Oral Answers to Questions

Wayne David Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

Where possible, we should do all we can to ensure a huge proportion of UK content in all the contracts we deliver so that our forces get the kit they need.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I welcome the new Ministers to their posts. A little more than three months ago, a prominent Conservative Member of this House said:

“We must continue to hammer home the importance of sovereign capability”—[Official Report, 16 July 2019; Vol. 663, c. 277WH.].

That was, of course, the new defence procurement Minister, speaking before she was promoted. Thinking about the fleet solid support ships, for example, can I ask the Secretary of State why his Ministers do not practise what they preach?

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to comment on an ongoing competition. As he knows, if we were to prejudice that competition, both the UK taxpayer and potentially UK industry would be at risk of being sued by the other consortium. The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), whom I welcome to my team, was not the Minister at the time of that competition, so to hold her to account in that way is unfair.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wayne David Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman completely. We are talking about the armed forces of the United Kingdom. Wherever they are serving, wherever they are based and wherever they are from, I want them to be able to take part in events, and I also want to ensure that the public services provided to them are as they should be.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The importance of support for veterans should unite the whole House. Given the appalling track record of outsourcing, will the Secretary of State explain why her Government have invited private contractors to bid to run the medal office and certain veterans services?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I acknowledge the work that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) has done on veterans support, including through the gateway and the veterans strategy, on which we are currently consulting. I have also been doing work in the Department, looking at our obligations and how we are constituted.

Armed Forces Day

Wayne David Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I am pleased to respond to this debate on behalf of the Opposition, and I can honestly say that it has been an excellent debate. It has been consensual and genuinely cross-party in character, and we have heard from all parts of the House. I think it is true to say that there has been one resounding message, and that has been a message of appreciation for all that our armed forces do for our country and our people.

The official Armed Forces Day is on Saturday, with national celebrations in Salisbury in Wiltshire. Today is Reserves Day, and I was very warmed by and impressed to see the flags above Portcullis House and various Government Departments as I walked across Westminster bridge this morning. They were an important symbol. For me, that set the tone for the day and for this debate.

The tone of the debate was set very well by the Minister, who gave a significant statement. I very much hope that his remarks will not simply be confined to this Chamber, and that they will be studied carefully by the people who aspire to the leadership of the Conservative party and this country. The tone was also well set by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith), the shadow Secretary of State for Defence who is from Wales. She indicated a number of points on which we are all united, and mentioned the tremendous work and commitment that our armed forces provide to this country as well as some of the issues they are concerned about. It is only right and proper that we give attention to improving the situation for our armed forces and do not simply rest on our laurels. We recognise that things have to get better because we are talking about the defence of this country—and, frankly, nothing is more important.

The Minister and the shadow Secretary of State both emphasised the tremendous debt of gratitude that we owe to our armed forces. Both also referred to D-day—the significant landings that took place on those five beaches, and the paratroopers who went behind enemy lines and helped to liberate our continent. I attended an event on HMS Belfast organised by Blind Veterans UK. It was a very moving experience to hear at first hand from veterans about what they went through and the sacrifices they made. As a number of Members have said, what motivated them and all their compatriots who fought and died was not that they wanted to be brave, but that they believed it was their duty to do what they did.

A number of Members have referred to events being organised in their constituencies to commemorate and celebrate Armed Forces Day. We have heard eloquent remarks from a number of Members; I apologise if I do not mention them all. For me, it is worth noting the eloquent remarks by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth). I am delighted that it is my hon. Friend’s birthday on Saturday. I am sure that at her local celebrations the armed forces will join everyone in singing happy birthday to her.

We heard similarly eloquent remarks by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), who quite correctly said that the armed forces unite our country: how true that is. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) also made some eloquent remarks. I learned a great deal about the history of the second world war, but I, for one, did not realise that there was a significant naval presence from the Dutch in Anglesey. I am sure that plenty will be written in the history of the island about the contribution that they made to the defence of our country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) made a very moving speech in which she referred to her constituent Anthony and the difficulties that he has experienced since he has done his best to get back into the world of work. I very much hope that the book he has written will indeed be read by many people and the lessons from it learned.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I wish briefly to thank a number of local organisations in my constituency for what they have done. Reading Borough Council has prioritised veterans in its housing register, in an area of high housing need. That is an important step. The town council in Woodley has put together a wonderful commemoration of the sacrifice in world war one, highlighting many local men who failed to return from Flanders. Many local voluntary and veterans’ organisations have made contributions. I would like to thank them for their support for and recognition of the wonderful service that has taken place.

