HC Deb 15 April 1975 vol 890 cc253-6
8. Mr. Golding

asked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from trade unionists concerning the cuts in defence expenditure.

Mr. Mason

I have received representations from a variety of trade unions which are understandably worried about the effects of the defence cuts on future job prospects for their members. In addition, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence has received delegations from trade unionists.

Mr. Golding

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the grave concern shown about the loss of jobs is shared by many on the Labour benches? Can he say whether any individual trade union has made representations to him in support of the cuts or in support of any intensification of them?

Mr. Mason

No trade union has come forward in support of the cuts. I can tell my hon. Friend that representations have been received from trade unions making the point that the cuts are excessive.

Mr. Younger

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the thousands of redundancies which he is declaring in his Defence White Paper are being compounded by the shambles of the Government's policy on arms sales? Does he realise that this is immensely important for job opportunities throughout the country? Is he further aware that neither our customers know what they can buy from us nor our firms know to whom they can export? Will the right hon. Gentleman come to the debate on the Defence White Paper and give a full statement on what he proposes to do about this?

Mr. Mason

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the Defence Sales Organisation and defence sales are not in a shambles. While he and some others may follow the glib, dramatic Press reports, the fact is that defence sales are doing extremely well. The organisation is this year selling abroad £560 million worth of equipment, equivalent to between 70,000 and 80,000 jobs. There are export orders well in excess of that figure in the pipeline.

Mr. Tim Renton

What about Libya and Iran?

Mr. Mason

The House might as well know about Libya and Iran. Colonel Dakhil, who is the official procurement officer of the Libyan Government, was informed at the end of February that we could not sell the Libyans submarines. The Minister from the Libyan Embassy was told at the Foreign Office on 3rd April that we could not allow that order. In the special circumstances of the time, the Libyan Government accepted it amicably and there are not strained relations between us. As for the stories about this, the House ought to be aware that a middleman, an entrepreneur, who has been frantically lobbying Members of the other place and Members of this House is not an official spokesman of the Libyan Government and has no right to speak on their behalf.

Mr. Wellbeloved

Is my right hon. Friend aware that successive defence reviews have had serious effects on the employment prospects of the people of South-East London? Is he further aware that the present defence review and the Government's dispersal policy cause great concern at Woolwich Arsenal and in Woolwich generally over the question of redundancies? Will he receive a deputation of Labour Members and trade unionists from the area to discuss the effect of the defence review on employment prospects?

Mr. Mason

I am always prepared to receive deputations from my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend knows that, apart from Service men and civilians employed by the Ministry of Defence, we estimated that 10,000 people in the defence industries would be affected, spread over a number of years. We thought that would be quite manageable and we gave the firms plenty of notice. Consequently there is time for proper planning, the exchange of jobs and the provision of alternative work.

Mr. Warren

Will the right hon. Gentleman declare the loss of an order worth £500 million to the Indian Government because his party refused to endorse the export of Jaguar aircraft to that country? Further, will he say why the Defence Sales Organisation has told Hawker Siddeley to stay out of Persia? Is it not true that tens of thousands of people in the aircraft industry and associated industries will lose their jobs next year because the right hon. Gentleman's party will not hear its own supporters?

Mr. Mason

That supplementary question does not arise from the original Question. Since I am the head of the Ministry of Defence Sales Organisation, I do not mind the hon. Gentleman asking the question. In some countries we have to recognise that there is the question of ECGD creditworthiness, the possibility of purchasing—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman mentioned India. Dealing with Iran, we are proving to be one of its major suppliers. We have vast defence sales there and they are growing.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing

Does the right hon. Gentleman join with the Scottish National Party in congratulating the Scottish TUC on its persistent and continuous stand against nuclear weapons, similar to the stand of my party? If the Minister has received any representations about this question from the STUC, may we take it that they relate not to nuclear but to conventional weapons?

Mr. Mason

The answer to the latter point is "No, Sir" It is interesting that the Scottish TUC is dragging the Scottish National Party along by its coat tails.

Mrs. Ewing

Answer the question.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Bennett, Question No. 9.

Mrs. Ewing

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

May we take the point of order at the end of Questions and not now?

Later —

Mrs. Ewing

Can you, Mr. Speaker, give advice to back benchers seeking to protect their right to hold Ministers accountable at Question Time? Earlier I asked a question which was relevant to Question No. 8. It related to representations which the Minister had received. I asked a simple, relevant and specific question: whether the STUC had made representations on a specific matter. I received no answer to that question. What protection can you offer me, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker

The position of the Chair is clear. I can comment neither on the hon. Lady's supplementary question nor on the Minister's reply. That is entirely a matter for the hon. Lady and the Minister, provided that they use parliamentary language.

Mr. Buchan

Arising out of that point of order, Mr. Speaker, what protection can you give to Members of Parliament if a question implies one point of view while the same party or person can say the opposite when they are north of the border?

Mr. Speaker

That was not a helpful intervention.