| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): Against that background, and given the Secretary of State's statement about stability and underspend, may I take it that in no circumstances will the national air traffic service be sold, which would have a direct effect on service control? Presumably the matter has been discussed in considerable detail with the heads of the Royal Air Force.
Mr. Portillo: The service's future has been a matter of discussion and I am not in a position to make a statement about it today.
Mr. Rhodri Morgan (Cardiff, West): Shortly before the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), the Secretary of State mentioned world-class equipment for our armed forces. Will he comment on the F3 Tornado that crashed just off Blackpool beach on the first day of the Labour party conference? Is he able to confirm that it was the pre-certification trial flight of the first of the 14 aircraft that have been damaged by defective contractor work carried out by Airwork Ltd. at RAF St. Athan? Three of 17 aircraft have already been written off. If the damage to the aircraft that crashed at Blackpool was so serious, does that mean that the other 14 aircraft will be written off? How does that square with the Government's willingness and desire to provide world-class equipment for our armed forces?
Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman is getting rather carried away. The aircraft was being flown by British Aerospace. A consequence of that is that any investigation comes, I believe, under the Department of Transport and not under the Ministry of Defence. However, the investigation must be properly conducted. It does no one a service to rush to conclusions.
The aircraft was one that had been serviced badly by another contractor, but British Aerospace would not take up into the air any aircraft unless it was satisfied that it
was airworthy. The hon. Gentleman is leaping to conclusions. I am not sure what vendetta he is trying to conduct.
The House had already risen for the summer recess when the Government announced in another place three important decisions on missiles and aircraft. Each led to large orders for British companies. I am grateful for the support from hon. Members which the decisions attracted.
British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce won their bid to build Nimrod 2000 as the new maritime patrol aircraft. To be able to detect and hunt the new generations of stealthy submarine is essential to a maritime power like Britain.
We chose Storm Shadow, the air-launched cruise missile from British Aerospace, for the RAF, and Brimstone from GEC will meet our requirement for an air-launched anti-armour weapon.
These orders total nearly £4 billion and directly sustain about 5,000 jobs. The people whose livelihoods depend on them will view with dismay the motions submitted to the Labour party conference calling for defence cuts, and the motion on today's Order Paper calling for cuts and the abandonment of the nuclear deterrent, which has been signed by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), the hon. Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and the other usual suspects.
The Labour leadership responds predictably by pandering to its left wing. The Labour leadership offers our forces the bleak prospect of a defence review. There is no need for one. We have made the adjustment to the end of the cold war. Our smaller forces reflect that. But one cannot take a peace dividend more than once.
Labour's refusal to commit to anything more than a defence review makes the defence community highly suspicious. Labour is committed to spending increases in a number of policy areas about which its Back Benchers feel passionately. However, it is perfectly clear that Labour Back Benchers do not care about defence at all. Indeed, many want it cut. Defence would be a soft touch for a Labour Government and easy pickings for a Labour Chancellor.
Dr. John Gilbert (Dudley, East):
The Secretary of State speaks for a Government who have unilaterally deprived this country of all its sub-strategic nuclear capability without negotiating any comparable reductions by possible hostile powers. Will he confirm that the conventionally armed stand-off missile is capable of being fitted with a nuclear warhead--which, I believe, is what the French intend to do? Were it to be fitted, would we retain any aircraft capable of using it in such a role?
Mr. Portillo:
The right hon. Gentleman is incorrect: we have not given up our sub-strategic capability. Indeed, we have deployed the Trident submarine fleet with a sub-strategic capability. We shall stop using the WE177 free-fall bomb for that purpose in the near future. Cruise missiles could carry a range of warheads, but the British Government do not intend to equip our cruise missiles with nuclear warheads.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North):
As the Secretary of State has at last got round to the issue of nuclear weapons, will he tell us for what purpose this country wishes to retain such weapons, given the danger
Mr. Portillo:
A Government with less resolve than the present one would take any opportunity to disarm the country. Under this Government, the country does not want to take that opportunity. The Government will maintain nuclear weapons because we need to maintain a deterrent that keeps this country safe. Nuclear weapons have not been uninvented in the rest of the world; indeed, they are proliferating and being developed by other states. I do not propose that this country should stand naked before such a threat to its security and survival.
Would Labour commit itself to beginning production of the Eurofighter, which is so much wanted by the Royal Air Force? I have made it clear that the British Government are ready to proceed. We are working with our partners, trusting that they, too, will be ready to move to the next stage. If it is to have good export prospects, the aircraft needs to be produced without further delay. If collaborative projects are to offer European nations a competitive alternative to buying American, we need to improve markedly on our performance to date.
Part of the answer for the future may be industrial restructuring in Europe. There are important opportunities for British companies, a number of which are in pole position. The Government have made clear their willingness to offer political support to mergers or joint ventures that make industrial sense, enhance the world competitiveness of industry and safeguard indigenous capabilities required for the effective support of our armed forces.
Part of my duty as Secretary of State is to ensure that the defence budget is spent in ways that maximise value for money in the front line and its support. The House debated thoroughly the question of the sale of the married quarters estate--
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough and Horncastle):
On the subject of the Eurofighter, is not it ironic that that example of European co-operation--perhaps one of the greatest examples of such co-operation in recent history--is being endangered by the Maastricht convergence criteria, which have put pressure on the German budget?
Mr. Portillo:
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point.
Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East):
The Secretary of State will be aware that John Weston of British Aerospace foresees the creation of a single European defence company by the end of the decade as the only means of withstanding the weight force of the United States mega merged companies. In his Farnborough
Mr. Portillo:
Collaboration in Europe serves two purposes. The first is to provide competition against American products in the short term. In the longer term, America and Europe will face strong competition from the far east. In both instances, European industry must strengthen itself to face the competitive challenges that lie ahead. [Interruption.]I am sorry, did I miss the hon. Gentleman's point?
Mr. Anderson:
The point that I made was that in Farnborough the Deputy Prime Minister appeared to endorse the move towards a single European defence company by the end of the decade. Was he speaking with the concurrence of the Secretary of State for Defence?
Mr. Portillo:
The point that I made--which I make again and rest on--was that the Government want to give political support to changes in Europe that are industrially driven. Industrial logic should dictate the formation of industries in Europe, not political diktat. Clearly, we are in for a period of change.
Mr. Bill Walker (North Tayside)
rose--
Mr. Portillo:
I shall give way, but I am beginning to abuse the time of the House.
Mr. Walker:
Would not Rolls-Royce find it difficult to be merely a European company?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |