Royal Navy Ships

Debate between Alison Seabeck and Tobias Ellwood

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

I commend the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) for securing the debate and for highlighting a series of pertinent issues and the questions that follow from them. I wholly support his tribute not only to those who serve in the Royal Navy, but to the communities that support them. His article for the Royal United Service Institute, “Leveraging UK Carrier Capability”, has rightly received a lot of attention. It raises some issues and points that I will come back to later.

The hon. Gentleman described the changing world in which we live and set out the argument for a strong Navy to support activity in the littoral environment. That argument was reinforced by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile). The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), with his usual passion for defence issues, put a series of questions to the Minister—I hope that he will be able to answer them—but also, with his great background knowledge, set out the historical challenges faced by successive Governments.

Last week, I was privileged to be at the celebration in Devonport of the centenary of HMS Warspite. Built in and launched from Plymouth, she was the most decorated ship in the Royal Navy. There were people present who had served on her. “From Jutland Hero to Cold War Warrior” was the description given by Iain Ballantyne of Warships magazine. She was one in a long line of ships, cruisers, destroyers, frigates and aircraft carriers built in British shipyards.

Sadly, in the last few weeks, we have had the announcement that shipbuilding in Portsmouth will cease, but around the UK, at smaller shipyards such as Appledore, and on the Clyde, we have centres of excellence where there are skills that we need to protect if we are to be able to continue to build ships, with sovereign capability. We should acknowledge the expertise of all those involved, from the designers to fitters and systems engineers. They are global leaders.

Shipbuilding has historically been an industry that has times of feast and times of famine. As the Government are often the only customer for some of these vessels—that issue was raised in relation to exportability, and I will mention that—there needs to be a more clearly defined defence industrial strategy in this sector as we go forward. Therein lie some of the problems. We are demanding ships that have greater longevity and need less servicing—in the same way as we do for our cars—but we also want value for money. That does leave gaps in the maintenance drumbeat. That was highlighted by the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) and will pose some problems for this Government and future Governments.

We are also looking for vessels to be designed that are slightly more generic, as the hon. Member for New Forest East pointed out, and more exportable. In a sense, it is quite difficult for us to compete in some of these markets when countries such as South Korea are very well able to do some of that. The most recent contract awarded by the Government, which was for the MARS—the military afloat reach and sustainability—project, went to South Korea; it did not go to a British shipyard.

Where do we go next? We have the Type 42 or Sheffield-class destroyers, which are now at the end of their heroic service. The Type 42 is being replaced by a stunning vessel, the Type 45. It has been designed to avoid some of the issues with its predecessors. As has been pointed out, it is top-end, gold-plated, all-singing, all-dancing and much admired by other nations, but they are unlikely to want to buy it and we are unlikely to want to sell it, I suspect, to be honest. We are also looking beyond the Type 23s to the global combat ship, the Type 26, so there are quite exciting times ahead in terms of ship design.

We are looking at a new configuration of our Navy based on fewer ships. I heard what the hon. Member for Bournemouth East said about the design and numbers of Type 26s. I will come back to that later in my speech, if I may.

[Mr Ellwood]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that the number of ships is also important in relation to the career structures of the Royal Navy? There need to be the command postings to ensure that there is that experience. My concern is that that is perhaps being capped. We do need that experience to continue at the top echelons of the Royal Navy.

[Alison Seabeck]

The hon. Gentleman raises a different point, which almost requires a different debate, but it is perfectly valid. It is about how people progress and how we keep that expertise and the interest of people coming in at the lower ranks—how do they go through the system? However, I will say to him that last week I was with the First Sea Lord in Plymouth when he gave a very robust defence of the Navy’s future configuration, with the QE class sitting at its centre. He was very careful, as we would expect, not to specify the number of carriers with which his successors will be working. Given that we are approaching a further SDSR, I feel that he was correct not to make assumptions. We need to understand what our defence and foreign policies need to deliver and what we want them to deliver, and clearly we also need to ensure within that that our shores are fully and properly protected.

