House of Commons
Tuesday 29 October 1996
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
WAYS AND MEANS
Sessional Returns
Ordered,
Returns for Session 1994-95 of--
(1) Business of the House;
29 Oct 1996 : Column 440
(2) Closure of Debate and Allocation of Time;
(3) Private Bills and Private Business;
(4) Public Bills;
(5) Sittings of the House;
(6) Special Procedure Orders;
(7) Standing Committees; and
(8) Select Committees
in the same terms as the Orders made on 14th December 1994; and
(9) Delegated Legislation and Deregulation Proposals, &c., showing:--
(A) the numbers of Instruments subject to the different forms of parliamentary procedure and those for which no parliamentary procedure is prescribed by statute (1) laid before the House; and (2) considered by the Joint Committee and Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, respectively, pursuant to their orders of reference, setting out the grounds on which Instruments may be drawn to the special attention of the House under Standing Order No. 124 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) and specifying the number of Instruments so reported under each of these grounds;
(B) the numbers of Instruments subject to parliamentary procedure, other than draft deregulation orders, considered by the House and by Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation, respectively, showing in each case the numbers subject to affirmative and to negative procedure; and
(C) the numbers of deregulation proposals and draft orders, showing for deregulation proposals the numbers in respect of which the Deregulation Committee recommended that a draft order in the same terms should be laid before the House, that the proposals should be amended, and that the order-making power should not be used, respectively; and for draft orders the number in respect of which the Deregulation Committee recommended that the draft order should be approved, and whether or not the recommendation was agreed upon Division, and those which the Committee recommended should not be approved, respectively, and in each case, the decision of the House.--[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
Oral Answers to Questions
DEFENCE
Merchant Ships
1. Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on defence requirements in respect of British merchant ships. [348]
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): The defence need for merchant shipping is kept under regular review as part of normal planning.
Mr. O'Brien: I find the Minister's response disappointing and depressing. Does he agree with the British Chamber of Shipping which has said that Great Britain could not deploy its forces at the moment, because our merchant fleet is not available and we have to rely on overseas shipping? The policies of the Conservative Government have attacked the British merchant fleet bitterly. Will the Minister press the Government to give support to the development of the British merchant fleet so that we do not have to rely on foreign ships?
Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman, whose heart is in the right place, is a little out of date. Clearly, it matters that we have proper arrangements to be able to transport our crews and equipment where needed. The hon. Gentleman suggests that there is not enough shipping and, in 1991 during the Gulf war, of the 142 ships that were chartered only eight were United Kingdom flagged. That was because the Government believed that it was better to charter the necessary shipping at the Baltic exchange at the most competitive rate. The cold war requirements are now no longer the same and we do not need the major convoy tasks that used to be appropriate. Shipping is not always the only option. The Government have taken many steps to reinvigorate the shipping sector and it would be a problem were we not to take a close interest in it.
Tomahawk Missiles
2. Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the current position on the procurement of Tomahawk cruise missiles. [349]
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot): An order was placed on 16 October 1995 for 65 conventionally armed Tomahawk cruise missiles with the United States Department of Defence. Production is proceeding to plan, to an in-service date of 1998.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend's statement demonstrates that our armed forces are the best equipped in the world. Would not defence industry jobs be jeopardised by a future Labour Government who would not have the same level of procurement?
Mr. Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend talks about the painful consequences of electing a Labour Government, and the
hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) referred last week in a debate to the painful consequences of the defence review that he would like to introduce. What was he talking about? Was he talking about the painful consequences of reducing our commitments worldwide and thus abandoning our global role? Was he talking about the painful consequences of slashing the armed forces or of cutting our defence equipment budget or the simple painful consequence of the instability caused by a Labour Government? I think that we should be told.Trade Balance
3. Mr. Donald Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the current trade balance between Britain and the United States in defence products. [350]
Mr. Arbuthnot: The balance of trade remains at around two to one in favour of the United States. That figure is based on the latest five-year average of bilateral defence trade.
