HC Deb 23 March 1982 vol 20 cc779-81
2. Mr. R. C. Mitchell

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will list the new orders for naval ships that he expects to place with British shipyards during the financial year 1982–83.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie)

Orders will be announced as they are placed following the satisfactory conclusion of contract negotiations with the shipbuilders. However, we are currently initiating tender action for a mine countermeasures vessel, a nuclear-powered fleet submarine and the first batch of a new class of fleet mine sweepers with a view to placing orders in the coming year.

Mr. Mitchell

Is the Minister aware that cuts in naval shipbuilding are already causing many redundancies at Vosper Thornycroft in Southampton? Is he further aware that this, combined with the proposed closure of Portsmouth dockyard and the cuts in naval training establishments that are to be announced today, will have very damaging effects on employment prospects in Southern Hampshire? Is this not a very high price to pay for Trident?

Mr. Pattie

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's contention that this is part of the price, as he describes it, of Trident. His points are, of course, legitimate and important constituency aspects concerning Vosper Thornycroft. As I have told him from this Box, we are continuing and even re-doubling our efforts to give what support we can to Vosper Thornycroft in its efforts to obtain export orders that we think will be highly beneficial to that company.

Mr. Viggers

Can the Minister announce results of the review of training and shore establishments supporting the fleet?

Mr. Pattie

Stemming from the changes outlined last June in Cmnd. 8288, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces is announcing today, in answer to a written question, that we propose, subject to the normal consultation procedures, to close certain naval shore training establishments in the year up to and including 1986, as follows. In the Portsmouth area, HMS "Phoenix", HMS "Excellent, " HMS "Vernon", the Fraser gunnery range and, at Torpoint, HMS "Fisgard". Hon. Members whose constituencies are affected are being kept informed, as are Naval personnel, and a copy of a message to the Fleet setting out these proposals in detail has been placed in the Library.

Mr. Denzil Davies

Before the Government dismantle the Royal Navy even further—another 4, 000 job losses were announced on the tape today, and the Minister should have had the courage to come to the House to make a statement as it affects so many jobs and the Royal Navy—should not the Government rethink their naval strategy? As I understand it, their whole defence strategy is based on the fact that if there is a war in Europe it will last for only a few days. Does it not make much more sense to assume that that war, should it occur, would be a war of attrition and that the Royal Navy would have to play a very important part, especially in the Eastern Atlantic?

Mr. Pattie

If that is the right hon. Gentleman's understanding of defence strategy, he ought to read again Cmnd. 8288. Questions of courage do not arise, because the decisions announced today are simply pursuant to the policies outlined in last July's White Paper.

Sir David Price

Returning to the question on the Order Paper, when will my hon. Friend's Department expedite orders for the type 23 frigate? My hon. Friend will recall that that was promised to us when we were told that we would no longer have re-fits of the old-type frigates.

Mr. Pattie

As I am sure my hon. Friend will agree, it would be wrong to rush ahead with the type 23 frigate. We are now actively pursuing its design and trying to agree on the exact configuration of the ship. Like my hon. Friend, we want to get ahead with all dispatch, but it would be wrong to do so until the design is finally agreed, and that is what we are waiting on now.

Mr. Alan Clark

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have just been told that a subject that affects defence is to be revealed in a written answer. As the Minister mentioned that fact, will you allow questions on the subject, because it appears that his assurance that hon. Members whose constituencies are affected will be kept informed—we all know that that means that there will be a written statement of his intentions—does not allow us the kind of freedom to question on behalf of our constituents that we should prefer?

Mr. Douglas

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman's point further to the point of order? This is Question Time.

Mr. Douglas

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I shall delay putting my point of order, if it would be more suitable to do so later. I have given you notice that I wish to raise this point of order.

Mr. Speaker

I must try to guard Question Time for other hon. Members who have questions on the Order Paper. I shall take a point of order on that matter at the end of Question Time.

Dr. John Cunningham

Does the Minister recognise that the decision to axe naval vessels and put off orders for conventional vessels for the Navy has blown a massive hole in British Shipbuilders' corporate plan, and that it will cause thousands of redundancies in naval yards on the Tyne, the Clyde, and elsewhere? Does that not make nonsense of what he has just said about jobs not being threatened by what his Department does?

Mr. Pattie

I cannot imagine that what the hon. Gentleman has just said follows from the answer that I gave earlier. I said that certain shore establishments have been closed—

Dr. Cunningham

Question No. 2.

Mr. Pattie

In answer to the original question, which related to new orders that had been placed, I enumerated those orders, and they are quite considerable.

Back to