UK Ministers Remain Evasive on Defense Programs
(Source: Hansard; published March 4, 2008)
The following is excerpted from Hansard’s report on the March 3 debate in the House of Commons, during which MPs questioned Secretary of State for Defence Des Browne and Minister for the Armed Forces Mr. Bob Ainsworth on various defense-related issues.

This excerpt focuses on defense procurement programs. A link to the full transcript of the debate is provided at bottom.


Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South) (Con): What his policy is on whether aircraft carriers are a necessary component of the UK’s defence requirement.
The Secretary of State for Defence (Des Browne): The future carriers will be a key component of the improved expeditionary capabilities that we need to confront the diverse range of threats in today’s security environment. They deliver on the Government’s commitment in the strategic defence review.


Richard Ottaway: If the Secretary of State believes that there is a future role for the aircraft carriers, he should get on and replace them as his inaction is becoming an embarrassment not only to him but to the Royal Navy. The Illustrious has twice had to be towed back into port after breakdowns, and a tug is on standby in case it breaks down again. There is no air defence cover for the fleet until well into the next decade. Does the Secretary of State not agree that that smacks of a Government who do not understand the nature of maritime power and the lead times involved—unless he is looking to cancel the project?
Des Browne: If what lies behind the hon. Gentleman’s comments is a question about whether there is any change in the in-service dates for the carriers, there is not.


Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton) (Lab/Co-op):Does my right hon. Friend agree with the article in February’s Parliamentary Brief by Dr. Eric Grove, director of the Centre for International Security and War Studies, on “Tomorrow’s Navy for tomorrow’s world”? It concludes that, by 2020, “the Brown years” may be seen to be those “when the seeds were finally laid for a renaissance of British maritime power and global presence”.
Des Browne: I am not qualified to see that far into the future and retrospectively assess the position. However, since 1997, when the Government came to power, 31 new ships have been brought into service. We plan to spend approximately £14 billion on naval equipment in the next 10 to 15 years. That constitutes historic investment in our Navy, which will significantly increase its capability. I am sure that future generations will thank us for that investment.


Willie Rennie (Dunfermline and West Fife) (LD): I was pleased to join the Secretary of State at Rosyth dockyard last month for the signing of the contract to extend the dock to take the aircraft carriers. Why has yet another month passed without the main contracts for the aircraft carrier being signed?
Des Browne: As I have said repeatedly, we are working closely with the industry over months for this complex contract to be ready for signature. In the mean time, however, as the hon. Gentleman knows—I was in his constituency awarding a contract—a number of contracts have been placed in the supply chain, for design, engineering data, materials in support of the manufacture of the carriers and infrastructure, including in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, which will be necessary to construct the carriers after the individual elements have been built. We are getting on with the job, and as long as the in-service dates remain the same—and they do remain the same—he can rest assured that we will contract at the appropriate time.


Mr. Brian Jenkins (Tamworth) (Lab): My right hon. Friend said that we could not look that far into the future, but the purchase of aircraft carriers that will remain in service for many years requires us to do so. When we look at future defence requirements and defence expenditure, should we perhaps not be asking our European allies to enter into an arrangement whereby we can joint-purchase such equipment, to be leased to the nation that needs it at any point in time?
Des Browne: The Government’s approach has been to encourage each individual country to meet its own commitments to invest in its capabilities and armed forces. That process has paid dividends—not as quickly as we would have wanted in some respects, although progress is being made. In particular, Afghanistan has been a transformatory process for a number of countries in that regard.


Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): The Select Committee on Defence said 18 months ago: “If the In-Service Dates for the carrier programme are substantially later than 2012, there is a serious risk of a capability gap emerging which would impact upon the ability of the Royal Navy to undertake its role effectively.”

Last July, the Government announced that they had delayed the in-service dates by two years, to between 2014 and 2016. Reports this weekend suggest further delays and that even if the matter is not delayed, the contractors will be asked to delay cutting metal. If there is no further delay, as the Secretary of State has just told the House, why is the Prime Minister dithering about a programme described by his own Minister responsible for security, Admiral Lord West of Spithead, as the “jewel in the crown of the Strategic Defence Review”?
Des Browne: There is no dithering. We are talking about a complex contract. It was announced in July that we were going forward, and there has been no change to the in-service dates. The important thing is the real-terms increases in defence investment for which the Government have been responsible, year on year and planned into the future of the comprehensive spending review—exactly the same investment, I understand, that the Conservative party has agreed it would make if it came into government, although that is now in some doubt because of other commitments that have been made.

