: To deliver the battle-winning equipment our forces need in demanding environments we have to prescribe certain military standards and specifications in our contracts. We aim to make maximum use of civil standards.
Mrs. Lait: Is my hon. Friend aware that many commercial specifications are now more reliable and are available at less cost than are military specifications? Is he further aware that the US Secretary of Defence recently issued a directive instructing US forces to use commercial specifications whenever possible? When will we follow in those footsteps?
Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right. The US has about 31,000 military specifications, and it is working to reduce that number. However, we have made significant strides in that direction ourselves, and we have fewer than 2,000 military specifications. We are working to reduce
the number of our military specifications, and we are doing so at a higher rate than the United States. My hon. Friend is right that we want to rely heavily on civil and commercial standards whenever possible.
Mr. Jamieson: Is the Minister aware that much of the defence procurement budget is spent in my constituency on repairing vital military equipment? So when he makes his statement today about the award of the Trident contract, will he also make a statement about the privatisation of Devonport dockyard and end the deeply damaging delay?
Defence Spending
11. Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on existing military capability of reducing United Kingdom defence spending to the European average. [22316]
Mr. Arbuthnot: Reducing defence spending to the current NATO European average would involve cuts of more than £4.5 billion per year, which is about half of our entire procurement budget. That would clearly have a devastating effect on the capability of our armed forces.
Mr. Butler: This is clearly a very serious situation. Is the Minister telling the House that if such cuts were to be made--which, in the absence of any subsequent declaration from it, I understand to be Labour party policy--we would not be able to carry out either our international commitments or the defence of the realm?
Mr. Arbuthnot: Well, yes, but it is worse than that because of the letter that we have received from the Transport and General Workers Union--[Hon. Members: "Ah!"]--about which the Labour party seems to be rather uncomfortable. That letter echoes Labour party policy that has been passed at party conference, after party conference, after party conference. It means that we must consider the precise effect of cutting £18,000 million from our defence spending. Even if we simply reduced our level of spending to the European average--at least 42 Labour Members have signed a motion calling for that, and we know that that is the fundamental view of most of the Opposition--the programmes on the attack helicopter, the European fighter and the future frigate would be put in jeopardy. If we followed the policy set out by the TGWU, we would, as I have already said, be reduced to acting like traffic wardens.
Mr. Skinner: May I just remind the Minister of what I have told him before--it is getting very wearisome--that the Labour party conference passes resolutions to cut defence expenditure and the Tory Government carry them out?
Mr. Arbuthnot: The fact remains that the hon. Gentleman agrees with the demands of the Labour party conference to cut defence expenditure. He probably agrees with the TGWU that defence expenditure should be cut by £18 billion, because he does not believe in defence. In that respect, he is representative of the Labour party because one cannot trust Labour on defence.
Mr. Key: If we were to cut defence spending to the European average, would there be a severe cut in the number of jobs in the civilian support industries, such as the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency? That prospect would be far more frightening to the agency and its work force in my constituency than any proposal for possible privatisation, which could establish it as a world leader.
Mr. Arbuthnot: Yes. We would probably have to get rid of all research on defence and as a result we would have to buy equipment off the shelf. We would have to do that at the cheapest possible cost, which would almost certainly mean buying equipment from the United States of America--in fact, all our equipment would have to come from abroad. That would mean that the benefits to the defence industry from exports would be lost. In 1994, we won 15 per cent. of the world defence export market, but that was not good enough, because in 1995 that figure went up to 19 per cent. That success shows the strength of British industry today, and that strength would be lost if we were to cut spending on defence as the Labour party advocates.
Land Mines
12. Mr. Touhig: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's estimate of the number of anti-personnel land mines in Bosnia. [22317]
Mr. Soames: IFOR estimates that up to 5 million land mines, including anti-personnel mines, may have been laid in Bosnia.
Mr. Touhig: Given the appalling risks that face our troops in Bosnia as a result of the indiscriminate use of millions of land mines, is the Minister aware that General Shalikashvili, the chairman of American joint chiefs of staff, has said that he is inclined to eliminate all anti-personnel mines? Does the hon. Gentleman share his view?
Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement made the view of the Government plain just now, but it is worth drawing to the attention of the House that such mines are a serious matter and that our troops are in some danger from them. The House should know that members of the Royal Engineers, greatly to their credit, have played an extraordinary, gallant and successful role in helping to de-mine Bosnia. They have played an important role in teaching about mine awareness in schools. Where it is able to do so, all of IFOR makes a vital contribution towards trying to return Bosnia to some form of normality.
Mr. Brazier: As well as the excellent measures that my hon. Friend has just outlined, can he also confirm that our noble Friend Lady Chalker set aside money last year to assist programmes for mine clearance in a number of countries, including Bosnia? Does my hon. Friend also agree that we could contribute towards the long-term curbing of the dreadful problem in Bosnia and elsewhere by promoting research into more revolutionary methods to detect and clear mines, because we are still basically working with war time technologies?
Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend has made an important and valid point. I confirm that my noble Friend Baroness Chalker has laid aside such money. I warmly endorse and agree with his suggestion about research into land mines, and he can rest assured that we are playing a leading role in trying to bring this forward. He, with his expertise, has a valued role in keeping us up to the mark, and we shall be grateful to hear from him if he has any other ideas to this end.
Mrs. Mahon: Is it not obscene to carry on supporting the manufacture of land mines when the Overseas Development Administration spends millions of pounds on land mine clearance and in helping amputees? Do the Minister and the Government feel any shame whatsoever when they see the limbless victims of this dreadful policy?
Mr. Soames: The hon. Lady almost certainly is not aware that anti-personnel mines have not been exported from this country for many years. The United Kingdom, like many other countries, considers mines, including anti-personnel mines, to be legitimate defence weapons when used responsibly and in accordance with the laws of war. Our armed forces have and need these weapons--without them, they would be less effective. It is plain that the hon. Lady is right: it is not something that we wish to prolong for any longer than we need to do so. We are working, together with everyone else, to try to bring an end to this regime--but we will not do so unilaterally.
Maritime Patrol Aircraft
13. Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the procurement of replacement maritime patrol aircraft. [22318]
Mr. Arbuthnot: We are currently assessing bids for a replacement for the RAF's maritime patrol aircraft and we expect to award a contract in the late summer.
Mr. Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that only the Orion 2000 team is putting forward a brand new aircraft as part of its package? Will he also accept that the majority of the goods, products and services purchased with this particular project will come from the United Kingdom, including the majority of the technology from GEC Marconi and Hunting Aviation, which will do a great deal of the work, manufacture and assembly--and which includes the important firm of Baxter, Woodhouse and Taylor from Poynton in my constituency, which employs almost 400 people? Will he ensure that Britain gets value for money not only in respect of technology but in respect of employment and manufacturing?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I have wronged my hon. Friend--he, too, is assiduous in fighting for his constituency interests, always has been and always will be. I do not want to anticipate the competition that we are running at the moment. I am delighted to say that there is a high United Kingdom content in all three of the aircraft that we are being offered for the replacement maritime patrol aircraft. I had the great benefit of going out with a Nimrod aircraft last week and seeing some of the excellent work that the maritime patrols do, both in anti-submarine warfare and
in the search and rescue operations in the area of RAF Kinloss. That is a valuable team, which will continue to do very good work for the RAF and for the country.
Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister has referred to Nimrod. Does he accept that the refurbishing of Nimrod, as proposed by British Aerospace and Short Bombadier, would be a better bid than the Orion?
Mr. Arbuthnot: Again, I do not wish to anticipate the competition--however, it is delightful to see the battle fought out on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that what is most important is that the RAF gets the aircraft it wants, within the confines of the expenditure necessary to do so? In this context, will he ensure that, in relation to the aircraft that he picks, the full-life costs will be taken into account as well as the initial purchasing price?
Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is right to attach importance to the full-life costs of the aircraft. We shall take into account all the factors that we usually take into account in considering this competition. I am pleased to say that the Royal Air Force has been very closely consulted about this procurement, so I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his extremely helpful remarks.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |