1. Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham): What recent contacts he has had with his opposite number in Russia to discuss issues of European security. [90196]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson): I have recently written to Marshal Sergeyev, the Russian Defence Minister, to reinforce a long-standing invitation to visit the United Kingdom. I very much hope that we will soon be able to discuss European security issues face to face. Meanwhile, NATO and Russian troops co-operate closely in Kosovo.
Mr. MacShane: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Russia was, is, and will be a great European power, so we need the warmest of relationships with that country; that we must continue ministerial and military contacts with our opposite numbers in Russia at the highest level, to build that relationship; and that, over the long term, we must find a way of building Russia into the European security architecture? The Government can deliver that, unlike the Conservatives, with their puerile hostility to anything to do with Europe, who have absolutely no locus standi in the matter. That was not Russian, by the way.
Mr. Robertson: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's interpretation. I agree that it is important to build Russia into the crucial future relationships in our continent. Contacts at the highest level may be temporarily on the wane, but I hope that they will shortly recover. Thanks to your initiative, Madam Speaker, we had the International Affairs Committee of the Russian Duma here, and its members visited me at the Ministry of Defence. The Duma's Veterans Committee visited my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, and I met Mr. Vladimir Lukin, Chairman of the Russian Duma's International Affairs Committee, when he attended the opening of the Scottish Parliament on 1 July. All those contacts are invaluable, as indeed are the initiatives for which we have been responsible.
Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey): I want to tempt the Secretary of State still further on the amalgamation of the
Western European Union with the European Union. If such a policy proceeds, where does that leave Russia as a member of Partnership for Peace, with its association with NATO; where does it leave the 28 associate members of the Western European Union that are not full members of the EU or members of NATO; and where does it leave the four neutral countries--Austria, Sweden, Finland and Ireland--whose neutrality, which they are determined to preserve, will be forfeit if the WEU is amalgamated into the EU? What is the Government's clear policy?
Mr. Robertson: We are not talking about amalgamation. The EU, through a strengthened common foreign and security policy, will be better suited to the present climate if it has a better military capability that allows it to take effective decisions with a military connection. That may mean that the WEU's political elements are brought more within the orbit of the EU. In the military sphere, NATO will retain primacy, and the military elements of the WEU might well find a home within the European security and defence identity of NATO, but we have made it absolutely clear that there will be no discrimination against those powers that are part and parcel of the European security family. Finding a place for the EU powers that are not in NATO and for the NATO powers that are not in the EU, and dealing with Russia, will be among the bigger challenges facing us in the future as Europe comes to terms with the challenges ahead.
2. Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East): What area of land will become available for development in consequence of the sale of the Shoeburyness barracks and the reorganisation of the New Ranges in Shoeburyness. [90197]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): The whole of the Old Ranges and Horseshoe barracks, Shoeburyness, including Gunners park, will be sold later this year. The joint planning brief approved by Southend-on-Sea borough council is not specific in terms of areas to be allocated for development.
The Defence Evaluation and Research Agency has let its new partnership contract for the New Ranges to SERCO Ltd. Under the contract, both parties will work together to identify and introduce new businesses that can co-exist with the continuing range activities. We do not currently anticipate releasing any of the existing estate as part of the process.
Sir Teddy Taylor:
As the land available for development will be substantial and there will be a dramatic effect on the community in Shoeburyness, will the Minister do what he can to ensure that the local community is kept advised of developments? In particular, will he consider making it a condition of the sale of the barracks and of the contract with SERCO for the New Ranges that there should be full public consultation and possibly public meetings, simply to let the community know what is planned and what is likely to happen?
Mr. Spellar:
We certainly want to ensure community participation. That is precisely why we have had
3. Mr. Paul Flynn (Newport, West): What is his current estimate of the total United Kingdom contribution to the Eurofighter project; and what was the estimate when the project was first commissioned. [90198]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar): The UK's estimated share of the procurement cost for Eurofighter at the start of development in 1988 amounted to £13.5 billion at current prices, and the present estimate is £16.1 billion, also at current prices.
Mr. Flynn: Does my hon. Friend recall that the Select Committee on Defence said that the Government's control of large projects was financially weak in every respect? The overspend on the Eurofighter project alone amounted to £1.5 billion in January--half the total overspend on large projects of £3 billion--and now my hon. Friend has identified a further overspend on it of £3 billion. The project has been successful as a job creation programme, but the aeroplane might be only as successful in operation as the Apache helicopters were in Kosovo.
