House of Commons
Tuesday 11 February 1997
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
King's College London Bill [Lords] (By Order)
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time on Tuesday 18 February.
Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Tuesday 18 February.
2. Mrs. Anne Campbell:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors he takes into account when awarding major defence contracts. [13714]
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. James Arbuthnot):
My Department takes account of all relevant factors before awarding contracts, including financial, operational and industrial factors. Our aim is to secure best value for money in the long term.
Mrs. Campbell:
Does the award of the Royal Air Force TriStar maintenance contract, which went to a firm in the United Arab Emirates, result from the defence co-operation accord that the Secretary of State signed with the United Arab Emirates last year?
Sir Anthony Grant:
Although I am bitterly disappointed that the main contract went abroad, does my hon. Friend agree that it does no good to the work force of an excellent company such as Marshall, or anybody else, to spread doom and gloom? Is there, even at this stage, a hope that there may still be some chance of Marshall playing a part in the main contract?
Mr. Arbuthnot:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has approached the matter, which is in contrast to the approach of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). Marshall is a very good
Mr. Hutton:
Does the Minister consider it an important part of the Government's procurement policy to ensure the retention of an industrial capability to design and construct nuclear-powered submarines in this country? If he does, will he explain how he thinks their policy is being helped or hindered by the three-year delay in placing an order for the replacement of Trafalgar class submarines?
Mr. Arbuthnot:
It is of course necessary to negotiate the best possible price for the taxpayer for the batch 2 Trafalgar submarines, but I draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention the fact that, if it were not for a Conservative Government, we would not have any Trident submarines at all--and we certainly would not have the fourth Trident submarine that we have already ordered.
Sir John Cope:
Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government remain fully committed to the Eurofighter and its weapons systems? We know that Labour's defence review would lead to cuts--probably--in both the Eurofighter and its weapons systems, with disastrous consequences for British industry and jobs.
Mr. Arbuthnot:
My right hon. Friend is right. It is breathtaking that the Labour party appears to promise both stability and change in the same breath. It tries to be all things to all men. Unless it is able to say that it will exempt the Eurofighter from its pretended strategic review, we cannot be sure that the Eurofighter would not go the same way as the TSR2.
3. Mr. Mullin:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his counterpart in the United States about the cost, relevance and morality of nuclear weapons. [13715]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo):
Nuclear weapons have successfully deterred war in Europe for more than 50 years. That is their financial and moral justification.
Mr. Mullin:
Did the Secretary of State see the recent remarks by General Lee Butler, the former chief of US Strategic Command, who said that nuclear weapons were inherently dangerous, hugely expensive, militarily inefficient and morally indefensible? Did the Secretary of State also see the remarks of Sir Michael Atiyah, the former President of the Royal Society, who, in his farewell address 14 months ago, said that nuclear weapons were fundamentally misguided, a total waste of resources and a significant factor in our relative economic decline?
Does the Secretary of State think that history will show that those who were so keen on nuclear weapons will turn out to be the extremists and those of us who were against them may turn out to be the moderates?
Mr. Portillo:
I do not agree with the two interesting quotations that the hon. Gentleman just made, but if his
Mr. John Marshall:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is the true voice of the Labour party--a Labour party that has consistently called for defence cut after defence cut?
Mr. Portillo:
The hon. Gentleman is not only the true voice of the Labour party, but the courageous voice of the Labour party. He has tried to say today that there are many who agree with him. He need have no fear. After the next election, I am confident that the Labour party will revert to type, win or lose.
Mr. Menzies Campbell:
When the Secretary of State has the opportunity to meet the new United States Secretary of State of Defence, Mr. Cohen, will he discuss with him the significance of the remarks recently attributed to the Russian Defence Minister: that the Russian nuclear arsenal has become unmanageable and that there appears to be a loss of effective command and control? In those circumstances, is there not a need for a joint initiative on the part of the United Kingdom and the United States to endeavour to prevent rogue nuclear weapons from falling into the hands of terrorists?
