House of Commons Hansard Debates for 30 Oct 1990

Strategic Arms Reductions

9. Mr. Bernie Grant : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the implications for his Department's forward planning of the forthcoming completion of the START process.

Column 861

Mr. Archie Hamilton : We welcome the prospect of a START treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union. However, reductions in United States and Soviet strategic arsenals would have to go much further before we could consider how best to contribute to the strategic arms control process. Ministers have made clear in the context of the "Options for Change" review that we shall require a four- boat Trident force.

Mr. Grant : Does the Minister agree that in view of the economic recession, which was confirmed today by the Confederation of British Industry's report, we cannot afford to spend the £600 million plus that we are spending in the Gulf or the billions that we shall be spending on nuclear weapons, particularly at a time when the United States and the Soviet Union are reducing theirs? Why have the Government not offered to include Trident and Polaris in START? Why are we the only country that is not prepared to make any concessions in that way?

Mr. Hamilton : As the hon. Gentleman knows, we regard the Trident missile system as the minimum deterrent that we can have if we wish to remain in the nuclear deterrent business. We have made it clear as a Government that we feel that nuclear deterrence is an essential part of the defence of the islands of this country. Muddle and confusion exist among the Opposition. Labour is currently committed to negotiating away our independent nuclear deterrent at a time when, regrettably, in other parts of the world such as Iraq nuclear capability is being produced. Labour will therefore have to face the accusation in this country that Labour is negotiating away our nuclear deterrent while Saddam Hussein is developing his.

Mr. Latham : With regard to START, will my hon. Friend confirm that it will be possible for the United States and the Soviet Union to destroy literally thousands of their missiles without making any difference to the nuclear balance?

Mr. Hamilton : That is right. That is basically the understanding of the START agreement as far as it has got. There will be a radical reduction in arsenals on both sides. If the Labour party insists on negotiating away our deterrent in return for some balancing reductions by the Soviet Union, it will still leave the Soviet Union with a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. I ask hon. Members to desist from holding private conversations. It is difficult to hear.

Nuclear Radiation

10. Mr. Clay : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reassessment he has made of the effect of nuclear radiation on service men and women, ex-service men and women and others employed or fulfilling a contract with his Department.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle) : The Ministry of Defence, along with the resof the United Kingdom nuclear industry, relies on the estimates of radiation risk derived by the International Commission for Radiological Protection, which is in the process of completing a re-evaluation of levels of risk.

Column 862

Mr. Clay : In February, I drew the Ministry's attention to the fifth report of the United States Research Council on the biological effects of ionising radiation. I do not know whether the Ministry has bothered to study it, but, as a result of that report, the United States is compensating its nuclear test veterans for two more forms of cancer, in addition to the 11 types for which it has been compensating veterans for some time. When will British nuclear test veterans receive the same justice as their American counterparts, or does the Minister intend to keep his head buried in the sand until all those concerned are dead?

Mr. Carlisle : No, we take these matters very seriously and are happy to consider any new evidence that comes to the fore. We have great confidence in the safety of our working practices.

Mr. Rowe : Does my hon. Friend accept that I and my colleagues from the Medway towns are most grateful for the sympathetic way in which he has dealt so far with our request for an inquiry into the circumstances of people who worked on nuclear submarines at the dockyard in Chatham and have died of cancer? May I take it from his first answer that when the report is to hand he may be able to tell us whether there is to be an inquiry, as we should like?

Mr. Carlisle : Obviously, we have much sympathy for the people affected in my hon. Friend's area, and we hope that Mr. Molinari will make a speedy recovery. We shall consider all the evidence. We believe that our working practices are safe. It may be of interest to my hon. Friend to know that we shall be considering a no-fault compensation scheme.

Mr. Boyes : We welcome the new Minister to his post, but I warn him that during his short period of office this matter will not go away. He is clearly not accepting or facing his responsibilities to nuclear test veterans who have suffered over the years without compensation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) said, many loyal and brave soldiers who were present during nuclear tests have already died. Why can the Australians and the United States pay compensation while the British Government spend their cash on surveys deliberately and continually to delay matters? It is a disgrace and an absolute outrage, but above all it is a betrayal of a special group of British citizens.