[Wayne David]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am sure that although his remarks were peculiar to his own constituency, they are generally applicable too.

I think that if we are serious about this, we recognise that it is not enough to be appreciative of the commitment made, past and present; it is also necessary to ensure that the defence of our country is based on the firm footing of the personnel in the armed forces. What is absolutely central for them in order to give of their best is the maintenance of a good state of morale. However, surveys have been conducted showing very clearly that the state of morale among the armed forces should be a cause for concern among us all. The impact of service life on family and personal life remains the top factor influencing the intention of many of our personnel to leave the armed forces. It saddens me to say that satisfaction with service life remains below the peak of 61% that was reported in 2009 and today stands at only 46%.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

I am going to ask the hon. Gentleman the same question that I have been asking Ministers and other shadow Ministers. If there is such a problem, why are we not agreeing that an armed forces representative body, without the right to strike, would be a good thing to allow people in the armed forces to inform policy?

[Wayne David]

That suggestion is worthy of serious consideration. It should not be dismissed, because there is a strong case for a collective voice for personnel in the armed forces so that Government can be helped by knowing exactly what they want and can respond accordingly. That is something to be carefully considered in future.

It is very important to send a clear message that, while there has been a great deal of progress and there is a great deal of pride among all of us, we want to see an improvement. We are concerned about the relatively low morale in large sections of the armed forces. Careful attention needs to be given to pay, to ensure that pay rises at least keep pace with inflation and we do not see an erosion of the living standards of our armed forces personnel. Careful consideration should also be given to pensions, compensation and housing.

The Opposition are concerned about the apparent fixation of certain Conservative Members that outsourcing is good, no matter the circumstances and irrespective of the costs or implications. We have to be entirely objective and look at what works and delivers satisfactorily for our personnel. Unfortunately, it is our conclusion that much of the outsourcing is ideologically motivated and does not improve things for our personnel. We need to look carefully at whether it would be better to do much more in-house and ensure that we have the services and standards that our armed forces deserve.

I think in particular of housing. I know that the Ministry of Defence is piloting the future accommodation model. I agree with the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes); it would be useful if we had a mechanism that enabled us to hear directly from the armed forces and their representatives what they think about the situation, rather than Ministers believing they know best and simply creaming off the views of one or two individuals. The Government must engage fully and openly with the armed forces to ensure that they are acting in the interests of all personnel and are seen to be doing so.

We have to do two things: we have to commemorate and celebrate, and we also have to stand back and look coolly at how things can be improved. The atmosphere of the debate has certainly allowed us to do that. I would like to finish by echoing the remark made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan): we need to give one united and very big thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

Well, I walked into that one, didn’t I? I was going to say, let us see what happens in a couple of weeks’ time, but I might not be here.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) introduced her husband to the Chamber, and I had the pleasure of meeting him in Glasgow a few weeks ago. I certainly thank him for his service. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we must not be complacent about the support that we offer to members of our armed forces—those who are serving, but also those who are veterans. Also, we ought to do a better sell of what it is like to join the armed forces. Sometimes, I think the public have a certain perception of what is on offer in terms of the trades people can learn and the skills they can acquire, and we are not as good at selling those aspects as we could be, so I will take that point back to the Department.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) rightly reminded us of his constituency’s proud armed forces history, and he was right to raise points about housing and mental health in particular. A number of Members raised the issue of mental health. As I think we all recognise, mental health was previously not discussed in this Chamber, certainly not when I was first elected in 2010.

I remember the first time a Member of Parliament stood up in this Chamber to talk about their own mental health. That was a turning point; the fact that we all now discuss the issue can only be a step in the right direction. We have to make sure that we provide that support to members of our armed forces and that they have the confidence to talk about the issue too.

We had contributions from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton). I wish the hon. Lady a happy birthday—the whole city will be out celebrating with her, I am sure. She rightly pointed out that next year we have the VE Day and VJ Day anniversaries. We must make sure that we celebrate in style. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South talked about the services we provide to people who leave the armed forces. Later this year, we will have the new transition policy, which we have been working on, and I hope that under it things will be looked at earlier. We want to cover all the issues that the armed forces face, and to include the family too, because families are critical.