Mr. Portillo:
That is a matter of great concern and interest to the international community. I am pleased to say that there has been the most intimate co-operation between the United Kingdom, the United States, the Russian Federation and others. I am frequently in touch with my Russian opposite number. Indeed, I have been in touch with him very recently. He has not raised with me any immediate concerns, but he knows that the international community is willing to do what it can to ensure that there is not proliferation in the very dangerous manner that the hon. and learned Gentleman just mentioned.
Mr. Bill Walker:
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot disinvent nuclear weapons, and that the real danger with the proliferation of surface-to-surface missiles is the fact that they can fall into the hands of very unstable regimes that are able to target most of Europe?
Mr. Portillo:
There are all sorts of new dangers in the new world that we now face. Nuclear deterrents will remain cost-effective and morally justified because they can avert nuclear or other war disaster. That is why I am so confident about the opinion that we have always held, and why, because it is common sense, we understand why 19 members of the Labour Front Bench have had to change what they say to come into line with common sense. Whether they have changed their minds is a matter that only they and God can know.
Mr. Llew Smith:
Will the Minister tell the House what are the total lifetime operational refit and
Mr. Portillo:
When the hon. Gentleman tackles the cost of nuclear weapons, he is on the very weakest part of the argument. I believe that the total cost of the nuclear programme will be about 2.5 per cent. of the defence budget over the life of the nuclear deterrent. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has confirmed my view that the opinions expressed in the main question are widespread in the Labour party, even today. I congratulate him, at least, on sticking to his convictions and opinions. Where are the other brave men and women who will rise and say that they have not changed their minds either?
4. Mr. Nigel Evans:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress he has made on the development of Eurofighter. [13716]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
We announced last September that we were ready to proceed to the production, production investment and support phases of the programme on a four-nation basis, and we very much hope that the other nations will soon be able to commit to those phases of the project.
Mr. Evans:
Does my hon. Friend agree that the European fighter aircraft is important to my constituency and to neighbouring constituencies, where thousands of workers are committed to the project, and that it will ensure that our young pilots in the Royal Air Force have the best aircraft possible into the next century?
Does my hon. Friend further agree that those who work on the project will have been surprised that, during last Thursday's debate on the RAF, when the Opposition had several opportunities to say that the project would not be part of any review that they would undertake if they formed the next Government, they did not do so? People remember the cancellation of the TSR2 project, which cost hundreds of jobs in the Preston area. Is this not a case of new Labour, but same old danger?
Mr. Arbuthnot:
My hon. Friend is completely right. The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) let the cat out of the bag in October when he said that a Labour defence review would have "painful consequences". We cannot assess what those consequences would be unless the Labour party is prepared to say that a project such as Eurofighter, which is vital to our defence and to our industrial capability, would be exempted from the review. My hon. Friend is right to mention the TSR2 debacle. Lancashire still remembers that Harold Wilson promised that the TSR2 jobs would be safe, and that, within a few months, they were axed.
Mr. Spellar:
Well, Madam Speaker, they are certainly at it again, are they not? In the past two Question Times and, as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said, in the debate on the Royal Air Force, Conservative Members raised the question of Eurofighter and got absolutely clear answers. We expressed our support for the project, but still they play silly political games. Do they not understand the consequences of those antics,
Mr. Arbuthnot:
I suspect, Madam Speaker, that I am not allowed to accuse the hon. Gentleman of breathtaking hypocrisy, so I shall not do it. I shall merely say that this Conservative Government are committed to the Eurofighter. The hon. Gentleman has refused time and again--he has done it again today--to say that it would not form part of a Labour defence review.
Mr. Dover:
When does my hon. Friend think that the Eurofighter will be ready for service?
Mr. Arbuthnot:
We expect to take possession of our first Eurofighter in 2001, as does Germany. Spain and Italy expect to take possession of their first Eurofighters the following year.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |