House of Commons Hansard Debates for 24 Nov 1992

Hansard

House of Commons

Tuesday 24 November 1992

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

City of Bristol (Portishead Docks) Bill

[Lords] Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time tomorrow.

Durham Markets Company Bill

[Lords]

Order for Third Reading read.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions

DEFENCE

Support Services

1. Mr. Devlin : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support services of the Royal Navy and Army are due for relocation ; and what locations are being considered.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton) : The support services of the Royal Navy and the Army are being rationalised to reflect the restructuring of the front line. That will involve the concentration of that activity to fewer locations.

Mr. Devlin : Why, when considering new locations for the rationalisations, is there an extraordinary tendency for them to be in the south and west of the country, whereas Scotland and the north-east of England, which have traditionally provided the best recruiting areas and the highest levels of staff retention, and which are also the areas with higher than average unemployment, are the very areas that always seem to face the brunt of the cuts first?

Mr. Hamilton : When we rationalise activities we have to take into account where those activities are already taking place. If we did not do that and relocated concentrations of work forces in different places, we would have to make all the employees involved redundant. If we locate them where there is an existing facility, people working there provide a useful core for the new headquarters and it is then not necessary to make them all redundant.

Ms. Rachel Squire : Will the Minister confirm that for the past seven years Rosyth royal dockyard has been given repeated and specific assurances that it would obtain the future submarine refitting work? Will he give his promise that that will in fact happen?

Column 724

Mr. Hamilton : No ; but I can promise that the position on the dockyards and the naval bases is being reviewed, and we hope to have a decision by the end of the year.

Options for Change"

2. Mr. Patrick Thompson : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the state of implementation of "Options for Change".

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind) : Our proposals to move to smaller, but more flexible, more mobile and better equipped armed forces continue to be implemented. Progress was reported in this year's Statement on the Defence Estimates and further announcements have been made since then. I shall continue to keep the House fully informed of progress.

Mr. Thompson : While paying tribute to the professionalism of the Royal Anglian regiment, will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the problem of tour intervals for Northern Ireland? Will he also take the opportunity to emphasise the importance in future policy of the armed forces reserves, who need our strongest support?

Mr. Rifkind : Yes, I am happy to pay tribute to the Royal Anglian regiment, which has performed valiantly in Northern Ireland. As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, an exceptional problem has arisen : although 2 Battalion, which is due to deploy in Northern Ireland in December, will not have been in Northern Ireland for some two and a half years, there are, I think, 153 members of the former 3 Battalion who, because of the amalgamation in August this year, will return to Northern Ireland far sooner than would normally be expected. That exceptional problem has arisen because of the amalgamation, and I pay tribute to the professionalism of those who have been asked to serve in that way.

Mr. Trimble : As the Secretary of State knows, there has been considerable concern about whether, with the reduction in the number of infantry units under "Options for Change", the Army will be able to meet its committments. Notwithstanding the point made in reply to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), is it not the case that the average gap between tours in Northern Ireland is down from the promised 24 months to nearer 15 months? Does that not show that the proposed rundown in infantry units is unrealistic?

Mr. Rifkind : No, it does not. It was explained at the time of "Options for Change" that, because of the number of amalgamations taking place, it would not be possible to meet the 24 months target until the end of the rundown period--but it is still our intention to achieve that target. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I keep the question of force levels very much under review, as it is important to ensure, for the reasons to which the hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention, that the Army is not overstretched.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton : Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the regiment with which I had the honour to serve, the 14/20 King's Hussars, ceases to exist on Friday this week, when it is to merge with the Royal Hussars to become the King's Royal Hussars? I hope that the whole House welcomes and supports that new premier cavalry regiment. Will my right hon. and learned Friend

Column 725

give an assurance that the new regiment will have a regimental band? That is vital for the regiment. In particular, the new regiment feels that it will have no medical cover if it goes into combat without such a band because, as many right hon. and hon. Members know, bandsmen double up as medics.