I want to mention the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden). It was really quite moving listening to her talk about her constituent, Anthony Lock, and in particular the support he has received from Rhiannon and Katie. It just goes to show that, when we get somebody signed up to the armed forces, we often get not just that individual, but the whole family. We must never forget that, when we say thank you to the people who have served in our armed forces, we are also saying thank you to the wider family.

The hon. Lady made some points to which I want to respond. First, I will make sure I read the book. Secondly, I will speak to Baroness Buscombe about Jobcentre Plus; that is really important. I will come back to the hon. Lady on the other points she raised.

It is always good to hear from the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen); I am from Anglesey myself. My dad was in the merchant navy, so I know all about the merchant navy and many of the memorial halls that the hon. Gentleman was talking about.

[Wayne David]

Was your dad Dutch?

[Stuart Andrew]

No, he wasn’t Dutch.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about national Armed Forces Day. Of course, it is open to all local authorities to apply, so we look forward to seeing applications from across the country, including one from Northern Ireland, I am sure.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wayne David Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

My right hon. Friend is right. One of the things I have noticed in this role and as I go around the country is that innovation really exists in the SME sector. We have to ensure that more SMEs feel they can do business with the Ministry of Defence, so that we can take advantage of that for our armed forces.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The Government’s procurement process for military equipment is a shambles, and nowhere is that better seen than in the way it is handling the procurement of the Type 31e frigates. Having started, then stopped, then restarted the procurement process for the Type 31s last year and imposed a totally unrealistic price ceiling of £250 million per frigate, will the Minister confirm that he has now effectively removed that financial ceiling?

[Stuart Andrew]

I do not actually recognise the hon. Gentleman’s interpretation of the competition. This is a challenging competition for the very reason that we want to ensure that UK industry is competitive—not just in the UK, but around the globe. We have taken a pragmatic approach to change the parameters to ensure consistency with all other competitions that have been happening. This is a challenge to industry, but we want it to be competitive. That was the whole point of the national shipbuilding strategy.

Military Aircraft Manufacturing

Wayne David Excerpts

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Stuart Andrew]

I will come on to those points in a minute. A number of points were raised in the debate that I will happily respond to when I have finished these remarks.

As part of the wider strategy programme, my Department has now launched its next-generation combat air acquisition programme. This will develop the capabilities that the RAF will need to replace Typhoon when it goes out of service in 2040. The programme’s two-year concept phase has now begun, following my approval of the strategic outline case.

Furthermore, new forums have now been established to explore the possibilities for collaboration with other military aerospace partners. Early discussions have gone well, and my Department will provide more detailed updates in the summer. However, I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) that we are having very detailed conversations with a number of our partners around the world because we recognise that, for this process to be effective and, importantly, affordable when we deliver it, and, probably even more crucially, because of the importance of interoperability, it is vital that we have partner nations on board. However, as I say, those discussions are still ongoing. I hope I will be able to update the House on them later this year.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Will the Minister acknowledge that, although the commitment the Government have shown towards the Tempest programme is to be welcomed, if the project is to come to fruition, that will require much more investment by the Government than they are presently committed to?

[Stuart Andrew]

We are in the early stages at the moment, and I will shortly talk about some of our engagement with industry, to respond to his point a bit further.

The other thing that is really important, and it is in parallel to this work, is that fact that my Department is actively identifying and monitoring the health of the sector’s skill base, which my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde mentioned. When I visited Samlesbury, I was very impressed by the BAE Systems training centre next door. That centre is helping not only the sector but a lot of businesses around the Lancashire area, and it really is a model that we should see from other businesses in the defence sector. The aim of our work is to inform crucial decisions on future skills investment in a fast-moving international environment, where technological practice changes continually.

I will just come on to some of the points that were raised in the debate. The first was the issue of exports. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde was absolutely right to say that this is an incredibly important part of the work that we do. Personally, I have tried to invest a significant amount of my time in support of some of the export campaigns. We are working with Finland at the moment to see whether we can be successful in their competition, which is worth in the region of €6 billion to €10 billion. Finland has launched a competition for the acquisition of 64 fighter aircraft to replace its ageing fleet. That competition is a closely fought one, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we will do everything we can.

