§ 1. Mr. CongdonTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with European partners about defence procurement projects. [30882]
§ The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Portillo)British Ministers frequently discuss collaboration and defence projects with Ministers in Europe and, indeed, the rest of the world.
§ Mr. CongdonGiven the importance of the defence industry to the British economy, does my right hon. Friend agree that collaboration with our European partners on defence projects can lead to economies of scale and larger markets? Does he also agree, however, that we must not forget the strategic importance of our relationship with the United States, and that any decisions on defence procurement should therefore be based on cost-effectiveness?
§ Mr. PortilloI agree with both parts of my hon. Friend's proposition. The fact is that, if the United States produces weapons for its own market, it may have a production run 10 times as long as any single European state can have. Therefore, getting together to agree our specifications and requirements in Europe offers great benefit, but to cut ourselves off from the United States, which has a technological edge in many of these areas, would of course be absurd. Therefore, our policy should be to achieve a balance between collaboration in Europe and collaboration with the United States. Of course, value for money and the effectiveness of the product for our services should also be important considerations.
§ Mr. SpellarWe note once again that the criteria that the Secretary of State just outlined, ignored the key question of the maintenance of Britain's defence industrial base. Will he now assure us that it will be a key priority in procurement decisions?
§ Mr. PortilloI am astonished by the ignorance of the hon. Gentleman, who is meant to follow these matters. I made a speech in Paris last week in which I made it clear that it was one of the very important criteria for the United Kingdom that we should maintain a British industrial base. However, I am concerned about what we 100 heard in the debate on the Royal Air Force last week, when we heard from the Labour party about its intention to shut off exports of defence products from this country. That would be extremely damaging to jobs in this country and would also make procurement from British industry much more expensive. The time has come for Labour to say just how it intends to restrict our exports of defence products so that people may know how many jobs will be lost and where they will be lost.
§ Mr. MansDoes my right hon. Friend agree that collaborating with our European partners means that we can maintain our research and development base but that it should not mean the creation of a European armaments agency run from Brussels, which would be of no use whatever to this country?
§ Mr. PortilloClearly, there is a need for getting together with other countries in Europe to see what agreement we can reach on specifications. For some time, a group has been working within the Western European Union—that is the appropriate place for it to be, not the European Union—to see whether we can bring 13 countries together. There is a bilateral effort involving the French and Germans, which we are now joining, to see whether, between those three big players in Europe, we can reach some accord on specifications. That is the right way to proceed, but if my hon. Friend is saying that there is not a role in this for the European Community, the European Commission, the European Parliament or the European Court of Justice, I entirely agree with him.