Mr. Carlisle : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his initial kind words, but he has his facts wrong. Where people can show reasonable doubt, we pay ; so far, six people have received war pensions.

Conventional Forces

11. Ms. Ruddock : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the defence implications for the United Kingdom of the forthcoming completion of the CFE talks.

Mr. Archie Hamilton : The consequent improvements to European security and stability will be of substantial benefit to the United Kingdom.

Ms. Ruddock : May I press the Minister to be more specific about Britain's contribution to the CFE treaty? Further to the various answers given today, will he make it clear whether the cuts that he proposes will be greater or

Column 863

less than those outlined in "Options for Change"? Specifically, will stage 2 include dual-capable aircraft, which the Government resisted at stage 1 but some of which will be cut in "Options for Change"?

Mr. Hamilton : We obviously took into account the agreements in CFE when we worked out "Options for Change". As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear, many of the reductions that we anticipate have to be tied in with reductions under the CFE agreement. That agreement has not yet been signed, although we hope that it will be before the end of the year.

Mr. Wilkinson : Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in any agreement that may be signed it is important to ensure that if the numbers in the front line of key equipments are reduced their capability must be enhanced? Above all, will my hon. Friend ensure that the United Kingdom modernises its helicopter force, as the helicopter is a versatile instrument which can be rapidly deployed to the Gulf or elsewhere and is important for the future?

Mr. Hamilton : I very much take my hon. Friend's point on that. There is, of course, no evidence that the Soviet Union is reducing its technological capability in this area, and so long as it continues to bring in improvements to its defence equipment, it is essential that we do the same.

The Gulf

12. Mr. Benn : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the latest estimated cost of British forces in the Gulf to the end of the financial year.

Mr. Tom King : I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes).

Mr. Benn : Has the attention of the Secretary of State been drawn to the estimates emerging from Washington of 30,000 service casualties within the first 12 days of conflict? Has his attention also been drawn to the statement by Jean-Pierre Cheve nement, his French opposite number, that in event of war 100,000 people might be killed? Is the Secretary of State also aware that if the American and British Governments reject the rising world demand for a peaceful settlement--which was echoed by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)--and decide to launch a pre-emptive strike, the responsibility for those deaths will rest on the American and British Governments who launched the attack?

Mr. King : The right hon. Gentleman was sitting here when I answered the previous question. He knows perfectly well what I said then, which was that we want to see this matter settled by peaceful means. No sane person wishes to see conflict and casualties if they can be avoided, but the responsibility that has been recognised by an overwhelming majority in this House--and which was recognised by the right hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition--was that it was right to send forces to the Gulf and that it is right to give the clearest possible warning to Saddam Hussein that, one way or another, he will lose. That message, clearly delivered, without prevarication and without uncertainty, is the best possible hope for a peaceful resolution of this matter.

Column 864

Sir Jim Spicer : In reply to an earlier question, my right hon. Friend said that he expected and hoped that if it came to an overrun on defence costs, the Treasury would give sympathetic consideration to such an overrun. Can he assure us that our service chiefs will not be inhibited in spending whatever is necessary to ensure that our troops in the Gulf have the best equipment available to them?

Mr. King : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to reply in this respect on behalf of the Government. The Government are clear that we shall make whatever contribution is appropriate to freedom and justice in the Gulf, and that we shall make our contribution to the ending of the aggression. We see that as the overwhelming priority. We shall also ensure that our armed forces who go there have the equipment that they need to do the job that we ask of them.

Cambodia

13. Mr. Mullin : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any assistance, including training, has been provided to Cambodians engaged in resistance to the Phnom Penh regime ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Archie Hamilton : As the hon. Gentleman will know better than I, there was a long debate in the House on Friday on Cambodia, during which these matters were fully aired. There is nothing that I can add to what the Government said then, other than to repeat that persistent claims from the hon. Gentleman and from other Opposition Members that we have supported the Khmer Rouge are completely unfounded. We never have provided, and will never provide, any form of assistance, military or otherwise, to that organisation.

Mr. Mullin : Why not tell the truth--

Hon. Members : Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker : Order. That is okay.

Mr. Mullin : --that between July 1985 and October 1989 British service men based in Thailand were training Khmer terrorists?

