House of Commons Hansard Debates for 19 Mar 1991

Hansard

House of Commons

Tuesday 19 March 1991

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker-- in the Chair ]

Oral Answers to Questions

DEFENCE

Antares

1. Mr. Foulkes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current estimate for completion of the report of the naval inquiry into the sinking of the fishing boat Antares.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton) : The naval board of inquiry into the Antares incident was completed in December. Departmental consideration of the board of inquiry report has not yet been completed, but I will make a summary of its findings available to the House in due course.

Mr. Foulkes : Can the Minister give an assurance to the House that the report, and his publication of it, will not shirk from any admission of responsibility for the sinking of the Antares? Will he also confirm that there are no technical reasons why the Clyde reporting scheme, which is proving successful, should not be extended to other fishing areas around our coasts? Since there are no technical reasons why it could not be extended, will he agree now to that extension so as to ensure that another Antares-type tragedy does not take place?

Mr. Hamilton : On the first question, I can certainly assure the hon. Gentleman that the Royal Navy will not shirk responsibility for the incident. That is not really the purpose of the board of inquiry, which is to find out precisely what happened in terms of the actions of the submarine. The hon. Gentleman should have no fear whatsoever on that account. On the second question, there are no technical reasons that I know of why the reporting system covering the Clyde should not be extended. We want to see how the Clyde scheme works out, and then we shall certainly look into whether it should be extended further.

Mr. Bill Walker : Is my hon. Friend aware that the Clyde fishermen find the new scheme to their advantage and welcome it? Like the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), I believe that the scheme should be extended wherever practicable. Fishermen on the west coast of Scotland would appreciate that move by the Ministry of Defence if it were possible.

Mr. Hamilton : I am well aware of my hon. Friend's views on that subject and I am grateful for his remarks. The only point that I would make is on the question of our

Column 146

nuclear deterrent submarines ; we do not want it to become clear to the general public when they are transiting out. That is one of the problems with extending the scheme, but we shall consider it.

Mr. Kennedy : Following the Antares disaster, as the Minister said, a scheme has been implemented for the Clyde. He will be aware from contacts that I had earlier today with his private office, which has been very helpful, that there was a near-disaster yesterday off the north of Skye. The incident was similar to what happened to the Antares--a submarine almost destroyed a fishing boat--but mercifully there was no loss of life. Can the Minister give details of that incident and the application of lessons learnt from the Antares disaster in the context of the Minch?

Mr. Hamilton : We should be very careful not to confuse the two issues. What happened on 18 March was not a near-disaster. A Royal Navy submarine, while making a surface transit near to the Raasay range, passed within 80 to 100 yards of the vessel Swyn-Y-Mor. The incident took place in daylight ; the submarine had the fishing vessel in sight at all times and took appropriate evasive action as soon as it became apparent that a close pass was likely. Although the submarine tried to raise the fishing vessel on VHF, it did not receive a reply until after the incident had occurred. There was no physical contact between the two vessels or with the trawler's gear.

Tankbusters

2. Mr. Marlow : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what lessons have been learned in the Gulf with regard to the relative merits of tanks and helicopters as tankbusters.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Alan Clark) : We are considering the outcome of the campaign and the lessons to be drawn from it, but it is too early to set out definitive conclusions.

Mr. Marlow : Had my hon. Friend been a tank commander in the Gulf, and if he could use his considerable imagination to visualise circumstances whereby, as in any future war, the enemy might have had more overhead cover and concealment, would he have been more fearful of an enemy in Apache helicopters or in Challenger tanks?

Mr. Clark : Both those arms are essential in the pattern of deployment in the future. There are two teams in the Ministry of Defence studying all the lessons. I have little doubt that they will conclude that both helicopters and battle tanks are needed in any future deployment.

Mr. Rogers : Notwithstanding the relative merits of tanks and helicopters, they are not much use unless they are procured. Does the Minister intend to buy new tanks off the shelf, or will he stop dithering and place an order for the new Challenger and the EH101?

