HC Deb 06 April 1998 vol 310 cc5-7
4. Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire)

What representations he has received from defence equipment manufacturers about the strategic defence review's implications for defence procurement. [36260]

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. George Robertson)

The strategic defence review has been characterised by its inclusive nature. Detailed work has been carried forward in conjunction with industry in seminars and working groups. I have received views from trade associations, through the National Defence Industries Council, which I chair, as well as contributions from individual companies.

Sir George Young

Will the Secretary of State apologise to this country's defence equipment manufacturers for his Government's appalling performance in processing export applications for licences? Is he aware that they are fighting with one hand tied behind their back? He inherited a figure of 97 per cent. of applications processed in 10 days. That figure has now slumped to some 60 per cent. Will the outcome of the SDR ensure that we revert to the figure that he inherited—and on delays, can he say when the SDR will be published?

Mr. Robertson

I am not going to apologise for anything. It takes the biscuit to hear Conservative Members, who are in opposition partly because of their record on arms export licences, complain about the time taken to scrutinise properly the supervision of arms sales. One reason why the right hon. Gentleman and I are in our respective positions is that the Scott report uncovered the way in which the previous Government gave arms licences willy-nilly. They paid a rich penalty for that.

On the most recent information available, I understand that the position on licences is improving, following the introduction of a much tighter arms licences regime: 52 per cent. of applications circulated to other Departments are now cleared within the 20-day target, compared with 48 per cent. last October. We will continue to take the greatest care possible to ensure that when we issue licences we are certain that the equipment will not be used for internal repression or external aggression. The public expect us to do precisely that.

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton and Wanstead)

In respect of the strategic defence review, will my right hon. Friend ensure that his own enthusiasm for defence and the lobbying of defence equipment manufacturers do not result in extra costs for the British taxpayer?

Mr. Robertson

My enthusiasm for defence and the defence of this country is undiminished—indeed, such enthusiasm on the part of the Government as a whole was one of the reasons why my hon. Friend and I did so well at the last general election. However, I have an obligation to make sure that all the money spent on defence is spent properly and wisely. That point was made by my predecessor, Mr. Michael Portillo, who, in a magazine article at the end of last year, wrote: There is money to be saved in MOD. I shall make sure that we use the budget that is there and the budget that was promised during the election for the maximum, most effective defence of this country. That is what we were elected to do and that is what we shall continue to do.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher and Walton)

In an earlier answer, the Secretary of State referred to biscuits; I hope that that is not all he intends to procure as a result of the defence review. On a matter that causes concern to defence manufacturers, will he assure the House that, when evaluating procurement, he will take into account technology and research into technological developments that needs to be carried out in this country?

Given the decline in the amount of money spent on research and development by the Ministry of Defence and the importance of our staying at the cutting edge of competitiveness in both defence and civil industries, the right hon. Gentleman has a tremendous responsibility to ensure that we do not lose out on a key stage of technological development simply because of cuts that his Department may be contemplating.

Mr. Robertson

The hon. Gentleman highlights the fact that, under the previous Government, research expenditure was substantially reduced. I attacked that when in opposition, and I maintain my position in that respect. I am well aware that my Department is one in which research plays a big part in procuring the right equipment at the right price and at the right time. We shall ensure that that priority is maintained and built on.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)

Does my right hon. Friend remember that it was the previous Government who arranged to put individual manufacturers at risk of prosecution and prison by cheating on the issue of arms permits? Will he make it clear to those involved in the defence industry in this country that the Government have no intention whatever of allowing little deals to be struck between Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry who turn a blind eye and Defence Ministers who have neither responsibility nor morals?

Mr. Robertson

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. I assure her that our policy is designed to make sure that, when the best products of the British defence industry are exported, they are not misused. We shall not turn a blind eye to the end use of that equipment.

My hon. Friend allows me, at this point, to make a fairly substantial announcement in connection with equipment sales. I am pleased to announce that the Government of Canada have today declared their intention, subject to final negotiations, to lease for eight years all four of the Upholder-class submarines currently berthed in Barrow. That is yet another of this Government's successes in selling something that the previous Government could not sell.

Canada has chosen to acquire the submarines via a lease with an option to purchase, as that is the most satisfactory solution for it. The arrangement is worth 610 million Canadian dollars to the United Kingdom. Work will be generated for various UK companies in reactivating the submarines and for GEC Marine at Barrow, which will provide technical and logistic support, including the provision of training to Canada. This is a piece of good news for this country, and I am sure that the Opposition will want to share in that good news for Britain.