As for Saudi Arabia, we continue to make progress on the Typhoon batch 2 negotiations. The latest offer is a very strong package, and it would provide enduring industrial capability in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which would also establish many of the industrial components needed to realise that country’s vision of 2030.

My hon. Friend was right to mention the export issues and the licensing issues, and we are working closely with the German Government to ensure that those are resolved. Equally, we are working together with Airbus on the campaign to supply Canada with a replacement for its F-18—it is currently running a competition to find that replacement.

Other points were raised in the debate. There was the issue that my hon. Friend mentioned to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow and the prosperity agenda. We are working closely with four main businesses at the moment: BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce, Leonardo and MBDA. Recently, I was pleased to attend a Team Tempest industry day, which over 150 companies attended so that they could get the briefs they needed and the capabilities and skills that will be required to facilitate the next generation. The Tempest partners are now very actively engaged with about a hundred of those companies. So that engagement is happening and, as I have said, I hope we will be able to make more announcements in the coming weeks.

I have talked about the partner nations. The innovation side is obviously incredibly important. The innovation fund is helpful, and the whole aspect of this future combat air strategy will be incredibly important for that.

My hon. Friend also mentioned Hawk, which I know has been a challenging issue. I have visited Kuwait on two occasions now, trying to personally support the very active campaign that BAE Systems and the Government have pursued there. I pay tribute to the trade unions; they are very active in making their case. I also pay tribute to BAE Systems, which is trying to keep things going at Brough while we see whether we can make any announcements.

I hope I have demonstrated in this debate, which I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde on securing, that we are doing everything we can to maintain the necessary skills and knowledge, as well as to retain our ability to have the combat air sector that we really need. I assure the House that the Government will continue to work in full partnership with our world-leading military aviation sector, maintaining its position at the cutting edge of technological development, and supporting the jobs and prosperity that it brings right across the UK.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of military aircraft manufacturing in the UK.

Continuous At-Sea Deterrent

Wayne David Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O’Hara]

I thank the Secretary of State. This is like having my very own straight man. Maybe we should take our act on tour. Not only will Faslane continue as the main conventional naval base for us, our allies and our friends, but it will also serve as the tri-service headquarters of an independent Scottish armed forces. The SNP’s plan could not be clearer. The security of the north Atlantic and high north is paramount, and we will work with our allies to improve not just their security, but our own.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I am fascinated to hear of the SNP’s plans for the future of Faslane. Will the hon. Gentleman go a little further and indicate how much a future SNP Government would want to spend on developing a Scottish navy?

[Brendan O’Hara]

The plan has been laid out time and again. The Scottish Government are absolutely committed to the security of our border. I find the patronising tone of the “Better Togetherites” absolutely astonishing, because they seem to think that Scotland is somehow uniquely incapable of defending itself and its people as part of a greater alliance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I am very pleased that we have had this excellent and important debate on the 50th anniversary of the continuous at-sea deterrent. I apologise if I do not mention every single Member who has made a contribution. It is very important, to begin with, for us to recognise where we are. The continuous at-sea deterrent is currently provided by four Vanguard class submarines carrying the Trident missile system. In July 2016, this House voted to maintain the UK’s nuclear deterrent beyond the early 2030s, when the Dreadnought class submarines will replace the Vanguards. The first of the new class will enter service in the early 2030s.

One of the strong features of this debate has been the fact that many—indeed, most—Members have paid genuine tribute to the women and men, and families, who support our at-sea deterrent. It is important that this House places on record that we are truly grateful for their ongoing commitment. I think, in particular, of the contributions by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), and the right hon. Members for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) and for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), as well as the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr Dunne), whose review is truly excellent. I absolutely agree with him, and I hope that the Government take his ideas forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) made an important contribution. He not only, rightly, placed an emphasis on paying tribute to our servicemen and women, but made the point that all of us, collectively, who believe in the concept of deterrence need to make the case to the people of this country. He also pointed out that it is very important that we stress that none of us wants to keep nuclear weapons. We are not in favour of nuclear weapons; we want to see a peaceful world and an impetus given to the process of multilateralism.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Why, then, has not a single Labour Member of Parliament spoken out against nuclear weapons in this debate?

[Wayne David]

Because we take it for granted that we are all against nuclear weapons. None of us wants to see nuclear weapons being used. The most effective way to preserve peace, however, is the concept of deterrence.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The alternative position is that of the SNP, which wants the UK to give up its nuclear weapons, but is quite happy to be secure under NATO’s European umbrella.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I will come on to the SNP’s interesting position in a moment.

