§ 8. Mr. John Hutton (Barrow and Furness)What representations he has received on the Government's Green Paper on defence diversification. [36264]
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. John Spellar)We have so far received three formal representations on the consultative Green Paper since its publication on 5 March. The consultation period runs until 8 May.
§ Mr. HuttonI welcome the Secretary of State's announcement today on the sale of Upholder submarines, which is welcome news for jobs in my constituency.
I welcome the Government's commitment to making their policy on defence diversification a success. Is it not a fact that the previous Government did absolutely nothing to facilitate defence diversification, and that that failure resulted in the failure of British companies to exploit such cutting-edge technology as liquid crystal displays, which were invented in the United Kingdom but exploited elsewhere? Was not that failure to act a total betrayal of defence workers throughout the country who lost their jobs under Tory Governments?
§ Mr. SpellarI regret that I have to agree with my hon. Friend. Unfortunately, it was yet another case in which the previous Administration allowed dogma to override the interests of the industry. That is why our Green Paper on defence diversification has been widely welcomed not only by those who work in the industry but by many of the companies involved in it. It provides an excellent way forward for the defence community, and particularly for the huge amount of technology and scientific research that has been undertaken in our laboratories.
§ Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot)I thank the Minister for his courtesy in sending me a copy of the Green Paper at the time of its publication. Owing to a misunderstanding, I was critical of him at that time; let me put things right now.
Having said that, I cannot allow what the Minister has just said to go without challenge. What we have heard from him, and from his hon. Friend the Minister for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) is a travesty of the truth. Is he not aware that his own Green Paper encourages the Defence Evaluation Research Agency, which is based in my constituency, to continue doing what it has done so effectively up to now—sharing its technology with the civilian industry?
Does the Minister not realise that what really concerns industry is the future structure of DERA? I wonder whether he agrees with the chief executive of Messier-Dowty, Tony Edwards, who not only described DERA as a vital national asset but said:
privatisation would …result in … further competition and distancing from industry.
§ Mr. SpellarI am interested that the hon. Gentleman should take such an attitude to privatisation. It will cause some merriment among certain of his colleagues.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the gracious apology that he made at the beginning of his question. Let me point out, however, that DERA is based not just in his constituency—although it has a substantial presence there—but in other constituencies throughout the country, including that of one of his Front-Bench colleagues. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want me to correct that.
It is undoubtedly true that DERA has been undertaking some useful work in spreading the technology it has, but DERA itself would acknowledge that that work could be much improved. We provide the mechanism for such improvement in the Green Paper, as well as a mechanism to give a much-needed boost to industry. I am thinking particularly of the exciting initiative allowing science parks to be attached to the laboratories. That is good news for constituencies across the country, and particularly good news for the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I hope that he will be more gracious about it next time he asks a question.