HC Deb 05 March 1996 vol 273 cc137-9
5. Mr. Simon Coombs

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received as to the effect on defence industry jobs of reducing United Kingdom defence expenditure to the European average. [16841]

Mr. Arbuthnot

A reduction in UK defence expenditure to the current NATO European average would result in cuts of more than £4.5 billion per year. This would have a drastic effect on the capability of our armed forces and the future equipment programme. The implications for jobs in the defence industry would be severe.

Mr. Coombs

What assessment has my hon. Friend made of the impact of the policy decided at the 1995 conference of the Transport and General Workers Union that our defence expenditure should be reduced to the average of all countries across the European Union? Bearing in mind the fact that the TGWU sponsors both the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor—

Madam Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask questions for which the Government have a responsibility. Will he remember that?

Mr. Coombs

Bearing in mind the fact that the Transport and General Workers Union sponsors both the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor, what advice would my hon. Friend the Minister give companies in my constituency such as Raychem, which employ thousands of people making defence equipment, about how they should vote?

Mr. Arbuthnot

My hon. Friend is right. I have to tell the House with some astonishment that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has received a letter from the Transport and General Workers Union, which states: Conference notes that a reduction in military spending to that of other western European countries in percentage GDP terms could mean a peace dividend of over £18 billion a year. It is worse than we thought. The Labour party does not want to reduce defence spending by £4.5 billion a year but by £18 billion a year. We know that the TGWU speaks for the Labour party because it sponsors the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). We know that he speaks for the Labour party because in the late 1980s he signed an advertisement calling for the removal of nuclear weapons from British territory. We know that that is what the Labour party wants and the TGWU calls for precisely the same thing in its letter.

Mr. Hardy

Is the Minister aware that many people believe that the Government are blithely continuing to accept a much higher share of the burdens of European security than most other western European states? While we retain the presidency of the Western European Union, will he and his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office seek to persuade our European allies that they should bear a much larger share of responsibility for security, especially since some of those who pay less than average are most vociferous in pursuing the policy of Europe establishing its own security pillar?

Mr. Arbuthnot

The hon. Gentleman confirms exactly what I said. He confirms that he would like to reduce our defence spending to the European average. I am astonished that that should come from him of all people. I thought that with his experience, he would have wanted this country to take its proper role and responsibilities in the world. That is what we want and that is why we intend to stay in power to achieve it.

Mr. Mans

In relation to defence expenditure generally, and defence jobs in particular, will my hon. Friend say what stage has been reached in the studies on the updating of the Tornado F3 or leasing of the alternative American F16 aircraft?

Mr. Arbuthnot

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that because I am delighted to be able to tell the House that, subject to contract, and while we wait for the Eurofighter to form the cornerstone of our defence capability in the next decade, we have decided to place with British Aerospace an order so that advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles and advanced short-range air-to-air missiles can be carried on the Tornado F3. That will greatly enhance the Tornado's capability and will cost about £125 million. It will mean that we have a beyond-visual-range missile available for our fighter. That is good news for the Royal Air Force.

Mr. Spellar

The earlier exchanges have shown why the Minister does not want to answer for the Government's record. If he did, he would have to explain why the Government had to be dragged kicking and screaming to award the field ambulance contract to Land Rover; why they have awarded another shells contract to an Italian company involved in fraud and a grenade contract to Israel; why they issued tenders for the helicopter flying school without offset provision; and why they ordered billions of dollars of US equipment without matching orders for British industry. When are they going to stop making party-political broadcasts and start backing British industry?

Mr. Arbuthnot

That was a good try. The problem is that, if the Labour party were in power, none of those contracts would be awarded because it would not have the money. We would not have the Apache helicopter or the land-attack missile. We would not have been able to order three more frigates last week and we would not have been able to sort out the Eurofighter. If the Labour party were in power, defence spending would be reduced to £4 billion—the level of traffic wardens.

Mr. Atkins

What does my hon. Friend believe is the likely effect on defence industry jobs in Preston and in Lancashire generally of early-day motions, such as those signed by the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise), which suggest that we should not sell the excellent products made by my constituents on behalf of British Aerospace to countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia?

Mr. Arbuthnot

My right hon. Friend is right. I was very surprised to see that the hon. Lady had signed the early-day motion calling for literally hundreds of her constituents to be put out of work. However, she must answer for her views to her constituents.