Mr. Hamilton : The hon. Gentleman well knows that we do not comment on matters of that kind.

Mr. Bowis : Will my hon. Friend give every assistance, including training, to those in Cambodia who are seeking to remove the mines which were laid by all sides in that terrible conflict and which are causing such devastation to the people of that sad country?

Mr. Hamilton : As I have said already, we do not comment on training given to Governments. However, we have already made it clear that we have given no assistance whatever to the Khmer Rouge and that that organisation has had no support whatever from us.

PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Q1. Mr. Maclennan : To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 October.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher) : This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and

Column 865

others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Maclennan : Will the Prime Minister clarify the Government's policy on Europe? The deputy Prime Minister has said that it offers recombination of sovereignty for more effective partnership. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that the ecu could develop into a single currency. Was the Prime Minister surprised that in Rome, by 11 votes to one, her European colleagues preferred her Cabinet colleagues' expression of belief to that which she expressed?

The Prime Minister : We shall co-operate fully, as a nation state with its own Parliament, with the other 11 countries in the European Community. It is not our policy to have a single currency imposed upon us and I believe that that meets the views of Parliament and people. We have made different proposals for a further stage which would involve a hard ecu, and the hon. Gentleman is very much aware of those proposals.

Mr. Leigh : I wonder whether our European partners would profit from a reading of British history. If they read G.M. Trevelyan's work "England under the Stuarts", would not they see that Britain's principal contribution to European civilisation has been parliamentary democracy, just as France's was the revolution and Germany's the reformation--

Mr. Speaker : Order. Let us come to the question.

Mr. Leigh : Will my right hon. Friend rest assured that she has the full support of Conservative Members in fighting for Britain's traditional sovereignty in the control of our economy?

The Prime Minister : I believe that the traditions and example of this House have gone the world over with admiration. I believe that they have not only served this country well, but they have served Europe well as this House kept sitting when the lights of Europe went out.

Mr. Kinnock : Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity strongly to condemn those Conservatives who have publicly insulted her deputy Prime Minister by calling him "irresponsible and unconstitutional" simply for expressing his views on the future of the European Community?

The Prime Minister : Conservative Members do not need a licence from me to express their views--unlike a previous Labour Prime Minister who said that Labour Back Benchers and Front Benchers did need a licence from him.

Mr. Kinnock : That certainly does not answer the question. On an issue as vital as this, does not the Prime Minister owe it to her deputy Prime Minister to state unequivocally that those who have personally and viciously attacked him do not have her support? Does she not owe it to her deputy to say that he enjoys her full confidence in all matters?

The Prime Minister : My right hon. and learned Friend the deputy Prime Minister is too big a man to need a little man like the right hon. Gentleman to stand up for him.

Dr. Goodson-Wickes : Does my right hon. Friend agree that other European countries hold equally strong views

Column 866

about the protection of their particular national identities but are more inhibited than my right hon. Friend in expressing them?

The Prime Minister : I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I think that most people feel rather strongly about their national identities. When it comes to getting down to detailed discussion, we shall see those differences emerge. They do not emerge when we are talking about generalities.

Q2. Mr. Bernie Grant : To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 October.

The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Grant : Does the Prime Minister agree that there is unacceptable discrimination in the prison system? How is it that, just a few weeks after being sentenced for his part in the Guinness affair, Mr. Gerald Ronson was allowed out of prison in a chauffeur-driven car to consult his private doctor and to have a meal with his family and business associates? Does not that fly in the face of the sentiments expressed by her right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who said at the Tory party conference that there would be stiffer sentencing and that

"12 months means 12 months."?

Can the Prime Minister explain the contradiction between her Government's theories and their practice?

The Prime Minister : If the hon. Gentleman has any specific complaints to make about a specific case he should make them to the proper authorities.

Sir William Clark : Has my right hon. Friend read the article in today's Daily Mail about the Nissan car plant in Sunderland which is not only increasing its car exports to Germany but expects to export cars to Japan next year? Is that not proof positive that when there is close co- operation between workers and management Britain can compete with anyone in the world?

The Prime Minister : Yes, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The record of that car plant is quite outstanding. It is a combination of British workmanship and Japanese management which is producing excellent cars and also exporting them to increase our exports to other countries.