Mr. Anderson: Can the Minister confirm that the current unsatisfactory imbalance of two to one will worsen unless the European defence industry can restructure to meet the challenge of the mega-merged US giants? In that context, will he tell the House whether the Ministry will continue to block the merger of the defence interests of British Aerospace and GEC?
Mr. Arbuthnot: Nobody has asked us whether we would approve a merger of GEC and British Aerospace. The important issue is that we do well in trade with the United States, which is our second largest defence export market. We have had major successes in the United States. Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace sell about £600 million-worth of equipment a year in relation to the T45 and AV-8B programmes. There is a refuelling programme which Cobham pursues, with £150 million- worth of equipment supplied.
We need an effective two-way street with the United States, as my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have argued on many occasions over the years. We have some good prospects for selling into the United States. The ASRAAM--the advanced short-range air-to-air missile--is a good candidate for such a sale. It is low risk and cost- effective, and would be an early solution to one of the requirements of the United States.
Mr. Bill Walker:
Will my hon. Friend remind those who are critical of our collaboration with the United States on defence matters that probably the finest piston- engined fighter aircraft that came out of the second world war was British and American? It had a British Rolls-Royce engine and an American airframe: the Mustang. Without question, subsequent collaboration--especially between Rolls-Royce and the United States--has produced some real winners, as with British Aerospace.
Mr. Arbuthnot:
My hon. Friend is right. With his experience of flying, I hardly need to add to his comments. We should also bear in mind the importance of the European dimension. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) made a good point, which
Mr. Menzies Campbell:
Does not the balance of trade in defence products between Great Britain and any other country, including the United States, depend on the enforcement of Government policy towards that country? The Government have a policy prohibiting trade in defence products with Argentina. Has Rolls-Royce sold engine parts for use in Argentine naval warships?
Mr. Arbuthnot:
My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made a precise announcement on that last week, and I have nothing to add.
5. Mr. Gunnell:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's assessment of the present number of anti-personnel land mines in Bosnia. [352]
Mr. Soames:
IFOR estimates that up to 5 million mines, including anti-personnel land mines, may have been laid in Bosnia.
Mr. Gunnell:
Given that our troops are daily facing hazards from those millions of mines, is it not inappropriate for the Minister and his Department to speak of modernising our stocks of such weapons? In view of the dangers that the mines pose not only to our troops but to civilians, we should not import, export or use those weapons at all. Should we not seek an international moratorium on their use, so that anti-personnel land mines can be cleared from areas where civilised people live?
Mr. Soames:
I can safely say that we are doing all that the hon. Gentleman suggests. We are not exporting land mines; we are seeking an agreement to abandon their use. No one in the House would disagree with the hon. Gentleman's comments, although we might express them in a slightly more relevant way, by saying that we need to balance the humanitarian concern posed by the indiscriminate use of anti-personnel mines with a continuing military requirement.
The House will wish to pay tribute to the young men and women in Bosnia who are engaged in this extraordinarily dangerous and vital aspect of reconstruction, which makes service in Bosnia, as the hon. Gentleman said, especially hazardous. The House will wish to know that all our troops undergo comprehensive mine awareness training before they go. We deplore any injuries caused by these wicked weapons.
Sir Jim Lester:
The indiscriminate use of land mines in civil wars in Cambodia, Vietnam and many other parts of the world has caused great concern and is largely responsible for the pressure to ban them. Will my hon. Friend confirm that Britain has played no part in exporting or supplying land mines to these countries?
Mr. Soames:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has extensive knowledge of these matters. As he knows, the Government have committed more than £21 million to mine clearance projects around the world since 1991. I know that he will agree that unilateral renunciation by the United Kingdom would not reduce the dangers to civilians. To be effective, any international agreement to ban anti-personnel mines must include these countries of real concern.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |