House of Commons
Tuesday 11 June 1996
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
DEFENCE
Procurement Projects
1. Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with European partners about defence procurement projects. [30882]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo): British Ministers frequently discuss collaboration and defence projects with Ministers in Europe and, indeed, the rest of the world.
Mr. Congdon: Given the importance of the defence industry to the British economy, does my right hon. Friend agree that collaboration with our European partners on defence projects can lead to economies of scale and larger markets? Does he also agree, however, that we must not forget the strategic importance of our relationship with the United States, and that any decisions on defence procurement should therefore be based on cost-effectiveness?
Mr. Portillo: I agree with both parts of my hon. Friend's proposition. The fact is that, if the United States produces weapons for its own market, it may have a production run 10 times as long as any single European state can have. Therefore, getting together to agree our specifications and requirements in Europe offers great benefit, but to cut ourselves off from the United States, which has a technological edge in many of these areas, would of course be absurd. Therefore, our policy should be to achieve a balance between collaboration in Europe and collaboration with the United States. Of course, value for money and the effectiveness of the product for our services should also be important considerations.
Mr. Spellar: We note once again that the criteria that the Secretary of State just outlined, ignored the key question of the maintenance of Britain's defence industrial base. Will he now assure us that it will be a key priority in procurement decisions?
Mr. Portillo: I am astonished by the ignorance of the hon. Gentleman, who is meant to follow these matters. I made a speech in Paris last week in which I made it clear that it was one of the very important criteria for the United Kingdom that we should maintain a British industrial base. However, I am concerned about what we
heard in the debate on the Royal Air Force last week, when we heard from the Labour party about its intention to shut off exports of defence products from this country. That would be extremely damaging to jobs in this country and would also make procurement from British industry much more expensive. The time has come for Labour to say just how it intends to restrict our exports of defence products so that people may know how many jobs will be lost and where they will be lost.
Mr. Mans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that collaborating with our European partners means that we can maintain our research and development base but that it should not mean the creation of a European armaments agency run from Brussels, which would be of no use whatever to this country?
Mr. Portillo: Clearly, there is a need for getting together with other countries in Europe to see what agreement we can reach on specifications. For some time, a group has been working within the Western European Union--that is the appropriate place for it to be, not the European Union--to see whether we can bring 13 countries together. There is a bilateral effort involving the French and Germans, which we are now joining, to see whether, between those three big players in Europe, we can reach some accord on specifications. That is the right way to proceed, but if my hon. Friend is saying that there is not a role in this for the European Community, the European Commission, the European Parliament or the European Court of Justice, I entirely agree with him.
Redundancies
2. Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for further compulsory redundancies in the armed services; and if he will list the numbers in each service to be made redundant in each of the next three years. [30883]
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): No further redundancies are planned beyond those already announced.
Mr. O'Brien: Does the Minister recall that the 1992 Conservative party manifesto said that cuts of 27 per cent. would devastate our conventional forces? How does he reconcile that analysis with the fact that, through progressive salami slicing that has undermined morale, his Government have cut the armed forces by more than one third?
Mr. Soames: I know that it might have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice, but since that time the cold war has ended, the Berlin wall has come down, the Warsaw pact has gone home and we are operating in a totally changed and entirely different strategic environment. To suggest that the services could have remained still and unchanged against such a background is idle folly. May I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party is presently proposing to take £4.5 billion out of the defence budget, a conference decision that is binding on the Labour party?
Mr. Trotter: Is not the strength of our forces based on our spending more than the European average on defence? Would not the cut of £4,000 million a year that was
approved by the Labour party at its conference and is supported by many Opposition Members lead to a great reduction in the strength and capability of our forces and many redundancies, not only in the services but in the industry that supports them?
Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend makes a devastating case on his own account. He is absolutely right. Such a move would be deeply damaging, not only to Britain's strategic and commercial interests, but to the very fibre and backbone of the nation. Our armed forces are a golden asset for the United Kingdom. The Conservative party has looked after them well and will continue to do so.
