HC Deb 10 January 1989 vol 144 cc675-6
7. Mr. Cousins

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future programme of orders for tank recovery vehicles.

Mr. Sainsbury

Subject to detailed contract negotiations, we intend to place an order with Vickers Defence Systems Ltd. for the supply of a further 47 Challenger armoured repair and recovery vehicles in the near future.

Mr. Cousins

Will the Minister accept that, on the Scotswood road in Newcastle, where the six prototype tanks of a heavier type to support the Challenger 2 tank fleet are being built as a result of competitive tender, his statement will be widely welcomed?

Mr. Sainsbury

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments and I appreciate that the order for a further 47 important armoured recovery and repair vehicles clearly will represent a considerable amount of useful work for Vickers Defence Systems Ltd.

Mr. Marlow

Could I ask my hon. Friend yet again to look five to 15 years into the future and to look at the potential survivability of the tank and the recovery vehicle? When he comes to the conclusion that many other people have come to—that there is no survivability at all—will he save the money and spend it instead on helicopters?

Mr. Sainsbury

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in bringing in his argument about the relative values of tanks and helicopters on the battlefield. I assure him that the Ministry of Defence always looks five and 15 years ahead in determining its requirements. It seems that others, such as the Warsaw pact countries, still attach great value to tanks and believe they have a considerable survivability, even on the modern battlefield, because they commit large resources to continuing to produce highly capable tanks.

Mr. Tony Banks

What is wrong with our tanks, then, that they require so many recovery vehicles?

Mr. Sainsbury

The hon. Gentleman may be familiar with the fact that, if there were a conflict on the central front—we all hope and pray that there will not—there is a likelihood that some tanks would be hit and would need to be recovered.

Mr. Banks

Send the AA.

Mr. Conway

Despite the criticism of my hon. Friend by the Opposition, may I assure him that the order for 47 vehicles is very much welcomed in Shrewsbury, where the engines are made? Can he tell the House whether this generous order—which will bring much-needed work to my constituency—could have been placed if the Government had taken the Opposition's advice and cut conventional defence expenditure?

Mr. Sainsbury

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right in identifying the point that such an order not only provides work in the location of the principal and main contractors but for a large number of sub-contractors. He is also right to say that we continually hear Opposition criticism of new orders being placed and suggestions that the equipment is not necessary. If their policies were put into effect, the implications for those employed in the British defence industry would be serious.