Mr. Clark : As for the main battle tank, I share the House's devotion to the subject and I hope that the decision will not be delayed too long. The EH101 has nothing to do with the land battle--as the hon. Gentleman's researcher might have told him, it is a naval weapon.

Column 147

The Gulf

3. Mr. Jacques Arnold : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future deployment of British forces in the Gulf.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King) : Security arrangements in the Gulf are primarily for the states of the region. We are ready to play our part if asked, but we do not envisage the permanent stationing of British ground forces in the area.

Mr. Arnold : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the achievement of our armed services in the Gulf during the past seven months will rank among the greatest campaigns in the history of the British armed forces? Does he also agree that the manner in which the campaign was planned and executed can be judged by the low level of casualties sustained by the British forces? Now that our service men are returning from the Gulf, will he give an assessment of the dangers of a delay of that return which may arise from the chaos and bloodshed now occurring in Iraq?

Mr. King : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute to what was a remarkable team effort by all the armed forces and by those who supported them in industry and in the country as a whole. We are now moving very quickly towards the withdrawal of our forces. They are coming home at the rate of about 1,000 a day and they are certainly receiving a very warm welcome. We intend to proceed with the withdrawal, subject to satisfactory progress in terms of the ceasefire.

Mr. Alfred Morris : In what circumstances does the Minister envisage that hostilities against Iraq could be resumed?

Mr. King : The suspension of hostilities has occurred only recently. Clearly, we are watching developments very carefully. We want to see peace and security in the area--that was part of our objective in going there. At the moment, we do not see any circumstances in which we should become involved again.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the coming together in Damascus of eight Arab members of the coalition to produce defence plans for the Gulf gets the defence of the region off to a good start, while recognising the need for Britain to have maritime and air forces there? Can my right hon. Friend tell us anything about the future stockpiling of heavy equipment?

Mr. King : My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the success of the Damascus meeting and of the communique which recognised the role that could be played by Egyptian and Syrian forces as the nucleus for security in the area. We have certainly made clear our willingness to play our part and we are in close discussion with our allies and friends in the area to consider the most helpful way to do that-- [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. I appeal to the House to listen to Defence questions as they are very important.

Column 148

Nuclear Submarines

4. Mr. Andrew F. Bennett : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what exchanges of information have taken place with the United States of America Government about systems for, and experience in, decommissioning of nuclear-powered submarines.

Mr. Alan Clark : There is a regular exchange of information between the United States and United Kingdom Governments under the 1958 mutual defence agreement and we are generally aware of each other's views.

Mr. Bennett : Does the Minister agree that an important principle of parliamentary government is that Ministers do not mislead the House? Can he therefore explain how Ministers continue to tell us confidently the cost of the Trident programme when it appears that neither Britain nor the United States knows what the cost of decommissioning a nuclear submarine would be? As they do not know how to do it, how can Ministers tell us how much it costs?

Mr. Clark : Decommissioning is not included in the costs of acquisition. The hon. Gentleman may be confusing decommissioning with disposal. Decommissioning is a recognised procedure which involves removing the fuel and various ancillary items to make the vessel relatively safe so that it can be stored afloat until its fate is decided.

Mr. Wilkinson : Can my hon. Friend tell the House what exchanges took place between the United Kingdom and United States Governments about the British "Options for Change" exercise whereby the number of Royal Navy nuclear attack submarines is to be substantially reduced, what the United States advised about the reduction of our capability in that area and whether advice was sought from the United States on the disposal of hulls?

Mr. Clark : Advice from the United States was not sought on the disposal of hulls. We are perfectly capable of making decisions independently. Reductions in future deployment under the "Options for Change" scheme are a matter for consultation with all our NATO allies, including the United States.

Mr. Boyes : Is not it incredible that, after all this time, the Government still cannot come up with a solution acceptable to the British people for the decommissioning of nuclear submarines? Such a solution clearly excludes dumping at sea, which is the worst possible option. It is clear that there has been no new thinking from the Government, although a range of options have been researched by the Opposition. All that we get is a faltering Minister in a vacillating Government led by a tired and dithering Prime Minister.