Mr. Rifkind : I am sure that the new regiment being formed this week will inherit all the finest traditions of its two illustrious predecessors. As to regimental bands, the Army Board has been considering proposals, but no decision has yet been reached. I am fully conscious of the importance of regimental bands to the morale and tradition of individual regiments, and we shall ensure that all factors are taken into account before any decision is reached.

Dr. David Clark : Does not the Secretary of State realise that it is impossible fully to implement "Options for Change" without an amphibious aircraft carrier? Will he give the House a categorical assurance this afternoon that he will place an order for such a vessel? If he feels able to do so, will he also bring forward that order by six months, to cope with the labour demands of the two competing yards?

Mr. Rifkind : That particular order is currently out to tender. Obviously, those matters must be considered very carefully. It would not be proper to reach a hasty conclusion without due consideration, using the normal procedures applied to such projects.

Western European Union

3. Mr. Jessel : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will give the reasons for the proposal under the Maastricht treaty that the Western European Union should discuss or consult upon defence and security matters with the European union.

Mr. Rifkind : In line with the views expressed at the NATO summit in Rome in November 1991, it was agreed at Maastricht that the Western European Union would be developed as the defence component of the European union, and as a means to strengthen the European pillar of NATO. The WEU's relationship with the European union will be limited to the elaboration and implementation of the decisions and actions of the union that have defence implications.

Mr. Jessel : As defence--to keep our people safe and free--is the first duty of any Government and is not merely some facet of foreign policy, will my right hon. and learned Friend explain how it will strengthen our defences and security to make the Western European Union discuss defence matters with the European union, most of whose members showed themselves to be vacillating, craven and supine when Saddam Hussein attacked Kuwait?

Mr. Rifkind : I assure my hon. Friend that responsibility for defence policy will remain firmly with the north Atlantic alliance and the Western European Union. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was very successful in ensuring that the European union would not have defence responsibilities of the kind suggested by others. In the Maastricht treaty, the Western European Union has some

Column 726

responsibilities for security matters ; because some of them might have defence implications, it will occasionally be appropriate for discussions to take place with the WEU.

Mr. Jim Marshall : Will the Secretary of State emphasise the need for absolute transparency between the WEU and NATO? What will be the relationship between the WEU and the Community if the Twelve fail to ratify the Maastricht treaty?

Mr. Rifkind : The decision to develop the WEU as the European pillar of the north Atlantic alliance was not simply a matter referred to at Maastricht but was commended at the NATO summit some months preceding Maastricht. NATO itself believes that, on purely European matters, it is useful that the WEU, which has existed for more than 40 years, should be the means of ensuring European co-operation in a form that strengthens rather than weakens the north Atlantic alliance.

Mr. Viggers : Although it is appropriate to investigate ways in which we can shape our defence effort through the European Community and the WEU, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the defence threat that NATO was created to resist has not completely gone away and that we must not in any way weaken our contribution to NATO, which has served us so well over the past 40 years?

Mr. Rifkind : My hon. Friend is entirely correct. It is a sad but inescapable fact that although the cold war has ended, it has been followed, for the first time since 1945, by several hot wars in various parts of Europe. It is significant that the new democracies in eastern Europe--in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary--proclaim as loudly as anyone the importance of NATO as a beacon of stability and security in a shaken Europe.

Helicopter Coverage Group

4. Mr. Ainger : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department has had with the Helicopter Coverage Group since October 1986.

Mr. Archie Hamilton : The group has met twice since October 1986, in February and June 1987. My Department was represented on both occasions.

Mr. Ainger : Will the Minister accept that in the 1986 report on helicopter coverage minimum criteria were set for response times as well as for the number of search and rescue helicopters and the number of search and rescue bases? Does he accept that his announcement on 21 October, to close Brawdy, Coltishall, Leuchars and Manston, means that there is a reduction in the number of search and rescue helicopters available, a reduction in the number of search and rescue bases and an increase in response times? Will he ask the Helicopter Coverage Group to re-examine its announcement of 21 October and make a recommendation?