Industrial Participation
3. Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's policy towards industrial participation. [30885]
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): Where we invite bids that involve significant overseas work, we routinely invite bidders to offer proposals that would provide equivalent work in the United Kingdom. That helps to ensure that similar defence work is available to United Kingdom companies.
Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister confirm that, under the Conservative Government, no fewer than 345,000 skilled workers have lost their jobs? Does he accept too that the Government's hands-off approach to Britain's defence industry needs have betrayed those thousands of workers who served Britain so well for many years?
Mr. Arbuthnot: Far from it. Our defence industry is going from strength to strength and we take something like 19 per cent. of the world export market. We are second only to the United States. It is second only to our best ever achievement in the world. That is a pretty good achievement for British industry.
Sir Michael Shersby: Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to look at another variety of industrial participation--participation by civil aviation interests in a military aerodrome, Royal Air Force Northolt, which has a special place in the armed services? Will he give me a robust assurance that RAF Northolt will remain a military aerodrome and not become a feeder-reliever airport for Heathrow, as was proposed by the Select Committee on Transport?
Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend will no doubt have read the remarks by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces in the RAF debate last Thursday. RAF Northolt is already a heavily used military base and it would be difficult for it to take very much more.
Ships (Construction Programme)
4. Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the construction programme of ships to replace HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. [30886]
Mr. Arbuthnot: asked for tenders for the replacement of HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid and contract negotiations with VSEL continue. The timing of any order is subject to the satisfactory outcome of those negotiations. We hope to conclude them shortly.
Mr. Viggers: Does my hon. Friend agree that we can take enormous pride in the manner in which we have re-equipped our armed forces in recent years? Every member of the armed forces must give thanks every day that we have not had a Labour Government, because they would have raped the procurement programme in their search for a peace dividend. Does that success not make it even more surprising that there have been delays in the acquisition of replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid? What is the latest date by which a contract must be agreed in order for those vessels to enter service by the planned date of 2001?
Mr. Arbuthnot: I do not want to give my hon. Friend the latest date for which he asked, because I do not wish to tie my hands in negotiations. However, I hope that he will agree that, as we have the youngest Navy since the second world war, we have indeed equipped our Navy very well, as my hon. Friend said in the opening part of his question. I hope that he will also have listened very carefully to the way in which I phrased my earlier answer, because I gave him news that I have never before given: we hope to conclude the negotiations shortly.
Mr. Hutton: Although I welcome any progress in the placing of orders for those vital ships for the Royal Navy, does the Minister agree that the procurement contract has been subject to extensive and totally unacceptable delays, which have not only compromised the Royal Navy's amphibious capability but threatened many jobs in Britain's shipbuilding industry?
Mr. Arbuthnot: No. What would threaten jobs in British industry would be the cutting of £4 billion from the defence budget. We have managed to maintain a very young Navy. In the negotiations over the landing platform dock replacement, we have also been achieving a good deal for the Ministry of Defence, the taxpayer and the company involved, since we are improving its management practices at the same time. We hope to conclude the negotiations shortly. This country's amphibious capability is not in doubt. I need point only to the recent launch of HMS Ocean and all the extensive capability that that implies to prove exactly that.
Mr. Peter Griffiths: Does my hon. Friend agree that the difficulty of maintaining HMS Fearless during the recent operation in the Atlantic shows the urgency of the need for a replacement, but more importantly, that the Government accept the need for two replacements for two ships? That is the important issue.
Mr. Arbuthnot: I am sorry to say that I do not agree with my hon. Friend that there was a great difficulty in maintaining HMS Fearless during the Purple Star exercise. She performed extremely well. There was a highly successful amphibious off-load from her, which was one of the highlights of the exercise. She remained operational throughout and is now leading an amphibious
task force in the Caribbean. She is doing very well and is in a better material state than she has been for very many years.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |