Combat Air Strategy

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

My right hon. Friend actually makes a very valid point about our ability to maintain the mass of aircraft. I want to pay tribute to Sir Stephen Hillier, the Chief of the Air Staff, who has driven forward so much of the Tempest project, as well as driving forward the utility of the Typhoon aircraft. We will certainly be looking at that to make sure we maintain the utility and mass of the Typhoon force.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

On 17 November 2017, we had a debate in the House about the need for a defence aerospace industrial strategy. This combat air strategy is one step forward, but it does not talk about sovereign skills in terms of the need for a training platform. May we have a serious conversation about what is going to happen at Brough?

[Gavin Williamson]

We listened very carefully to the hon. Lady in calling for a combat air strategy, and we have answered by providing one. We are aiming to look at all the different aspects of how we actually provide all the different areas of combat air. On fighter jets, Tempest is obviously one of the most important and significant investments that we will be making, but we will look at all the different aspects, along with our industrial partners, BAE Systems.

Defence Industry and Shipbuilding

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I must begin by directing the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a proud member of the GMB, the trade union that represents thousands of workers in our shipbuilding industry.

It is slightly challenging to follow so many Members who have spoken with such authority. I do not want to repeat what has already been said, and I shall speak as briefly as possible so that everyone can enjoy the football this evening.

The shipbuilding sector is of vast economic and strategic importance to our country. It is a £2 billion industry that directly employs over 32,000 people, with a further 20,000 jobs in the supply chain. It is a sector that continues to provide well-paid, highly skilled jobs for British workers—jobs that are desperately needed. The industry’s dependence on the Royal Navy means that MOD procurement policies such as those that we are discussing today are critical to the success of British shipbuilding, as was recognised in the Government’s national shipbuilding strategy. However, I fear that the Government’s narrow interpretation of EU procurement rules means that they are needlessly limiting themselves in their efforts to support a major national industry.

Under article 346 of the Lisbon treaty, EU member states have nearly unlimited freedom in respect of defence procurement. It is a freedom of which many other EU nations have taken advantage in order to safeguard their own sovereign capabilities, as in the case of Germany’s Berlin-class support ship and Italy’s Vulcano-class logistic support vessel. Yet the UK has so far applied those protections only to the production of vessels that we define as “warships”. That approach lays bare the paradox at the heart of the Government’s attitude to our shipbuilding strategy. The very existence of a national shipbuilding plan suggests a recognition of the industry’s vital importance to both our economy and our national defence, but the long-term success of that industry is being impinged on by a refusal to do everything that could be done to support our national shipbuilding industry.

Nowhere is that demonstrated more clearly than in the Government’s decision to put the bid for the fleet solid support ships order out to international tender. We have already seen them begin to backtrack on their commitment to build three support ships, with the official tender for the project now stating

“a firm commitment for 2 ships and an option for a further 1 ship”

—so, apparently, two and a half. We should not be cost-cutting when it comes to the long-term capabilities of our Royal Navy, nor should we be putting an order of national significance out to tender abroad. The construction of those ships could give vital economic support to our national shipbuilding industry, and the £1 billion deal could provide long-term stability and investment in UK shipbuilding. As the shadow Secretary of State stated, GMB research shows that up to 6,700 jobs could be created or secured if the order were to go to a domestic shipbuilder, as well as a further 4,700 in the supply chain. That would build on BAE’s recent success in securing the SEA 5000 Australian programme.

As the House knows, I am adamant that due to the industry’s dependence on naval contracts, a steady drumbeat of orders is vital. Building these fleet solid support ships here in the UK would provide a real guarantee to British workers and show that the Government are serious about supporting British business.

I have spoken before in the Chamber about the importance of the wider defence family. Those who design and build these ships are as vital to our long-term national security as those who serve on them. If we were to lose those skills and that knowledge now, as we prepare for a new post-Brexit world, the damage could last for a generation.

We cannot afford to sit back and let the free market take its course while competitor countries recognise the value of using public procurement to support security-critical industries. We must not allow our skill base to erode or our communities to decline by failing to do everything we can to provide that steady drumbeat of orders that is so vital to our continued prosperity.

During the 1980s, the UK’s withdrawal from the defence export market and our failure to establish a solid base in commercial production saw 75,000 jobs disappear. The impact on our communities and on our domestic capacity was devastating, and the Minister, who has now left, should be ashamed that he compared it with the mining industry. We simply cannot allow this to happen again.

A national shipbuilding strategy is a great step forward, but it needs to be more than words—we need orders. Our Royal Navy is still the best in the world. Let us see to it that it holds on to its ability to rule the waves. We must protect our domestic shipbuilding and ensure that these orders, and the jobs they bring here, are coming home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb]

The key thing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay said, is that when Opposition Members talk about threats to the south Wales steel industry as a result of the “America first” policy, they are quite happy to attack Donald Trump for his protectionist attitude. The same thing can apply to this debate in spades, I am afraid. Competition and the ability to compete internationally are based not on protectionism but on the ability to be open in the way that we deal with this issue.