Mr. Hamilton : No ; that will not be necessary because, although it is clear that the announced changes mean that there will be a reduction in the number of helicopters, there will be no reduction in the civil criteria which we were asked to meet by the Helicopter Coverage Group. We are abiding by those criteria, which mean that helicopters will be able to get to any incident within 40 nautical miles of

Column 727

the coast within an hour during daylight hours. Those are the criteria that were laid down, and we are maintaining them. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's argument is about the criteria. If we were to have double the number of helicopter bases, I have no doubt that we could shorten the time to half an hour. But the criteria laid down is 40 nautical miles, and we are abiding by that.

Mr. Ian Bruce : My right hon. Friend will know that the current proposals being examined by the Ministry of Defence to move flag officer sea training will have implications for the placing of two Sea King helicopters on constant alert during daylight hours at Portland. When those helicopters are based at Plymouth rather than Portland, what will happen to the 100 or so people a year who are rescued by the facility?

Mr. Hamilton : As I have already said, we are fulfilling the civil criteria on coverage around the whole coast. We are continuing to meet the criteria with the changes that we have made. Therefore, as with any of the rescues that were carried out from Portland, I do not believe that there will be any risk that rescues from Plymouth will not be covered by the existing civil criteria.

Mr. Nicholas Brown : If the helicopters referred to in the question are to play their full part in NATO's rapid response force, they will need a landing platform helicopter vessel from which to fly. Why are the Government so tardy about making an announcement on the procurement of that landing platform helicopter? The Public Accounts Committee has already condemned the Minister's Department for not bringing its procurement programme into line with the needs of its major suppliers. When will the Minister address that issue and make an announcement about the procurement of the LPH?

Mr. Hamilton : As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, the LPH has nothing to do with search and rescue helicopters, which are covered by the Helicopter Coverage Group. If the hon. Gentleman is asking about the order for the LPH, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State has already explained that we have called for tenders. We expect to be able to make a decision shortly.

Mr. Bill Walker : My right hon. Friend will be aware of the popularity of the search and rescue unit at Leuchars in Fife, especially among the four regional councils that are affected by the rescues. The majority of the rescues that are carried out are civilian rescues and it seems odd that those councils were unwilling to meet my right hon. and learned Friend to discuss ways for them to find finance to retain that popular search and rescue unit.

Mr. Hamilton : As we made clear in the document, RAF Lossiemouth gives adequate cover under the civil requirements for search and rescue which cover the Leuchars area. If any local authority regards it as a good way of spending charge payers' money to pay for the civil requirements, it is more than entitled to do so.

Autumn Statement

5. Mr. Bennett : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement in the light of the defence expenditure plans announced in the autumn statement.

Column 728

Mr. Rifkind : The expenditure plans in the autumn statement allow us to maintain the direction for defence, set out last year, in "Britain's Defence for the 90s". The new force structure and lower pay and inflation will provide significant savings over the period.

Mr. Bennett : Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the most important aims of the autumn statement is for the Government to obtain value for money? Is he aware that the National Audit Office produced a critical report on the handling of defence lands by the Ministry of Defence? The public feel that if there are to be fewer soldiers, less defence land will be needed for training. Against that background, why have the Government suddenly decided to take over the Cnewr estate on the Brecon Beacons, ending the possibility of public access to the area, agreement on which has taken almost 10 years to negotiate? Should not the Ministry of Defence stop taking over new land until there has been a full review of the use of the countryside by defence forces?

Mr. Rifkind : I must remind the hon. Gentleman that, although the size of the armed forces is being reduced, large numbers of Army personnel are returning to the United Kingdom from Germany, where they will no longer be required. They will not be able to undergo training in Germany, so there is a continuing need for adequate training sites in the United Kingdom. The proper procedures are followed before a conclusion is reached on the suitability of any individual site for training.

Mr. Ward : Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the £500 million programme for re-equipping amphibious forces announced by the Minister of State in the previous Parliament will still go ahead?

Mr. Rifkind : Obviously, we attach importance to ensuring that the commitments of the Ministry of Defence are properly resourced and resolved. We are examining the precise details of the implications of the autumn statement for several matters. I am conscious of the importance of amphibious work and it will be fully taken into account.