The case for this country’s nuclear deterrent is overwhelming. It has been put forward with eloquence and determination by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan), my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) and others, but it was particularly well put by the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). I would like to quote an article that he wrote back in 2006:

“the purpose of a British nuclear deterrent remains what it has always been: to minimize the prospect of the United Kingdom being attacked by mass destruction weapons. It is not a panacea and it is not designed to forestall every type of threat. Nevertheless, the threat which it is designed to counter is so overwhelming that no other form of military capability could manage to avert it.”

That was true when he wrote it and it is certainly the case today.

This is a debate that has gone on for generations; the debate about deterrence is not new. In that context, I would like to refer to one of my predecessors, a man by the name of Morgan Jones. He was the first conscientious objector elected to Parliament and he represented Caerphilly. I have produced a book on him that will be available in all good bookshops in three weeks’ time. In the early 1930s, Morgan Jones, who had been a strong pacifist in the first world war and throughout the 1920s, reluctantly came to the conclusion that it was necessary for Britain to defend freedom and protect democracy by re-arming and being prepared to stand up against the evil of fascism. That is an important lesson that we should not forget today.

Some people argue that the world has changed over the past few years: the polarisation between east and west—between the free world and the so-called communist world—no longer mars the globe and we have seen the emergence of non-state players such as al-Qaeda and ISIL. The world has changed, yes, but let us be clear that the threat of state players is still with us. Recently, we have seen the development of a new style of old-style nationalism, particularly in China and Russia. I pay tribute to the way my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) has highlighted these facts very clearly. We see China becoming increasingly assertive in the South China sea—the East sea as the Vietnamese refer to it. We have also seen Russia being increasingly assertive and, I have to say, duplicitous with regard to Ukraine, Estonia and many other places.

Although the case for modern deterrence is overwhelming, one of the interesting points of the debate has been the position articulated by the Scottish National party. If anybody wants to have their cake and eat it, it is the SNP Members. We heard from the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) and the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) that they want nothing to do with the nuclear deterrent and they want Britain to abandon it. Nevertheless, as my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said, they want to continue to be part of NATO, which of course is a nuclear alliance.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

While it is the hon. Gentleman’s position that the workers of the world should ignite, the position of the Scottish Labour party is the same as that of the Scottish National party. Can he explain why the Scottish Labour party is wrong and he is right?

[Wayne David]

I have no doubt whatever that this is not a devolved matter, so the policy that counts is that of the British Labour party. I would like to quote the manifesto on which all Labour Members were elected in 2017. It said very clearly:

“Labour supports the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent. As a nuclear-armed power, our country has a responsibility to fulfil our obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

We want to see multilateral disarmament—yes, we want to encourage that process—but we are also four-square in support of Britain’s nuclear deterrent.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I want to clarify his position from what he said in response to my last intervention. Does Scottish Labour’s policy not matter because Westminster Labour’s policy is for Trident renewal?

[Wayne David]

I am simply pointing out what should be blindingly obvious: decisions on these matters are made here. We all want different points of view to be expressed—we value points of view in all parts of the United Kingdom—but decisions on Britain’s nuclear deterrent are made in this House.

It is also interesting that, when we heard contributions from SNP Members, they were blasé about saying, “Yes, we don’t want the nuclear deterrent. We are quite prepared to see it shipped out of Faslane.” But what would be put in its place? They were very reluctant to give any indication of that. [Interruption.] Hang on a second. They talk blandly about having a Scottish navy, but how much would that cost, and what frigates would they buy? We would like to know.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

rose—

[Wayne David]

Now is that opportunity—tell us.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Let me make one thing perfectly clear—he should remember this, as his party put up a poster boy for the Better Together campaign; I do not see him in his place—when we make promises in shipbuilding, unlike him or the lot opposite him, they will not be broken.

[Wayne David]

That is a cardinal example of the SNP being unwilling or unable to answer a straightforward question: all talk, no action, full of hot air. That is why the SNP is getting nowhere fast in Scotland.