Is not it time to reconsider the project? Given that the new German Government appear to be having second thoughts about it, will my hon. Friend live up to his statement, made in the booklet "Modernising Defence", that every pound should count? Will he apply the same financial control to the Eurofighter project as he does to smaller projects? Will he assure the House that, if Germany pulls out of the project, Britain will not take on any additional financial share, and that no commitment will be made to building any more than the 232 fighters already commissioned?
Mr. Spellar:
First, my hon. Friend should not believe every report in the newspapers, not least because Germany has a production contract. We believe that Eurofighter is the aircraft best suited to our needs, in terms both of cost and operational effectiveness.
Secondly, with regard to the increasing costs, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the National Audit Office report on major projects. It stated:
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood):
The conflicts in the Falklands, Iraq and the Balkans have demonstrated that air superiority is the crucial determinant of success in modern warfare. Will the Minister confirm that the Royal Air Force will still procure 232 Eurofighters, and that there will be no degradation of the
Mr. Spellar:
I can certainly confirm the orders that we have placed. Also, we consider that the Eurofighter will be a major addition to the capability of the Air Force. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are at present holding a competition to ensure that our Eurofighters--and those of our partner nations--have the most effective equipment and weapons systems.
Mr. David Borrow (South Ribble):
Is my hon. Friend aware that, at the general election, the Conservative party stated that a Labour Government would not go ahead with ordering the Eurofighter? Is it not a tribute to the fact that the Government keep their promises that the order has gone ahead?
Does my hon. Friend recognise that 14,000 jobs will depend on the order, and that the Royal Air Force is satisfied with the aircraft's capability and is convinced that it is needed by the UK military?
Mr. Spellar:
I thank my hon. Friend, and congratulate him on his hard work for those of his constituents who work for British Aerospace. I recall the scare stories put about at the time of the election, and the sterling work undertaken shortly after we came to power by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to ensure that the Eurofighter contract was signed. Production work is now proceeding satisfactorily: when the aircraft is in service, it will provide a welcome addition to the Air Force's capability.
Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South):
Will the Minister give the Eurofighter's in-service date? In view of the German Government's obvious wobble with regard to the Eurofighter project, what does he suggest would be the minimum number of aircraft that need to be built to maintain the programme's viability?
The Horizon project has been cancelled already, thus ending the joint frigate initiative. The state of the Eurofighter project casts further doubt on whether there really is a European commitment to defence, and puts all the eggs back into the basket that is the American defence industry. Does the Minister agree that Secretary-General Solana should be given the resources to carry out a comprehensive, Europe-wide defence review to determine the respective commitments of Britain and Europe to NATO in the future?
Mr. Spellar:
I find that question extraordinary. We expect the project to be delivered to the Royal Air Force in mid-2002. In spite of earlier difficulties, the project is working well. There have been serious expressions of interest from Norway and Greece, and a major platform is being developed in European countries. The project is a success of European collaboration, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman's attitude is so negative.
We must consider how best to achieve the cost benefits of collaboration in defence procurement, and how to act consistently with the principles of smart procurement. That is the route to success on a European defence initiative, both in policy and military terms, and for the European defence industry. That is why we signed the
statement of intent, and why we are progressing sensible programmes, such as the pan-European programme. We are also considering how to draw on work already done in order to advance further successful programmes, as with the type 45.
Mr. Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South):
Given that senior politicians in Germany have expressed doubt over their future participation in the Eurofighter project, does the Minister believe that tomorrow's launch by the UK and Italian Governments of a bid to speed up creation of a pan-European defence force is a touch premature? Does he accept that, unless there are firm commitments for increased expenditure by our European partners, plans for European defence co-operation will be ineffective and meaningless because we will still have to rely on American assets for our operations?
Mr. Spellar:
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman wants the Eurofighter project to succeed or fail. We want it to succeed, and that is why the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and others made such intense efforts to ensure that the production contract went ahead. We believe that matters are moving well, and we have had no indication from the German Government of any change to the contract that they have signed. The European security and defence initiative is vital to Britain and Europe playing their parts in an effective NATO alliance, and it is welcomed both here and in the United States.
"Most of the costs escalation is not new, having occurred in the earlier stages of the development programme, and the cost escalation has slowed as the development programme has matured."
With smart procurement, that trend will continue.
Next Section
| Index | Home Page |