Mr. Hutton : I wish to point out that the tender deadline for landing platform helicopter vessels passed six or seven weeks ago and that it is fundamental to the survival of many of our warship yards that the Government make a firm announcement of their intention to place an order for the LPH. Will the Secretary of State make it clear to the House and to our shipbuilding community that the Government remain committed to placing an order for the LPH and, in addition, they intend to place a firm order for the landing platforms dock? That is also extremely important for the future of our industry.

Mr. Rifkind : The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that for six weeks to elapse after a tender deadline is by no means unusual. Several tenders for that order have been received. It always takes a proper period to evaluate all the tenders so that a proper conclusion is reached. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there has been no delay with the project.

Mr. Streeter : Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that one way in which the Minister of Defence can make substantial savings is to award the vital contract for the maintenance of the Trident boats to Devonport dockyard? That would save £400 million of taxpayers' money over 10 years.

Column 729

Mr. Rifkind : Significant representations have been made by both Plymouth Devonport and Rosyth about that contract. All the matters are being properly evaluated at present. When we have reached a conclusion, we shall not only announce it but explain the reasons for it to the House.

Mr. Martlew : Does the Secretary of State not understand that the announcement in the autumn statement that increases in forces pay would be restricted to 1.5 per cent. has dealt a devastating blow to the morale of our forces, which is already at a low ebb? Does he agree that it is not good enough to tell our troops, whether on the streets of Belfast or in the Bosnian mountains with the United Nations, that the nation is grateful, but, by the way, we are cutting their wages by 2.5 per cent. next year? Will the Secretary of State review that disgraceful policy?

Mr. Rifkind : Members of the armed forces, as well as others in the public sector who are employed, understand the importance of ensuring that resources can be released to help provide employment in other areas. The hon. Gentleman--who, no doubt, is anxious for the problems of unemployment to be dealt with--should be more sensitive to the realistic ways in which that can be achieved.

Defence Industries

6. Mr. Thurnham : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received about the future prospects for the British defence industries ; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken) : We receive a variety of representations about the prospects for British defence industries from many sources. Despite the downturn in defence spending, our industry is both efficient and internationally competitive, and is well placed to meet the challenges of the future.

Mr. Thurnham : Does my hon. Friend agree that the European fighter aircraft project is an example of this country's ability to lead Europe, in regard to both the strength of our defence policies and the capability of our manufacturing industry? Should not all parties unite to support British industry, rather than engaging in the sickening display of humbug that we witnessed last night?

Mr. Aitken : Now that the political temperature may have returned to normal, the political co-operation that has characterised the attitude of hon. Members on both sides of the House towards the EFA project will continue to be very welcome. Prospects for a new EFA have brightened considerably in the light of Chancellor Kohl's positive statements at the Anglo-German summit on 11 November, and the industry has identified considerable cost reductions in its survey. In view of those factors, we hope that positive progress can be made towards the fulfilment of the production phase of this four-nation project.

Mrs. Dunwoody : Is the Minister aware that the defence industry also includes the royal ordnance factories, which the Government sold off? Does he realise that there is a large and continuing haemorrhage of jobs away from the industries concerned--on a so-called voluntary basis--

Column 730

and no clear planning about which of those important factories are to be retained? Will the Minister instigate an immediate investigation into how the units are to remain viable?

Mr. Aitken : I have some sympathy with the point that the hon. Lady has rightly made. We are now discussing with Royal Ordnance and others the placing of longer-term contracts, which will ensure a longer-term future for manufacturers of that type.

Mrs. Ann Winterton : Does my hon. Friend accept that the prospects of small-arms manufacturers in this country--and, in particular, at Radway Green in my constituency--depend greatly on the Ministry of Defence not opening its order books to bids from other European countries that do not reciprocate? Furthermore, does he accept that it is vital to maintain our manufacturing capacity, for strategic reasons?

Mr. Aitken : As I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises, we already place approximately 90 per cent. of the equipment budget, in terms of orders, with British companies. That is a record of which we can be rightly proud, as can the industries concerned.