However, the First Sea Lord was genuinely excited about the capability that the new carriers—I use the plural with some care, for reasons that I have alluded to—will bring. There is no doubt that their ability to deploy the full spectrum of diplomatic, political and military options, to stand off and deliver hard and soft power, will be a major addition to the fleet and our ability to defend our realm should we need to do so.

The global combat ship adds a further part to the picture. It will be very interesting to watch the design as it develops. It needs to be able to fulfil many roles—it needs to be flexible, to facilitate a full range of operations, to allow deployment of uninhabited or unmanned surface and subsea vessels, towed sonar arrays and inflatables, as well as to have the capacity to take something as large potentially as a Chinook and to be used with unmanned aerial vehicles doing airborne surveillance; it will give them additional range. The new ships will not just be single task-specific but must be designed with flexible capability, and that is what I understand is happening with the Type 26s.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East was also right to highlight the benefits of modularisation. I am sure that the Minister heard his comments about additional helicopter bays in the new design. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East also suggested a downgrade in design for a proportion of the new Type 26s and was challenged by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, about the ability of a limited number of full-strength Type 26s, with full capability, to protect carriers if the numbers were reduced. That was a perfectly sensible question, and it will be interesting to see what the Minister says in response.

Defence Reform Bill

Debate between Alison Seabeck and Tobias Ellwood

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alison Seabeck]

Yes, perhaps not even half-baked.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham made some valuable points about the GoCo, its complexity and the treatment of reservists, and he dallied tantalisingly with European legislation—very dangerous territory in this place.

We also heard from the gallant tail-end Charlie, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who was frankly lucky not to be shot down by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). The hon. Gentleman had a very selective memory of the projects he discussed, which distracted from his important opening point about flagging up some of the problems that the Gray review and this Bill seek to correct.

[Mr Ellwood]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Alison Seabeck]

No, I will not; I will carry on, if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me. He has had more than his time to make the points he wanted to make. Perhaps he will be on the Committee and we can discuss the issue further.

In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) talked about the background to the need for change and the importance of not jeopardising the ability of our defence industries to deliver world-class equipment to our front-line forces. We have to say loudly and clearly that, ultimately, we have to get this right if we are serious about giving our soldiers, sailors and airmen and women the kit and support they need when carrying out their role of protecting our nation. We cannot cut corners; we need to sharpen up our act. The question is therefore this: does this proposal cut the mustard?

Procurement and the problems associated with it are issues not just for the public sector but for the private sector. As we have seen, getting large projects delivered on time and to budget is a problem not just for the Ministry of Defence but for companies outside. Wembley stadium is an example. It is neither easy nor straightforward to procure for large projects and contracts, which is why we on the Labour Benches have been interested to see the results brought forward by the Chief of Defence Matériel, based on work started under the last Labour Government. The Government will also need to convince Members of this House, the Public Accounts Committee and those outside that they are capable of negotiating and supervising a contract that will be one of the most complex undertaken, given past history—a point touched on by the former Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire. I would add that anything that this House decides must not risk destabilising our defence industrial sector, our prime contractors or their supply chain—which is made up of innovative and high-quality small and medium-sized enterprises—in a way that might reduce our ability to deliver in the UK the projects that are vital to this nation’s security.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) talked about the focus on price rather than value. He was concerned about the arbitrary nine-year contracts and the potential instability and uncertainty. He also intimated that there was a need for a wider defence industrial strategy.