I want to ask one question of the Government before I sit down. We heard earlier from the Secretary of State that the Dreadnought programme is to cost £31 billion, with a contingency built in. However, not so long ago a National Audit Office report pointed out that the programme was extremely expensive, and it is. Of course, it is inevitably putting a huge strain on the MOD’s overall equipment plan. We know that the MOD budget faces enormous difficulties, so I ask the Minister whether he can make any comment about the programme’s cost and how any future cost escalation will be built in.

I also ask the Minister to return to the often put and discussed question whether the whole programme should be outside the MOD’s budget. It has been suggested that the Treasury is reluctant, and we know that relations between the MOD and the Treasury are not too good and have not been for some time. Does he think the programme and the amount of expenditure is so important that a strong case needs to be made now to ensure that it is taken out of the MOD’s budget and considered separately?

This has been a good debate. We have all paid genuine tribute to the men and women who have kept us safe in this country. We live in a world that has changed profoundly since the decision of Clem Attlee and his Government to give the UK an independent nuclear deterrent, but deterrence is still vital, and the best way to maintain deterrence—and therefore peace—is through our continuous at-sea deterrent.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wayne David Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

As was touched upon earlier, we are very much showing and leading by example with the promotion of many women into some of the highest roles within the Army, the Navy and, of course, the Royal Air Force. We have been looking at how we do our advertising and how we reach out to encourage more women to understand there is a very positive career in our armed forces.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Normally it takes three years to train an RAF pilot. Will the Minister explain why it is now taking up to seven years?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Stuart Andrew)]

We accept there have been issues with this contract, but we are working very closely with industry to try to resolve it and to make sure there are the training facilities needed for the people who want to take up that career.

[Wayne David]

That is a very interesting response, but is it not the case that there is this problem because there are shortages of planes and instructors, and that things are so bad that the MOD is paying a private contractor for phantom courses that never take place? On current estimates, it will take another 20 years before the RAF has enough pilots, so how does the Minister propose to remedy this totally unacceptable situation?

[Stuart Andrew]

As I said a moment ago, I recently met industry and spoke to, for example, the chief executive of BAE Systems. I want those industries to work together to come up with a solution, which is the challenge we are giving them.

Draft Defence and Security Public Contracts (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Wayne David Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2019 General Committees

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. This is a very worrying amendment to the regulations, because it deals with the doomsday scenario of a no-deal Brexit. We have 46 days left before we leave the European Union, and the Government are coming forward at this late stage with quite a significant piece of legislation that requires far more detailed scrutiny and far greater preparation. If the Government were serious about considering this, why on earth did they not do so months and months earlier? I am concerned about the regulations, which are indicative of the Government’s irresponsible approach to Brexit as we near the end of the process.

The explanatory memorandum explains that the central purpose of these regulations is to ensure that there is

“little or no distinction between the treatment of economic operators from the EU and other places outside the UK.”

In other words, this mechanism—as far as defence procurement regulations are concerned—provides the brick wall between Britain and the EU and the rest of the world. However, it is important to bear in mind that this issue works both ways. It would not apply simply to companies from abroad—whether outside or inside the EU—that wish to engage in commercial activities here, but would have an impact on British companies’ work in other European countries, which is an important point. The Government correctly argue that the export capacity of British industry in the military sector is significant—not just to the rest of the world, but to our partners in Europe. I am concerned that companies with long-term strategies increasingly oriented towards an export capacity will find trade more difficult if this measure is introduced.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this uncertainty is damaging, but should he not take the advice of 57.6% of people in Caerphilly who voted to leave the European Union, and back the deal?

[Wayne David]

It is important at this stage in the process that we do not engage in such cheap debating points. We need to look at the nature of our economy and the impact that a no-deal Brexit would have. This is too important for simple political digs or empty rhetoric. We need cool heads and a sharp analysis of what is before us. That is what I am seeking to do, and I hope, in the national interest, that the Government will do so too. We are getting perilously close to the point of no return. We have 46 days. We must take a deep breath, stand back and put the interests of our country and our constituents first.

Why have the Government adopted this approach? The impact assessment says that there are no policy changes, and therefore they do not require a detailed business impact assessment. However, I suggest that it is a policy change because it cuts across what we have been doing and saying for many years in this country. There should therefore be a fully-fledged business assessment so that we can understand the economic consequences of what we are doing. Incredibly, that is lacking. I come back to the point that I made at the start. If we had any sense, and if we were seriously considering a no-deal Brexit, this issue should have been considered in detail months ago—indeed, two years ago. Europe is a vital export market for us, and this will have a big impact.