Those who are interested in defence spending might wonder where those additional cuts might be made. However, there will be no change in the in-service dates, and the hon. Gentleman should not consider this idle speculation.


Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab): My right hon. Friend is aware that we are talking about two important platforms from which the Royal Navy will project its presence round the world. However, to go with those platforms, we need the Joint Strike Fighter. Can he ensure that we will not see any delays in that order?
Des Browne: The JSF programme is developing. Indeed, flight testing of the JSF has been commenced and is progressing well. In fact, I understand that the first short take-off and vertical landing aircraft was rolled out in December 2007 and is undergoing testing, with the first flight planned later this year. We remain committed to the joint strike fighter as the optimal solution to operate from the future carriers, as the joint combat aircraft requirement. As is normal in a programme of such size and technical complexity, reports may emerge concerning progress—that issue was raised in the last Defence questions—but we remain committed to the aircraft.

…/…

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Portsmouth, North) (Lab/Co-op): In my constituency we obviously welcome the two new aircraft carriers and the six Type 45 destroyers, not least because VT Shipbuilding will be playing, and does play, a large part in their construction. However, will the Minister elaborate on how the orders are consistent with the maritime industrial strategy?
Bob Ainsworth: My hon. Friend points to an important issue. We need not only to maintain our capability for today and the immediate future by the provision of capability for, in this case, the Royal Navy, but to maintain the capability to produce new ships, which is exactly what the defence industrial strategy and, in this case, the maritime industrial strategy are all about. Of course we need the maximum efficiency to provide the best possible equipment for our Navy and armed forces, but we have made a commitment to all three naval bases, including, of course, Portsmouth.


Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD): My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) and I recently visited RNAS—Royal Naval Air Station—Yeovilton, and I pay tribute to the helicopter squadrons who have been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Lynx aircraft, however, plays a crucial operational role for our surface fleet, and it is reaching the end of its flying life. Will the Minister confirm when he expects to sign the contracts for the future Lynx project?
Bob Ainsworth: We are not yet ready to make any announcements on the future Lynx project, or on any other possible future projects under consideration.


Sir Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield) (Con): Will the appropriate Minister give an unequivocal commitment that future FRES vehicles, which have, of course, to be air-transportable, will have monocock V-shaped hulls, which deflect blasts, leaving the vehicle repairable after it has experienced an explosion? That is critical to the safety of our armed services personnel.
Des Browne: I fully understand how important the hon. Gentleman’s point is—and he knows why. In answer to an earlier question, I made it clear that I would expect the design of the hull to take account of our learning experience over the past two years in particular. I am not in a position to give the hon. Gentleman at the Dispatch Box the unequivocal undertaking he seeks, but he can rest assured that I consider the shape of the hull to be extremely important to the safety of the vehicle.


Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): In order for the Government to fulfil their 2004 commitment for a fleet with 25 frigates and destroyers and eight submarines, they need to order eight Type 45 destroyers and eight Astute class submarines. Do they intend to do so?
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have ordered six Type 45 destroyers. We have made no commitment yet to hulls seven and eight, and we are not ready to make any announcement on that. If the hon. Gentleman had followed what is said in Hansard rather than what he hoped was said, he would know that back in December I told him that the plan was eventually for there to be seven Astute class submarines, not eight.


Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex) (Con): Will the Minister for the Armed Forces confirm that the costs of the Joint Strike Fighter are now ballooning out of control, and that it will be impossible to achieve the original number that the Ministry of Defence was to order?
Des Browne: As I said earlier in answer to another question on the JSF, that programme is developing. We are working closely with the United States to monitor the programme, and although we do not intend to order production aircraft, when we are satisfied that the aircraft’s development has matured sufficiently and that it is affordable, we will place the order. Currently, we are committed to the JSF providing the joint combat aircraft for the carrier force.



Click here for the full transcript of the debate, on the Parliament website (HTML format).

-ends-




prev next

Official reports See all