The much respected former Minister the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire waxed nostalgically lyrical about the Bill. He also made the point, in a non-partisan way, that our armed forces are currently well equipped. His observations on the single source regulations office were acute, and he is correct that the weighty impact assessment is an interesting and valuable document. I am sure that the Minister has noted his remarks about the potential exemptions of foreign companies—as well as the concerns others have raised—and the need for a level playing field. I thank the former Minister for his gracious acknowledgement that whatever the party political differences, we have a shared interest in getting the best possible legislation through this House. Scrutiny and engagement from Her Majesty’s Opposition are part of that process.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife for delivering a speech that had great depth and was very probing of all parts of the Bill. He has been assiduous in his preparation, and I hope he will want to serve on the Committee. He also asked legitimate questions about the Department’s finances and the need to avoid a revolving-door culture. Again, that is something on which we might want to seek reassurances in Committee.

The jury is still very much out on whether the GoCo approach in part 1 of the Bill is a panacea. The points made by many right hon. and hon. Members bear out some of those anxieties. It is vital that the Committee set up to scrutinise the Bill does so with great care and attention to detail, because the devil is always in the detail and this is a very techie—if I may use that term —piece of legislation. It is in no one’s interest—that of the Government, the Opposition, business or the work force—for us to rush the Bill through or simply assume that it must be better than the status quo or DE&S-plus.

We are still not clear about the view of our key allies and partners, especially the USA, towards these proposals. On the other side of the channel, too, the French are looking at them with interest—and, I suspect, with some concern. Indeed, the impact assessment highlights the fact that one of the key risks associated with the Bill is that our international partners might not fully accept the proposals. The MOD itself has acknowledged that although the Minister has received assurances from the Americans, rumours still abound, so they will need to be put down firmly in Committee with some evidence to back up the assertions made. As we know, the Americans have set up a taskforce to follow the UK’s proposals.

My hon. Friends and I will want to be convinced—I am sure that the Treasury will need convincing, too—that this is the best option. We will also need convincing—in the light of major concerns about outsourcing, particularly to G4S, and the history of failures that we have seen—that this model is significantly different, that the safeguards in place are robust and that the taxpayer will not be at risk of having to pick up the pieces. We all witnessed armed service personnel stepping up to the plate when G4S failed in its Olympic delivery. Now we have further horror stories to add, so what protections will there be to ensure that it does not happen again?

Members in the other place will look carefully at the way in which the discussion moves through Committee and, given the wealth of expertise—former permanent secretaries, former Secretaries of State for Defence and former heads of the armed services—I have no doubt that the Bill will be given an extremely thorough and testing passage.

We broadly support the proposals to create an SSRO and, specifically, to replace the yellow book, designed to bring rigour to the process and to drive cost savings. However, we will want to probe a number of issues, including the level of power that the Secretary of State will hold over this “independent” body. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool voiced concerns about specific clauses and exports in this regard.

Part 3 is, of course, about our reserve forces, and many Members have spoken to the four relevant clauses. We support an enhanced role for the reserves, which have historically made a significant contribution to the armed forces and UK security. Tragically, some have paid the ultimate sacrifice. Our thoughts are with the family and friends of the two young men who lost their lives this week. I would like to endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), who spoke with such good sense about the need to avoid speculation about what happened in the Brecon Beacons and made thoughtful comments about how to expand our reserve force.

We are concerned that the reserves are being used to regain capabilities lost through the cuts made to our regular forces, which have gone above and beyond those outlined in the strategic defence and security review. We are concerned that the cart has been put before the horse, and we are concerned, too, about recruitment and retention levels and whether we can reach the level cited by the Government. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) for bringing to this debate his relatively recent but clearly quite deep expertise on the issue of reservists.

We have concerns about whether employment patterns will be compatible enough to allow for prolonged deployment, which could become more frequent under these reforms. That is of particular concern to SMEs’ employees, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire made clear in his opening speech.

In winding up, I would like to thank right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to what has been a thorough and thoughtful debate. I hope some of them will volunteer for the Public Bill Committee. In closing, I say simply that we Opposition Members do understand the rationale for all the changes in Bill, but we will need to be satisfied that there are no unanticipated consequences and that, ultimately, the defence of our realm, the industry and people who support it will be at no additional risk in the long term because of a failure fully and openly to scrutinise the measures that are being brought forward.