Mr. Home Robertson : In view of the Prime Minister's frequent pronouncements about national sovereignty, will she reflect that Britain is not a nation but a union of nations, just as the European Community is a community of nations? Is she aware that most of us want to see both the union and the Community flourish, and cannot understand why the cuckoo in Downing street is doing so much to destroy both that Community and that union?

The Prime Minister : Of course we wish to see both the United Kingdom and the European Community flourish, and the Government and the country have done a great deal to ensure that the Community does flourish. For example, in spite of having achieved a very good financial deal from the Community--much better than the one that Labour left us with--we still pay £2.2 billion to the Community, which is rather more than the £1.7 billion that we have left to pay to the third world. That is an excellent record of gift to the European Community.

Column 867

Q3. Dr. Blackburn : To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 October.

The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Blackburn : Does my right hon. Friend agree with the economic and industrial equation that an order equals production equals employment equals profits equals further investment? Will she emphasise to the nation from the Dispatch Box the importance of negotiations with management and trade unions so that they do not price themselves out of the initial ingredient which is the order in sterling?

The Prime Minister : I agree that it is absolutely vital that manufacturers keep their costs down and do not price themselves out of their market. Productivity is the key, and that is not only a question of wages but of keeping up investment and very good management and very few restrictive practices. I think that we are reaching that position in British industry now, and that augurs well for the future.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : Why does not the United Nations consider sending into Kuwait an unarmed contingent of people to set up collection points for the evacuation of those people in hiding? Is it not time that the western world and those who support this initiative ensured that we rather than Saddam Hussein were seen to be taking the initiative?

The Prime Minister : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has read the extensive resolution passed in the United Nations yesterday which deals not only with compensation for damage in Kuwait but with the question of embassies and hostages there. It utterly condemns the hostage taking in Kuwait and calls upon Saddam Hussein to release those people immediately.. It also requests that the Secretary General use his good offices to that end.

Q4. Mr. Hayes : To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 October.

The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hayes : Is my right hon. Friend at all surprised that the Italians are pressing for speedy monetary union when they have a deficit of £80 billion, when their national debt is almost equal to their gross domestic product and they want to be bailed out by the Bundesbank? Will my right hon. Friend therefore express the view of the majority of hon. Members in this House and the majority of people in this country--that she should back the market but for heaven's sake stick with the pound?

Column 868

The Prime Minister : It is important that we all fulfil our present commitments before taking on new ones. Clearly, some countries in the Common Market would like to hand over some of their financial affairs to a European central bank and divest their Parliaments of much of their powers. That is not our view. We do not wish to hand over further powers from this Parliament to other bodies. As my hon. Friend has said, it is also important that we complete the single market. In that respect, this country has an excellent record. There are only 15 directives that we have not implemented. Italy has not yet implemented 62 of the directives.

Q5. Mr. Clelland : To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 October.

The Prime Minister : I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Clelland : In the course of her busy day, will the Prime Minister give some consideration to the by-elections pending in Bradford, Bootle and Paisley? Can she confirm that her electoral strategy will be to blame her candidates?

The Prime Minister : Our electoral strategy will be to point out that after 11 years of Conservative government this country has the highest standard of living ever known, that since we were returned at the last election, taxation has been reduced to 25p in the pound at the standard rate and 40p in the pound at the top rate, that the earnings rule for pensioners has been abolished, that we have the most prosperous social services and health service that this country has ever known, and that it is worth sending back Conservative Members of Parliament from those by- elections.

Q6. Mr. Jessel : To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 30 October.

The Prime Minister : I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Jessel : As next month Her Majesty the Queen is to visit Kneller Hall at Twickenham to mark the completion of the restoration of the Royal Military school of music, which trains the finest Army bands which are the envy of the entire world, is my right hon. Friend aware that my constituents are proud of the Queen, of Kneller Hall and of the Prime Minister and hope that the Prime Minister will make certain that the head of the Queen remains permanently on the coinage of the realm?

The Prime Minister : I congratulate my hon. Friend on the success of his fight to keep Kneller Hall in his constituency. With regard to that and the rest of his question, which was phrased so ingeniously--and so say all of us on this side of the House.

Next Section (Debates)

Home Page