Mr. Clark : Who is the hon. Gentleman to claim to speak for the British people? I am wholly unaware of any concern being expressed to me by any member of the British public about the disposal of nuclear submarines. Neither I nor my Department has had a single letter about that in the past year.

Column 149

The Gulf

5. Mr. Cran : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further progress has been made in his Department's review of Britain's defence commitments ; and what lessons have been learned as a result of the Gulf war.

Mr. Tom King : We believe that there is scope for changing our defence arrangements following the collapse of the Warsaw pact and the unification of Germany. Some initial decisions have already been announced, but the final size and shape of our armed forces will need to take account of our consultations with NATO and our allies, the security position in Europe and with the Soviet Union, and progress on arms control. We shall also need to take account of the lessons learnt in the Gulf.

Mr. Cran : Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important lesson of the Gulf war is that the United Kingdom must hold unto itself the decision on when to commit its armed forces? Will he further agree that if we had been part of a common defence arrangement in Europe we would probably not have been able to make a contribution to collective security?

Mr. King : I certainly believe, as the lessons of the Gulf have shown, in the importance of having allies with whom we can work closely, and in the benefits of a coalition in such circumstances. I also strongly support the need for us to have the power to act and, first, to be able to take the decision to act. The other important aspect, which I know that my hon. Friend will support, is to have the power to act and to have forces able to act and to make such a valuable contribution.

Mr. Menzies Campbell : Does the Secretary of State agree that the commitment of the United Kingdom must depend on the nature of the threat that it may have to meet? In that regard, does he share my concern that the Soviet Union launched more submarines last year than in the previous year and there are reports that it has now placed 10, 000 tanks east of the Ural mountains, apparently to frustrate the effects of the conventional arms reduction treaty? Will due account be taken of those factors in assessing the commitments of the United Kingdom?

Mr. King : The hon. and learned Gentleman will have noticed that that point is precisely one of the aspects with which I dealt in relation to the progress of arms control. One of our concerns is the number of Soviet tanks transferred from the Soviet army to the Soviet navy, putting them outside the remit of present arms control and leading to a situation in which, as is well known, the Soviet navy now has more tanks than the British Army. We have raised those issues. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised them very directly on his recent visit to Moscow. That is precisely why we have not ratified the conventional forces reduction in Europe treaty.

Mr. Onslow : Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, whatever reviews take place, his Department will not lose sight of the importance of our reserve forces and especially of the Territorial Army?

Mr. King : I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. I refer the House to my statement last July, in which I said :

"The volunteer reserves continue to play a key role, and we wish to consider the appropriate numbers for the future,

Column 150

having regard to our needs and realistic levels of recruitment and retention."--[ Official Report, 25 July 1990 ; Vol. 177 c. 472.] The whole House recognises the valuable role that the reserves and the volunteer reserves have played as recently as in the Gulf campaign. That underlines the importance of the role that they can play.

Mr. O'Neill : What other out-of-area threats do the Government envisage having to meet? How relevant would armoured divisions be in such circumstances? Following the destruction of the fourth largest army in the world--the Iraqi army--few countries, surely, could pose a threat equal to that posed by Iraq in the recent past.

Mr. King : It is incredible that the hon. Gentleman--the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman--should conclude that we shall not be forced to face any further armoured threat in the world. The lesson to be drawn from the Gulf and, indeed, from the very fact of the difference between that threat and the threat that we faced in the Falklands, is that we must be prepared for the unexpected and able to make our contribution, whatever shape the threat may take.

Ministry Houses

6. Sir David Mitchell : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the arrangements for temporarily leasing empty MOD houses to local authorities to assist in their duty to provide accommodation for the homeless ; how many houses on the MOD estate at Barton Stacey have been empty for more than six months ; and what percentage of the estate this represents.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle) : I am generally satisfied that the arrangements for temporarily leasing empty MOD houses to local authorities are adequate. We currently have more than 600 properties on lease throughout the United Kingdom, and we have recently offered a further 700 properties for leasing to 13 separate authorities, including Test Valley borough council in my hon. Friend's constituency. Sixteen houses on the MOD estates at Barton Stacey have been empty for more than six months, representing 12 per cent. of the MOD estate. Of those 16 properties, 11 are in the process of being sold.

Sir David Mitchell : I do not share my hon. Friend's satisfaction with the information that he has given. On 4 February, 20 per cent of the houses on the MOD estate were vacant, while the borough council's figure was 1 per cent. Will my hon. Friend overhaul the whole system of management, which is at present inadequate?

Mr. Carlisle : Where houses are not needed, we sell the surplus ; however, we require a management margin of 9 per cent. As my hon. Friend knows, we cannot keep a waiting list for Army families, who move around every two months, whereas local authorities can build up substantial waiting lists.

The Gulf

7. Mr. Nellist : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the timetable for withdrawal of British troops from the Gulf.

Column 151

Mr. Tom King : British forces are now being progressively withdrawn from the Gulf. In the next two weeks, further ships, 7th Armoured Brigade Group and the bulk of the RAF combat aircraft will return. The precise timing of the return of other units will depend on progress on the ceasefire and other factors.

Mr. Nellist : In an earlier answer, the Secretary of State told us that troops were returning at a rate of about 1,000 per day, so their return should be complete by about the end of April. What is the Government's view of the insurrection now taking place in Iraq, especially in the north and the south-west? Is it the same as the view of the United States Government which, according to a report in The Guardian last week, seems to boil down to "Better the devil you know than a weak coalition or a new strong man", or do the Government welcome the fact that the people of Iraq are dealing with their own problems and trying to fight for democracy?

Mr. King : The government of Iraq, and the choice of who should govern, are matters for the people of Iraq.

Mr. Bellingham : As some of the forces are already returning from Iraq, will my right hon. Friend find time today to pay a further tribute to the three squadrons from RAF Marham in west Norfolk who played a superb role in the conflict? Will he also reflect on the fact that if the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) had had his way there would have been no British forces in the Gulf to withdraw?

Mr. King : I note that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) has changed the thrust of his questions. My hon. Friend is right-- the liberation of Kuwait would not have been achieved without the determination of the Government and the coalition to ensure that in the final analysis, if peaceful means and diplomacy could not prevail, we were prepared to use force. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute not only to RAF Marham, whose forces and units made an outstanding contribution, but to all our forces and to the coalition forces for the part that they played in using the force that was necessary.

Dr. Reid : Last Saturday in Devon the Secretary of State said that the priority was to get the troops home and give them the welcome and thanks that they deserved. Does he accept that many of the young men and women returning home face an uncertain and insecure future because of possible cuts in armed services numbers as a result of "Options for Change"? Does he agree that the thanks and welcome that they deserve is a Government guarantee that adequate retraining will be provided for those who may face re-entry into civilian life? Does the Secretary of State accept that the existing 28 days pre-release training is woefully inadequate and is it not time that he gave the armed services a real vote of confidence by announcing plans to augment the already meagre measures for retraining?

Mr. King : I understand entirely the hon. Gentleman's point about the need to give reassurance and confidence to our armed forces after the part that they have played. I am interested that the hon. Gentleman chooses to ask that question from the Opposition Front Bench. Whatever changes we may think modest and possible within the

Column 152

changed security environment are as nothing compared with the changes that the Opposition would impose if their defence cuts were ever implemented.

Mr. Brazier : Does my right hon. Friend agree that although it is a high priority to bring as many of our service men as possible home as quickly as we can from the Gulf, where they have done such a splendid job, the situation in the Gulf is likely to remain unstable for a very long time, even if the shooting stops, because of the many different, powerful and, in many cases, unpleasant groups there, so the Government will have to consider maintaining a presence in the Gulf for a very long time?

Mr. King : Whatever the longer-term future may hold, the immediate present is very uncertain. We are monitoring the situation and making it clear that the completion of our withdrawal will depend on a satisfactory agreement being reached on a formal ceasefire. We have not yet achieved all our objectives, but in the longer term we shall keep the issue to which my hon. Friend referred under review. We do not envisage having ground forces in the area, but I have already said that we shall have a naval presence there and that we shall wish to keep in very close defence contact with our friends and allies in the area.