I know about the difficulties experienced by the Royal Ordnance factory at Radway Green. I assure my hon. Friend--as I have just assured the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)--that we are considering the possibility of offering longer-term contracts, which should allow longer- term security for those organisations.

Mr. Foulkes : I am grateful to the Minister for the helpful comments that he made earlier about the European fighter aircraft. Is he aware, however, that the important all-party consensus on EFA was endangered last night by the Secretary of State's intemperate reply to yesterday's debate? Is the Minister aware that our support for EFA is aimed not just at the jobs of our constituents, but at securing the best possible fighter aircraft for the Royal Air Force, and for the air forces of our partners and of all other democracies? Our arms sales policy, however, excludes the sale of arms to military dictatorships. Will the Government-- [Interruption.] The other Minister of State will find himself in the "Guinness Book of Records" for other reasons if he is not careful.

Will the Government state clearly whether they share the view that there must be no arms sales to any military dictatorship?

Mr. Aitken : I understand why the Opposition are feeling a little bruised, if not carved up, after last night's superb winding-up speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The hon. Gentleman is obviously still suffering from the morning-after feeling. He has enunciated an extraordinary new Opposition policy : that we should sell arms equipment only to democracies. That might be all very well in an ideal world, but on 13 October the hon. Gentleman advocated that the Government should make much more vigorous efforts to sell the Challenger tank to Kuwait, which is not yet a democracy. We constantly receive letters from Opposition Members regarding arms sales to all sorts of countries which are not democracies. I do not believe, therefore, that the Opposition have yet come down from their double-standards perch.

Column 731

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman : Does my hon. Friend accept that the observation that the prospects for the European fighter aircraft have brightened will be very much welcomed in my constituency? Will he congratulate those who made such a wonderful effort to bring down the cost of EFA to suit the pockets of all those concerned?

Mr. Aitken : I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's point. The aerospace industries of this country responded superbly to the challenge that they were set to bring down the costs. Their surveys reveal that there is a maximum cost-saving potential of 30 per cent. which, as my hon. Friend said, will bring EFA's cost well within the target mentioned by the German Defence Minister some months ago.

Nuclear Weapons (Testing)

7. Mr. Jon Owen Jones : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to announce changes to Government policy on testing nuclear weapons.

Mr. Archie Hamilton : The Government continue to believe that a minimal testing programme remains the best means of ensuring the safety and credibility of our deterrent.

Mr. Jones : As President-elect Clinton has said that he intends to go ahead with a comprehensive test ban treaty and as France and Russia have intimated that they are happy about going ahead with a comprehensive test ban treaty, can the Minister first tell the House where we shall be able to test our nuclear weapons? We do so in America at present. Secondly, does the Minister not feel embarrassed--I certainly would if I were he--that we are making common cause with the likes of Iraq and China in going ahead with the testing of nuclear weapons?

Mr. Hamilton : It is surely the problems in Iraq, China and other countries where proliferation is taking place that make it so important that we maintain a deterrent. If we are to have a nuclear deterrent, it is important that it should be both safe and effective. For that reason, we believe that a limited amount of testing is important.

Mrs. Gorman : While discussing weapons testing, will my hon. Friend assure the House, and also our good friends in Australia, that the rehabilitation of the Maralinga site remains of great importance to the Government?

Mr. Hamilton : Yes. That Australian Government have had talks with my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement on the rehabilitation of the Maralinga site. Those discussions continue and the question of compensation is being raised.

Mr. Menzies Campbell : Perhaps I may put a direct quotation to the Minister :

"The reliability, effectiveness, safety and security of our nuclear arsenal can be maintained without nuclear tests."

Those are not my words, but the words of Carson Mark, the former head of the theoretical division of the Los Alamos laboratory in the United States. Why will the Government not accept his advice and throw their weight behind a comprehensive test ban treaty?

