Defence Industrial Strategy
Debate between Lord Lee of Trafford and Lord Coaker(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I know that the noble Lord has an opinion that not many people agree with, including me, but I appreciate that he puts it forward time and again in a respectful, calm and intellectual way. He is to be congratulated on that.
My argument to him would be this. There is a need to rearm and a defence industrial policy has to be geared towards the rearmament that needs to take place. I will give him one example, with which I know he will disagree. My premise is that it is a good thing that we are supporting Ukraine. Despite what we have been doing, with the defence industry as it was, we—not only us but other European countries—were not able to deliver the equipment necessary for Ukraine to do all that it wanted to do as easily as it could. That is a difficult, if not dangerous, position for us and our allies to be in.
I made this point at DSEI yesterday. I said that, as a Minister of State for the UK MoD, I do not want to be in a position where I believe in supporting Ukraine but read in the paper—as I did, going back probably a year—that Ukraine had had to withdraw because it did not have the necessary military equipment to continue the fight. That is not a situation we should be in. Part of dealing with that is to develop our defence industry and improve its capability and capacity, so we are not in a position where we cannot support those we would wish to support.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of Members’ interests re the defence sector. As has been said, there is much to welcome in this document, but we need a full day debate on the subject. To try to rush everything in 40 minutes or so is, frankly, ridiculous and an insult to the importance of it.
There is a small number of specific questions I would like to put to the Minister. First, there is no mention in the document—I found this disappointing—of the need to reduce the bloated number of civil servants already employed by the Ministry of Defence. What plans has the Minister got to streamline defence procurement personnel? Secondly, the very important role of the new National Armaments Director is a massive job and probably will be one of the most important in the UK. What sort of salary level are we talking about to attract the top people available? Page 18 of the strategy document, on resilience and reducing supply chain vulnerabilities, talks about an additional £1.5 billion in an “always on” pipeline for munitions. Could the Minister give me an indication of how that is arrived at? Finally, and this has not been touched on at all, have hugely important production sites in the UK, such as at Barrow, that are vital to our national defence. Is any thought being given to the protection of these key sites in the deployment of anti-missile systems and similar? There is nothing that I can see in the document about this and it is something we should begin to focus on.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. On his first point, about personnel, and his last point, about the security of sites, this is not the only defence document. There are defence documents that deal with personnel and what we might do about that. Similarly, there are reviews concerning the security of sites, partly because of Brize Norton but partly because we recognise there is a need for investment in that. He will see, over the next few months, various announcements made about the better protection of not only industrial sites but military bases—as he will with respect to personnel. That is the point I would make: not every single thing to do with defence is in the defence industrial strategy.
The National Armaments Director pillar exists only because of the defence reform we have introduced to create four pillars within the Ministry of Defence, of which the armaments director is one. The noble Lord is right about its importance. I do not know the exact figure—I can look it up and write to him—but it is the necessary salary. I remember looking at it and thinking it was a lot of money, but that is based on my idea of what a lot a money is. I thought it appropriate, let us put it that way.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will put that in writing for the noble Lord.
The “always on” pipeline is about trying to ensure that we have a situation where we can always, if we need to, step up our production much more quickly, rather than be in a situation where we have to wait two years before we can do this or that. An “always on” pipeline means, in essence, that we can get the equipment and munitions we need quickly.
UK–EU Defence and Security Co-operation
Debate between Lord Lee of Trafford and Lord Coaker(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, with drones increasingly revolutionising modern warfare, is it not essential that the UK and European countries collaborate and partner drone research and production, thus avoiding the wasteful duplication of each country doing its own thing, which has so bedevilled European defence procurement in recent years?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a really good point. The issues involving drones have been one of the lessons that we have all learned with respect to the conflict in Ukraine, whether they be surveillance drones, one-way drones or any other sort of attack drone. Drones are a real weapon and resource of the future. International collaboration will therefore be vital. Anybody who visits a defence conference will see the whole range of drones that are laid out. There is a coalition, which we lead with Latvia, to streamline drone procurement with respect to what we give to Ukraine. That is a starting point, but there is more to be done. Drones will simply be something that we will all have to take account of as the battlefield of the future becomes clearer.