Service Men (Personal Lives)

8. Mr. Campbell-Savours : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what aspects of the personal life of service men are taken into account in matters of recruitment and dismissal from employment in Her Majesty's forces.

Mr. Archie Hamilton : The armed forces seek recruits whose personal qualities are such that they will ensure that the high standards of our professional, volunteer services are maintained. Applicants must demonstrate that they are able to integrate within the services and cope with the rigours of service life. Service personnel who commit offences against the services discipline Acts, or who are judged unsuitable for service life, may be dismissed or discharged.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : Do the Minister and his colleagues remember the case of Miss X in my constituency who was dismissed for her alleged sexual preferences? In so far as Miss X has repeatedly denied those allegations--as, indeed, has her boy friend--can a full inquiry be held into what actually happened, as it seems clear to me that a grave injustice has been done?

Mr. Hamilton : I think that the best thing that the hon. Gentleman can do is to write to me about the case, as I have no intimate knowledge of it. If he does so, we shall certainly look into it.

Mr. Mans : In relation to recruitment and retention in the services, will my hon. Friend comment on the sending of soldiers under the age of 18 into combat zones?

Mr. Hamilton : It has always been the practice of the armed forces to send people who are fully trained into combat. It is quite possible for people under the age of 18 to be fully trained. We should not sent them into combat unless they were.

Column 153

The Gulf

10. Mr. Terry Fields : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will enumerate the financial costs of deployment of British armed forces in the Gulf up to the end of the Gulf war.

Mr. Tom King : As so far assessed, the additional costs of the Gulf conflict are about £1.75 billion. The eventual costs will be significantly higher--possibly up to £3 billion, spread over several years. I am discussing the provision for those additional costs which fall in 1991-92 with my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Implications for defence spending from 1992-93 will be considered in the normal way later this year.

Mr. Fields : The figures show the Secretary of State's obvious influence in Cabinet when arguing for such sums of money to remove the obscenity of Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. Will he now use that same influence to remove from British society the obscenities of homelessness, poverty and hospital waiting lists and to enable pensioners and others on income support not to have to pay the poll tax--or are those simply areas of collateral damage and thus insignificant?

Mr. King : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, at least for the first part of his question. It was the first time that I have heard him pay tribute to the work of our forces or recognise the need for us to take the action that we did for the liberation of Kuwait. The other issues obviously go a little wide of the question.

Mr. Tim Smith : What progress has my right hon. Friend made in obtaining contributions from overseas towards the cost of the war?

Mr. King : My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary has been the most active in that area. We have received significant contributions, amounting to in excess of £1.25 billion, and we hope for further contributions from our allies who very much appreciate our contribution to the liberation of Kuwait and the costs involved.

Mr. Tony Banks : We could have saved even more money by not fighting the war at all. One of the best ways of guaranteeing that we do not get into such wars is to ensure that unpleasant people such as Saddam Hussein are not given arms by western nations. For future reference, will the Secretary of State tell us what support he is giving to President Bush, who said that there will be a moratorium on arms exports to the middle east? Will he give an assurance in the House that we shall not, under any circumstances, authorise any arms exports to anyone in the middle east from now on?

Mr. King : That is a particularly silly supplementary question--but well above the hon. Gentleman's usual standard. He knows perfectly well--he has been told this on a number of occasions--that we have strict licensing requirements for the export of arms. He knows perfectly well that we have not sold arms to Iraq for a number of years, for precisely the reason that he has in mind. He also knows perfectly well that some of the arms that we have sold, especially to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, helped in the campaign to liberate Kuwait.

Column 154

Relocation Projects

11. Mr. Holt : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many man hours have so far been spent by Ministry of Defence officials in evaluating relocation projects within his Department ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle : Since 1979 my Department has evaluated, or is evaluating, 25 separate relocation projects involving nearly 25, 000 posts. Those studies have involved many areas of the Department, although most of the detailed work is done at local level. No central record is kept of the man hours involved in this work.