Mr. Hamilton : We do not believe that we have yet reached the stage where we can carry out the effective testing of nuclear warheads in other ways. The view of that

Column 732

man may be as the hon. and learned Gentleman states, but it is not shared by our experts who deal with nuclear warheads.

Mr. Day : Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the so- called peace dividend, the world is in its most precarious state, certainly in my lifetime? There is an air of unpredictability and therefore danger, so it is essential that the Government do all in their power to maintain the credibility of our nuclear force, including continuing with testing.

Mr. Hamilton : I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. We hope that the Trident system will run for another 30 years, and it is difficult to foresee what development will take place in the world over such a long period. The proliferation of nuclear weapons seems to be a continuing trend, despite the great international efforts that have been made to constrain it.

Dr. Reid : Why are the Government so obstinate on this point? Why do they think that everyone is out of step except them? Is the Minister aware that in another place the Under-Secretary of State, Viscount Cranborne, said that the United States congressional legislation which restricts nuclear testing is "unwise and misguided"--

Madam Speaker : Order. If the hon. Gentleman recalls, I said yesterday that there should be no quotations during Question Time. Will he paraphrase, please?

Dr. Reid rose--

Mr. Skinner : The Liberal just quoted.

Madam Speaker : Order. I make it clear to the entire House--there seems to be some confusion--that there is no quoting whatsoever in Question Time.

Dr. Reid : I defer to your guidance, Madam Speaker. The Under- Secretary of State is reported to have said that the United States congressional legislation, which restricts nuclear testing, is unwise and misguided. As one of the co-sponsors of the legislation is the new Vice- President elect of the United States, do the Government still agree with that view? Do they wish to revise it, or do they believe that the new Vice- President is following an unwise and misguided course?

Mr. Hamilton : We have always made our position clear : we think that a limited testing programme is important, and we shall be unhappy if the United States does not decide to continue with one. The hon. Gentleman suggests that we are alone on this, but that is not so. The French are considering their policy on tests, and it is not guaranteed that all nations with nuclear weapons will give up testing.

Arms Sales (Saudi Arabia)

8. Mr. Denham : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on arms sales to Saudi Arabia.

Mr. Aitken : We welcome the recent reaffirmation of Saudi Arabia's commitment to the Al-Yamamah project, which remains as strong as ever. Discussions are continuing on the range of defence equipment required by Saudi Arabia in the future.

Column 733

Mr. Denham : Is the Minister aware that in 1988 Vosper Thornycroft shipyard in Southampton was promised six orders for minesweepers? To date, funds for three have been committed and for the first time the yard has an empty glass reinforced plastic berth. In the absence of an effective defence diversification programme, the orders are vital to maintain the viability of the company and future employment. What prospects does the Minister hold out that those extra orders will be forthcoming?

Mr. Aitken : The speed and nature of Saudi Arabian defence orders are a matter for the Saudi Arabian Government. I can understand the hon. Gentleman's impatience on behalf of his constituents, but I remind him of the legendary gravestone which is said to lie somewhere near Riyadh : "Here lies the European who tried to hurry the Saudi Arabians." They must move at their own pace. I know that the hon. Gentleman will wish to congratulate Vosper on the sale not only of three minehunters to Saudi Arabia but of two Corvettes to Oman and four strike craft to Qatar. I was interested in the recent policy announcement by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), as none of those countries appear to be democracies. Should the orders be sent back, I wonder?

Mr. Mans : Does my hon. Friend agree that the Al-Yamamah programme is of especial interest to the north-west because of the number of jobs there and because of the effect that it has on the economy of the north- west? Bearing that in mind, will my hon. Friend give me some ides of the prospect of Saudi Arabia ordering further Tornados?

Mr. Aitken : As I said, what Saudi Arabia orders in the way of Tornados or of any other defence equipment must be a matter for the Saudi Arabian Government. The Tornados and the orders have already represented 33,000 jobs for the north-west. It is a major project and I am glad that there is bipartisan support in the House for it.

Arms Sales (Iran and Iraq)

9. Mr. Janner : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about his Ministry's policy towards the export of military equipment and technology to Iran and Iraq.

Next Section

Home Page