The Government talk a great deal about competition, but it is worth bearing in mind that 40% of the Ministry of Defence budget is single-sourced. There is no competition; the MOD simply gives the money to a particular company or amalgam of companies. It is therefore important that we question the Government’s commitment to competition.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

I was thinking of the airborne warning and control system, for which there did not appear to be any procurement policy. We just opted for the American option, rather than something that would have benefited employment in this country.

[Wayne David]

That is a very good and important example. There was at least one other strong alternative to the Boeing bid for AWACS, but the Government decided not to consider it at all. There was no publicity, openness or transparency; they just came to a cosy little arrangement with an American company, and effectively bought the equipment off the shelf from the United States, with minimal investment in the British economy.

[Mr Goodwill]

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that sometimes there can be great benefits to the UK from that? For example, General Dynamics is building a new light tank for the British Army in Merthyr Tydfil, employing 950 people.

[Wayne David]

Yes, indeed. I commend the work that General Dynamics is doing, but let us not forget that that company lost out because of the lack of competition for the mechanised infantry vehicle. Again, the Government put competition to one side and came to a cosy little deal with a German-led consortium for the Boxer vehicle, and General Dynamics lost out. It quite rightly said, as Saab and others said about the Wedgetail, that it does not mind losing a bid, but it at least should have the chance to bid openly for it. The Government should be giving contracts to the best companies at the best price to have the best impact on this country’s economy. Sadly, that is not what they are doing.

The draft regulations will transpose into British legislation article 346 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union—an important article that allows exceptions to competition rules where national security issues arise. However, fleet solid support ships remain an issue: despite representations from Labour, from other Opposition parties and from trade unions, the Government have decided not to issue the contract to a British company. Instead, they are putting it out to international tender, saying, “It’s these terrible European rules that are making us do this—we’re tied into the straitjacket of European competition rules.” But which EU rule are they referring to? Article 346! If their rhetoric is true, why are the Government taking that article en bloc and transposing it into British legislation? For the life of me, I cannot understand it, if they are sincere in their comments about the invidiousness of article 346.

I would very much like to hear the Minister explain how he can square that circle and face both ways at the same time. If the Government were serious about a no-deal Brexit, surely it would have been sensible to take the opportunity to ditch article 346 and have decisions taken in this country, in the interests of British industry and British jobs, rather than putting contracts out to competition. However, I fear that the Minister’s response will confirm that the Government are not concerned about that. They want to ensure as smooth a rhetorical transition as possible, but they have not gone into the depths of detail that are required.

I come back to the point that this Committee and all such Committees are going through a façade, because the Government are not really contemplating a no-deal Brexit; this is all part of blackmailing Parliament to ensure that the Government get their own way. I have raised a couple of points that I would like the Minister to respond to, but I particularly ask him to do his best to refute my last point about the Government’s strategy.

[The Chair]

I call the Minister. [Interruption.] If hon. Members wish to catch my eye, will they at least look at me?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I will not detain the Committee long. Following on from the point made by the hon. Member for Glenrothes, this is not about getting the cheapest equipment, but about getting the best equipment. Although much of the equipment built in the UK is state of the art, the global market may supply particular specialists, such as drones. In the Nimrod contract more than 20 years ago, a political decision to revamp the old Nimrod airframes ended in disaster. Lockheed Martin had a perfectly good alternative that would have meant jobs in the UK for companies like Hunting Aviation at East Midlands airport.

It was mentioned that the Boxer vehicle had been given to a German company. To be fair, it should be made clear that 60% of the value of that project will go to British companies, including BAE Systems, Thales UK and Pearson Engineering. When we place an order abroad, there is often collaboration. Indeed, the frames for the tank being built in Merthyr Tydfil are being built in Spain. Part of our negotiating strategy is to ensure UK involvement in such projects. I hope that the Committee will understand that the Boxer is not a purely German-built vehicle, but a vehicle with a high degree of UK content. Indeed, if further contracts are awarded around the world for Boxer, we could hope and expect to get a share of that.

[Wayne David]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but it is also significant that recently Rheinmetall has taken over a part of BAE Systems. That is an issue of concern.