Mr. Holt : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply and especially for the details of the number of relocation exercises that have been considered in the past 10 years. Apart from being considered, how many of those projects have reached fruition and how many people have been relocated?

Mr. Carlisle : About 2,500 people have already moved and we are looking at a number of other projects. A further 6,500 people are expected to move by 1995 and nearly 2,000 are under review for movement thereafter.

Mr. Frank Cook : How long will it take to give the constituents of Stockton a clear idea about the relocation of the directorate general of the defence quality assurance unit from Woolwich to Stockton?

Mr. Carlisle : I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman in his place again in good health. I am fully aware of his interest in Stockton, as well as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), both of whom brought an all-party delegation to see me. I am aware of the claims of the north-east to be the new home of the quality assurance organisation, but I shall not make any decision until our studies are complete, which I expect to be soon. We have a public duty to ensure that every relocation is truly cost effective.

The Gulf

12. Mr. Adley : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what lessons his Department has learnt from the Gulf war.

Mr. Archie Hamilton : We are considering the outcome of the campaign and the conclusions to be drawn from it, but it is too early to say how the results of the work might be made public.

Mr. Adley : Having listened to the exchanges of the past half hour, my hon. Friend will understand why I have decided to change my supplementary question somewhat. Does he agree that the views expressed by not only Labour Back-Benchers but Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen make it clear that, if by any awful mischance, Britain ever found itself dependent on Ministers in a Labour Government for the defence of the realm, it would be wise at least to order a large supply of white flags?

Mr. Hamilton : There is no doubt whatever that if, by some misfortune, the Labour party won the next election, our defence capability would be reduced drastically. In the light of recent experience, that would be a great mistake.

Mr. Strang : Does the Minister accept that whatever lessons are to be learnt from the Gulf, they will not alter

Column 155

the main priority of our defence budget, which is to maintain the defence of these islands? In that context, will he reaffirm the Government's commitment to the important role that the European fighter aircraft will play as a defensive conventional war plane? Will he take every opportunity in the years ahead to urge the continued support of the three other European partners in the project?

Mr. Hamilton : We shall continue to urge our European partners to support the EFA. Our commitment to it is total. There can be no question about that. Not only conventional weapons have an important role ; nuclear weapons have also done much to defend Europe in the past. They should continue to do so and Britain should continue to have its own independent deterrent. I am sad that so many people on the Opposition Benches believe that we should negotiate it away.

Options for Change"

13. Mr. Ian Bruce : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implications for south Dorset of the "Options for Change" review.

Mr. Archie Hamilton : We are examining the scope for rationalising a wide range of defence support activities. No decisions affecting south Dorset have yet been taken.

Mr. Bruce : I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the armed forces are masters of the diversionary tactic? Does he agree that when Ministers ask for reductions, they are offered relocations and collocations? Will he consider all the jobs in south Dorset and realise that he is being conned? If he wants reductions, he should examine the parts of the armed forces where reductions are needed rather than the parts that he has already decided that he intends to keep. Is he aware that the cost of moving some parts to other areas will be enormous?

Mr. Hamilton : We are looking at a wide range of defence real estate across the country. It is true that in south Dorset there are significant amounts of defence estate. We must consider that in common with everything else. I repeat that no decisions have yet been taken. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. Will the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) come into the Chamber so that we can perhaps get on with Question Time?

Mr. O'Neill : When considering the implications for south Dorset, will the Minister of State also remember that there are other naval bases as well as that at Portland, which seems to be the subject of consideration under the "Options for Change" process? Does he agree that it is desirable to conduct the process openly, rather than its being the subject of rumours and leaks which cause unnecessary anxiety to the communities involved? Will he include Rosyth with Portland when he says that no decisions have been taken and no conclusions reached on closures?

Mr. Hamilton : That is why, when people came to see me about Rosyth, I assured them that we were considering all the naval bases and naval support across the board. That confirms what I have been saying to people who are

Column 156

worried about Rosyth. There is no singling out of Rosyth. We are considering naval support across the board. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker : Order. I ask hon. Members to listen to the last few minutes of Defence Questions.

Next Section

Home Page