National Shipbuilding Strategy
Debate between Lord Lee of Trafford and Lord Coaker(5 months, 4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
The Government are seeking to do exactly what my noble friend points out. The important point he makes is the necessity for a drumbeat: you cannot build a ship in one place and then, three years later, go back and try to build another ship; you have to have a continuous programme. The shipbuilding pipeline that has been outlined was partly intended to address that. We are already starting to see the MoD place orders for ships. I have mentioned Rosyth and the Clyde, and other shipbuilding orders are being made at various shipyards across the country. I say to my noble friend that I will be one of those advocating to make sure that, as far as possible, orders for ships required in the UK are built at British yards. I take the point he is really making, which is about the need for more ships.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, there has been a huge growth in world cruising over recent years. Can the Minister tell us why we as a country have totally failed to participate in the construction of cruise liners?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I have to say that I am not an expert on cruise liners, but the noble Lord makes a serious point: why are we not involved in cruise liners and in various other shipbuilding projects? The answer is that we have allowed ourselves, as a country with a proud manufacturing history, to see many of these industries as the industries of the past. What we have seen happening recently has been a wake-up call for our country that these are not the industries of the past. They are the industries of now, and maybe we will see cruise liners built again in this country.
AUKUS Defence Partnership
Debate between Lord Lee of Trafford and Lord Coaker(2 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I start by saying that His Majesty’s Opposition fully support the AUKUS defence partnership that has been announced by the Government. It is a multi-decade agreement with two of our closest and strongest allies. It is of immense importance when we look forward to the threats we face now and in the future. It strengthens our strategic security and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific. As such, it should be seen as a national endeavour and a statement of our intent, with our allies and our friends, to stand up for freedom, democracy and human rights across the world.
Can the Minister reassure us, notwithstanding the obvious immediate threat to Ukraine from Russia and the fact that the first of these new submarines is some way off, that we have the surface fleet and the strategic alliances that we need to deal with the threats that we now face in that region? Or is it the case that, if we are to commit to the Indo-Pacific tilt, more resources will be needed in numbers of ships and planes and protection for the carriers?
There will obviously be a welcome boost to defence jobs, with these new submarines being built in Barrow and with nuclear work in Derby, as well as elsewhere across our country. Given the very real current skills shortage, how will the Government work with industry to ensure that we have the necessary skilled workforce to actually do this building? Can the Minister give us some idea of how many jobs are expected to be created? Can she also confirm the number of additional submarines to be built for the UK and what size this will eventually bring the UK’s submarine fleet up to? The first SSN-AUKUS for our UK Navy will commence in the late 2020s and will be operational as early as the late 2030s. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that these costs and timelines will be kept to?
Alongside those issues, I commend the Government on the steps they have taken to work with the International Atomic Energy Agency to alleviate concerns around nuclear proliferation requirements. The agreement involves the transfer to Australia of technology, equipment and a naval nuclear propulsion capability. Can the Minister lay out clearly for the Chamber how this agreement maintains our compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and what steps the Government have taken or will take to reassure those who may be upset by this agreement? Of course, this must not prevent us taking measures for our security and that of others, but the Government quite rightly have been sensitive to the consequences, not only for countries such as China but as regards what others may think and that those countries may try to use it as a justification to act. Crucially, can the Minister confirm that the director-general of the IAEA has expressed their satisfaction with our engagement and that we will work closely with the IAEA over the coming years?
The UK’s former National Security Adviser, Sir Stephen Lovegrove, said of the pact:
“It is perhaps the most significant capability collaboration anywhere in the world in the past six decades.”
He said that because it is not just about submarines but, as pillar 2 of the agreement describes, about cyber, hypersonics, artificial intelligence and so on. Little detail has been given about this, so could the Minister give us any further updates on the sort of collaboration that may take place under pillar 2?
The integrated review says that £3 billion will be invested across the defence nuclear enterprise. Can the Minister confirm that resources are there to properly fund this pact over its lifetime and that those resources will not lead to cuts in the budget elsewhere? Would not all our defence, including this, be helped by a timescale rather than an aspiration to reach 2.5% of GDP on defence spending? I remind the Minister that that has not been the case since 2010.
Finally, as I said, we can be proud of this endeavour as a country. It will help to ensure that we protect our interests, not only in Europe but beyond in the Indo-Pacific, working with others to support democracy and freedom as we have always done. As such, His Majesty’s Opposition fully support it and wish it well.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches very much welcome the AUKUS partnership announcement and Statement for the whole range of fairly obvious reasons that the noble Lord set out. However, has the Minister seen the comments in yesterday’s Times from Rear Admiral Philip Mathias, a former director of nuclear policy and of the Trident value-for-money review? He said:
“The performance of the Submarine Delivery Agency has been abysmal. Astute class submarines are being delivered late by BAE … HMS Vanguard’s refit by Babcock has taken more than seven years; and … The in-service date for HMS Dreadnought”—
originally 2024—now will not come through until the early 2030s. Have the Government done any work at all as regards submarine construction refit on comparing the performance of Barrow and our shipbuilding industry with the performance achieved in the United States and France? That would be a very interesting comparison. In addition, given that we are likely to have an increase in our submarine fleet, which would be very welcome, what plans are there to increase and train the number of submariners who will be needed for those future boats?