§ Q1. Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 December.
§ The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.
§ Mr. AdleyAs defence criteria will undoubtedly be paramount in the decision that my right hon. Friend and her Cabinet colleagues have to take on the airborne early warning system, does she agree that neither she nor the House needs advice from the party that cancelled the TSR2? Nevertheless, bearing in mind that it took the Royal Navy eight years to order the Harrier after the United States Marine corps had done so, will my right hon. Friend please give an assurance that when the Cabinet has made its decision there will be a statement and a debate in the House so that those of us who still have nagging doubts may be convinced?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend that defence requirements must be paramount in the decision and we must be certain that the system which is chosen will meet the country's defence requirements fully and within an acceptable time scale. There will be a statement to the House when the Government have reached their decision. The question of a debate is a matter to be settled through the normal channels.
§ Mr. KinnockIt is obvious that on both sides of the House, and, indeed, on all sides of the argument, the strong demand is that our country gets as a vital part of our national defence an airborne — [Laughter.] Conservative Members might think that it is funny; the rest of the country certainly does not. We need an airborne early warning system that is totally dependable at a cost and in a time that is necessary for national priorities. However, will the Prime Minister accept that it is necessary to show that, in coming to a decision, full account is taken of the current quality of the British GEC system and of the national technological interest—an aspect which, understandably, the RAF officers making the assessment did not have to address directly. Therefore, before the Cabinet meets on Thursday, will the right hon. Lady set up a speedy and independent inquiry to establish — [Interruption.]—beyond all possible doubt the relative technological, financial, delivery, and, above all, defence merits of the GEC AEW and the Boeing AWAC systems?
§ The Prime MinisterI made it perfectly clear that defence requirements must be paramount in this decision. May I also make it clear that an independent inquiry is 1049 neither necessary nor appropriate to enable the customer to decide how best to meet its vital need to have an effective airborne early warning system in operational service as soon as possible.
§ Mr. KinnockIs the right hon. Lady's refusal to have an inquiry based on the conviction that the GEC system is somehow so inferior as not to warrant further consideration? If it is, why was GEC given the status of a prime contractor as recently as March? Why was its system nominated just 12 weeks ago to go forward for the final adjudication? Why, in the process of assessment, was no early warning given of these alleged deficiencies, and why as recently as 5 December was the Secretary of State for Defence able to say that both systems work?
§ The Prime MinisterThe right hon. Gentleman appears to have come to his own conclusion. I make it quite clear that in coming to a decision defence requirements must be paramount. They will not be subordinated to any political expediency. We must be certain that the system which is chosen meets our defence requirements fully and within an acceptable time scale. Those will be the criteria. I repeat that an independent inquiry is neither necessary nor appropriate to enable the customer, the Ministry of Defence and the RAF, to decide how best to meet the RAF's vital need to have an effective system in operational service as soon as possible.
§ Mr. KinnockIf those are all the criteria, as they rightly should be, with defence requirements heading them, what is the reservation about having an independent inquiry to demonstrate beyond peradventure the advantages of one system over the other?
§ The Prime MinisterThe opinion of those who are responsible for the defence of our country is the best opinion and it should not be subordinated or submitted to independent assessors who do not carry that responsibility.
§ Mr. PriorMay I declare an all too-well-known interest? I say to my right hon. Friend that of course the defence of the country must come first in any decision that the Government reach.
§ Mr. PriorNot even a but.
The leaks that have come out of the Ministry of Defence are unfortunate, because they have given an impression that the GEC avionics system simply does not work, and could not be made to work within three years of the stipulated date. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that this is damaging for a company which has worked very hard from the time that it had complete control of the contract? In those circumstances, will my right hon. Friend and the Government consider allowing GEC, together with the Ministry of Defence, to look at the assessment to see what is wrong and whether the scientists can agree a way forward?
§ The Prime MinisterI am grateful to my right hon. Friend for saying that he recognises that the defence interest must be paramount. It would be difficult to let one company or another see certain information which might be commercially confidential. Both companies would have a complaint if we were to let the other see that information. May I make it quite clear that the MOD has great confidence in GEC, as is instanced by the amount of 1050 purchases that the Ministry of Defence makes from that company. Those purchases reached about £800 million last year.
§ Mr. SteelIs the Prime Minister aware that the Head of Defence Procurement, Mr. Levene, yesterday told the Public Accounts Committee that the cost overruns on Nimrod were to a large extent caused by problems within the Ministry of Defence? In view of that, will the right hon. Lady assure the House that if the Cabinet decides on defence grounds to go for AWACS and to abandon the Nimrod project there will be a full explanation about what happened to the £900 million of taxpayers' money which has been spent since 1977? In the meantime, will she instruct her unattributable sources in Whitehall to cease their character assassination of GEC?
