Devonport Dockyard: National Security (Hansard, 23 February 1987)

§ Lord Diamond
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne)
My Lords, the vital interests of national security to which the noble Lord rightly refers will be protected by the existing arrangements, which apply to all defence contractors, and the foreign control safeguards written into the contract. In addition, companies involved in nuclear work will be required to operate in accordance with the relevant requirements of the Nuclear Installations Act 1965. The Government believe that these arrangements, taken together with the unchanged role of the Ministry of Defence Police, will fully meet the circumstances created by new management.

§ Lord Diamond
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that informative Answer. May I ask for a little clarification on what he said about nuclear arrangements? Am I correct in believing that no American is allowed to see the propulsion unit of any nuclear submarine being built at Barrow? If that is correct, can he say whether the Government are quite content about the new arrangements there under which an American company with Libyan connections is available to maintain those propulsion units?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, the Libyan connection to which the noble Lord refers relates, I understand, to the construction there of an irrigation facility. Let me be quite clear about the extent of Libyan involvement in this country. There are, I understand, two Libyan nationals based in the Brown and Root office—I think that is the firm to which the noble Lord refers—in Kingston. Brown and Root's dockyard team operates from quite separate offices in Colliers Wood, to which the Libyans will not of course be allowed access. The two projects are quite separate.
I assure the noble Lord that we are quite satisfied with the current security arrangements for premises and staff employed by Brown and Root (UK) Ltd.—which, as the noble Lord will be aware, is the Government's favoured contractor for the Devonport contract—at its sole office dealing with matters affecting Devonport dockyard.

§ Lord Irving of Dartford
My Lords, leaving aside the nuclear aspect, in view of the fact that an American company will be tendering and it is the Government's present policy to have competitive tendering for defence equipment, can the noble Lord assure us that an American company will have no advantage over a British company in tendering for defence contracts?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I am happy to give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asks. We have had a successful competition with regard to both of the dockyards. But I emphasise that my right honourable friend has not quite made up his mind with regard to the Devonport contract.

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, as the Minister is talking about national security, can he also say something about local security? Can he tell us how the discussions and consultations (which are part of the legislation) in respect of the social and economic consequences of the privatisation for the city of Plymouth are going ahead?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, that is a rather different question. However, I can tell him that my right honourable friend has now completed his consultations with 3 regard to the Devonport contract and will be making up his mind shortly.

§ Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran
My Lords, can the noble Lord either now or later clarify the position in relation to any intellectual property rights that may arise with employees at Devonport or in relation to contracts placed?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, intellectual property rights are not one of the major issues that have arisen during our consultations on these contracts, but the noble Lord can be assured that, such as they are, they will be properly protected.

§ Lord Denning
My Lords, in view of the great importance to our national security of the Royal Dockyard at Devonport may I ask, especially in view of the nuclear implications, whether the Minister would reconsider the position of the control of the dockyard? Should it not be entirely under British control and free from any foreign influence whatsoever, and indeed be kept as a Royal dockyard? Ought not the proposed vesting date, 5th April, be put back a little for considerations of security to be further examined?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, I should perhaps underline the fact that Brown and Root (UK) Ltd., which is a United Kingdom company, but controlled by an American parent, will have just 30 per cent. of the shareholding in Devonport Management Ltd. That is the maximum limit that we have set under the contract, as the noble and learned Lord will be aware. The Government have carefully examined the issue and we are quite satisfied that we have arrived at proper arrangements. But I emphasise that my right honourable friend has not yet reached a final conclusion.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, is it not inevitable that national security should be at a greater risk following privatisation? Can the noble Lord say a word about the two Libyans? Who are these two Libyans? Are they employees of the Libyan Government and Colonel Gaddafi, and are they the only Libyans employed in these sensitive areas?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, as I said earlier, these Libyans have nothing whatever to do with the matter that we are now discussing. They are concerned with the construction of an irrigation facility in that country, which has no connection whatever with the activities of Brown and Root so far as the dockyard is concerned.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, will the Minister answer my question and say whether there are any other Libyan nationals employed in sensitive areas such as this?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, to the best of my knowledge and belief there are no other Libyans involved.

§ Lord Mellish
My Lords, can we have an assurance on how long the Libyan connection is to go on? When will the work they are doing end? Can we have an assurance that there will be no more work given to Libyans?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, as I understand it the Libyan involvement relates only to the irrigation facility contract to which I have referred. I therefore presume that the Libyans will return to their country when that contract is completed.

§ Lord Diamond
My Lords, is not the Minister aware that there is considerable anxiety in the House both about the Libyan connection and about the nuclear situation? Does he recollect that one of his own Back-Benchers, on the last occasion this matter came before the House, asked him whether he could remember any possible case where the Americans were doing the same with us in reverse? The answer was that there was no possible suggestion of the Americans being as foolish in a contract which we might have in one of their dockyards as they are with us. Does the noble Lord realise that he simply has not answered fully the question as to why there is this totally inconsistent treatment? Why do we deny Americans the right to see the propulsion unit and give a firm—which I repeat has Libyan connections and, in spite of what the Minister says, has a majority control of the work—the right to inspect what other Americans are denied in Barrow?

§ Lord Trefgarne
My Lords, access to our most sensitive equipment is determined on a case by case and a need to know basis. It is not determined by the nationality of those involved, though clearly those from some nationalities would have very great difficulty indeed in persuading us that they had business to have access, say, to our nuclear facilities. As for Brown and Root itself, I remind your Lordships that that company very recently received the Queen's Award for Technological Achievement, which is an award not lightly given to unreliable companies.