[Mr Goodwill]

Exactly. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, although, in the spirit of collaboration, the new turret for the Warrior, which I think has gone to Lockheed Martin, will involve a gun from Rheinmetall. Germany has a long record of building very good guns, as we have found out to our cost at times, but it is important that we look at that collaborative approach. Indeed, many UK companies, such as BAE Systems, have interests in other factories around the European Union. That should not change following Brexit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

Those planes are ready at the moment. Some of them are ready for us at the moment. They are on the production line. That will not be an issue at all. As I said, we are still going through a lot of the assessments, but the point is that the Airbus alternative has not even been proven. This is a capability that we need. I agree completely with the hon. Member for Glenrothes that we need to give our armed forces equipment that they can rely on and depend on. This is a classic example of why we have do that.

[Wayne David]

I hear what the Minister is saying, and he may have a case, but would it not have been far better simply to have an open procurement competition under which every competitor could set out what it had to offer and everybody could see which was best?

[Stuart Andrew]

It would have taken them some time to prove the capability. The point is that we do not have the time. The E-3 system is not really up to standard, and we need to replace it. That is why, as I say, we look at these situations very carefully.

I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby talked about the Boxer. It is a proven capability, and he is absolutely right that we negotiated for 60% of the supply chain to come from this country. The hon. Member for Caerphilly said that BAE Systems had been taken over by Rheinmetall. This is a joint venture; it is something we should be really pleased about.

[Wayne David]

It is the majority shareholder.

[Stuart Andrew]

We are seeing investment in this country, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not welcoming the fact that jobs will be sustained in Telford, and more jobs will be created, because of this joint venture. It is disappointing that Labour Front Benchers are not welcoming this investment in the British defence industry and the jobs it will secure.

Regarding article 346, the whole point is that we have transferred the wording, because in this instance we want that continuity to take place. It also allows us to exempt the need to go into international competition, should there be a national reason why we have to keep that capability within this country. The hon. Gentleman said that we have not gone into the changes in depth, but, as I said in my opening comments, those are for future discussion. Once we have left, we want to have a look at the opportunities available to reform our defence procurement systems.

Finally, the hon. Member for Glenrothes said that the 1958 list will be transferred to the Secretary of State. It is not fair to say that the Secretary of State will not be held to account. There will be many opportunities to hold him to account, including questions in the House and Select Committee hearings, but the most important point is that any changes that the Secretary of State might suggest to the 1958 list would have to go through this House as an SI, and would therefore need the approval of both Houses. It is not fair to say that he can make such changes on a whim. I hope I have answered all of the specific questions, and clarified the implications of the amended legislation.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Defence and Security Public Contracts (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wayne David Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

It will obviously replicate very much what the US system has, but it will also ensure that we have additional capability should we need it. It is really important that our armed forces have all the equipment they need and that they have systems such as GPS so that we can put them in a safe environment when they are defending our country.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

We understand that because of the Government’s failure to negotiate our continued involvement in Galileo they are exploring other options to build their own global satellite navigation system, possibly in co-operation with the United States of America. We know that that will cost the country up to £5 billion, but can the Secretary of State or his Minister tell us how many British companies have lost out on important Galileo contracts as a result of the Government’s failure?

[Stuart Andrew]

We have in this country an exciting space industry that is working incredibly hard and is part of the 18-month engineering, development and design study that is expected to conclude in 2020. I am looking forward to seeing the results of that study, because I am sure that the great British industry that we have will provide us with the system that we need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wayne David Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be aware that Britain was involved in the security of continental Europe long before the creation of the European Union. We feel quite confident that the cornerstone of our security is NATO, not the European Union, and that is where our focus is going to be.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Last Thursday, I asked the Prime Minister what the cost would be of developing a British alternative to the Galileo project, given that she has failed to negotiate Britain’s participation in Galileo, post Brexit. I received absolutely no answer from her. The cost would in fact be between £3 billion and £5 billion. Given the support of the Defence Secretary for this move, will he tell me whether the Treasury has agreed to pay that sum?

[Gavin Williamson]

It is typical of the Labour party to want to hand over money continually to the European Union for nothing in return. When we look at the satellite technology, we see that it has been developed here in the UK with British money. We are more than capable of delivering the system with international allies. I hate to have to point it out to the hon. Gentleman, but there are more international allies around the globe than just the European Union, such as the United States, Japan, Australia, South Korea and many others we can work with.