§ The Prime MinisterThey have already done that by indicating the amount which the Ministry of Defence purchases annually from the General Electric Company, which it would not do unless it had confidence in GEC's ability to produce those things. When it comes to the early warning system, defence needs must be paramount. Those responsible for the defence of this country must be certain that they have a fully effective system that will work within the appropriate time scale. I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that those best able to make that judgment are those who are responsible for the system. I hope he will agree that we should trust their integrity in coming to their judgment.
§ Mr. HeseltineMay I ask my right hon. Friend to remember that in what is an agonisingly difficult decision for the Government there is nothing that is new about the awareness of the difficulties of bringing the British version of the airborne early warning system to a satisfactory conclusion, but that in the last resort it is only the Ministry of Defence and the advisers within the Ministry that can take a decision of this sort? With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior), it would not be possible for an independent inquiry to impose a decision upon the Ministry of Defence.
§ The Prime MinisterI am grateful to my right hon. Friend for confirming what I said earlier.
§ Q2. Mr. Home Robertsonasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments go.
§ Mr. Home RobertsonBecause the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) has made mistakes in the past, it does not necessarily mean that he is wrong about Nimrod. Is the Prime Minister aware that there is widespread concern on both sides of the House about the need to protect Britain's high technology industry and the need to preserve Britain's independent defence capability within NATO? Why are we getting this thrawn refusal to have an independent inquiry into and assessment of this issue?
§ The Prime MinisterWith respect, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has added to the question I have already been asked, and I do not think that I can add anything to the answers that have already been given.
§ Q3. Mr. Greg Knightasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mr. KnightIs my right hon. Friend aware that the latest report of the Audit Commission concludes that local authorities could save nearly £2 billion a year through greater efficiency? Yet following the publication of that report, Derbyshire county council is still wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds of ratepayers' money on such unnecessary items as television advertising and publishing a civic newspaper. It has now decided, at public expense, to send a number of Socialist councillors on a television interview training course. Is not this—
§ Mr. SpeakerQuickly.
§ Mr. Knight—a disgraceful abuse and yet another example of Labour's irresponsibility when in office? Is it not clear evidence that further Government action is necessary to stamp out this outrageous abuse?
§ The Prime MinisterMy hon. Friend is right. Since the Audit Commission commenced operations in 1983 it has identified about £2 billion worth of economies that would give ratepayers very much better value for money. I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a great deal of scope for these economies to be made, often in the very authorities which are demanding more money, although they do not know how best to spend the money that they have already.
§ Mr. Allen AdamsI note with interest the Prime Minister's concern about defence. Is she aware that Babcock Power yesterday announced 620 redundancies at its Renfrew plant? This is a factory that is steeped in manufacturing parts for Trident, which is an integral part of the defence of the realm, apart from developing ultrasonic equipment and heavy lifting gear. [Interruption.] What does the Prime Minister intend to do about this, and when does she intend to do it?
§ The Prime MinisterI am sorry that I could not hear the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, except that I heard him say that there have been severe redundancies in a factory in his constituency. As he is aware, every possible effort will be made to help to create new jobs.
§ Q4. Mrs. Virginia Bottomleyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 16 December.
§ The Prime MinisterI refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
§ Mrs. BottomleyWill my right hon. Friend reconfirm the Government's unequivocal support for nuclear deterrence, which plays a crucial role in the defence of the West, in the light of the Soviet Union's overwhelming superiority in conventional forces? Does she agree that to scrap the nuclear deterrent and divert resources to conventional forces would be a paltry gesture that would not bridge the gap but would merely leave Britain isolated and exposed?
§ The Prime MinisterI agree with my hon. Friend. Nuclear deterrence is a fundamental part of our defence strategy and a fundamental part of NATO's defence strategy. We shall continue to modernise our own independent nuclear deterrent with Trident. Money spent on nuclear weapons provides far more deterrence than the same amount spent on conventional forces.
§ Mr. Michael MorrisOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SpeakerDoes it arise directly out of questions?
§ Mr. MorrisIt does, Mr. Speaker. I attended the Public Accounts Committee yesterday, when the Head of Defence Procurement, Mr. Levene, made a statement in answer to questions about Nimrod. He did not say that the majority of costs on overrun were the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. That is an incorrect statement of what he said in evidence.