[Ruth Smeeth]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Stephens]

rose—

Afghanistan

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

The NATO alliance has served every nation incredibly well, and my hon. Friend is right to point out the fact that article 5 has been invoked on only that one occasion following the 9/11 attacks. We must not underestimate the value or utility of NATO, and we must continue to invest in its future to keep us all safe.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

As ever, we owe a debt of gratitude to our armed forces and their families who will be supporting them during this deployment. As the NATO summit continues, what efforts are being made to encourage our other NATO allies to increase their own commitments?

[Gavin Williamson]

As soon as I complete this statement, I will be going to Brussels to have numerous bilateral meetings with our many NATO allies. We need to hammer home the message that, for NATO to work, we all have to invest in it. We cannot expect one country to carry the burden all the time. We all have to show that willingness to invest. The Prime Minister will be sending that message, and the United States will also be sending that message. I think that the message is starting to get through.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Quite clearly the capability of the Type 26 was understood and appreciated by our Australian counterparts, but the key element was the fact that the Royal Navy is committed to this platform as our future anti-submarine warfare frigate. There is no doubt that my hon. Friend is absolutely right that when the Royal Navy shows confidence in a piece of equipment, the rest of the world takes note.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

21. Now that the Foreign Secretary has resigned and the Prime Minister seems confused about what our tier 1 status is, what are we doing to ensure that we retain tier 1 military status?

[Guto Bebb]

Well, I thank the hon. Lady for her question. It is important to understand that tier 1 is shorthand for the fact that we are a country that can reach globally in terms of our military capabilities. That has always been the case for the United Kingdom, and it shall remain the case for the United Kingdom under this Government.

Defence Fire and Rescue Project: Capita

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful for that question, although it almost tempts me down a rabbit hole that I have occasionally gone down before. While I support the increase in the budget for the health service, I must reiterate that the UK’s defence posture is such that we must invest in our armed forces as well. Having said that, there is an obligation—a requirement; a duty—on the armed forces and the MOD to make efficiencies and savings, without affecting risk, and this is one area where we can do that and reinvest the savings in defence.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

We have had 12 years of debate about what should happen to the contract—12 years of uncertainty for the workforce—and now we have a 12-year contract. It seems to me and the unions that key parts of the work currently delivered by the defence fire and rescue service, such as the checking of fire extinguishers on site, are not included in the contract. Capita does nothing for nothing, so this will not save money. What is the Minister doing to ensure this provides value for money?

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Lady follows these issues very closely, and I pay tribute to her for her interest and expertise in this matter, which the House greatly appreciates. I agree that, for various reasons, this has taken too long. The contract process was run in accordance with the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011, but it has taken too long for various reasons, some of which I have covered, including the number of stakeholders that had to scrutinise and agree the bidding process, and confirm the successful bidder. I take her point on board, however, and we will make sure as we do the evaluation that her concerns are met.

Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [Lords]

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 29th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

The Scottish National party welcomes the measures in the Bill that aim to address some of the issues around recruitment and retention of personnel. However, we are concerned that they do not go far enough to tackle the crisis. Unless some evaluation of these measures is carried out, we run the risk of this simply becoming a paper exercise.

The most recent figures show that there was a net outflow of 2,740 personnel from the UK regular forces in the 12 months to the end of September 2017. The MOD said that this difference has increased compared with the 12 months to the end of September 2016, when there was a net outflow of 1,930. According to the 2017 armed forces continuous attitude survey, 35% are dissatisfied with service life in general, and the impact of service on family and personal life remains the top reason for leaving.

There are a number of operational pinch points, which are areas of expertise

“where the shortfall in trained strength…is such that it has a measurable, detrimental impact on current, planned or contingent operations”.

Data on operational pinch points are published in the MOD’s annual report and accounts. The latest report shows that the total number of pinch points, as at April 2017, is 30. Broken down by service, there are four pinch points in the Army, relating to logistical roles; 15 pinch points in the Navy, in engineering and specialist warfare; and 11 pinch points in the RAF, in engineering and intelligence roles, with emerging shortfalls in aircrew.

New clause 2, which is in my name, would ensure that a review is carried out allowing Parliament to monitor and evaluate whether the provisions in the Bill are having a positive impact on recruitment and retention. It would allow Parliament to hold the Government to account, and to monitor whether the measures are addressing the underlying crisis in recruitment and retention.

According to the explanatory notes to the Bill, clause 1(4) will give a commanding officer

“the ability…to vary, suspend or terminate the arrangement in prescribed circumstances, for example: national emergency or some form of manning crisis”.

I do not believe that anyone has a problem with the suspension of the agreement during times of national emergency—we discussed this point on Second Reading and in Committee—but we know that there are long-standing shortages in key areas and that the operational pinch points are increasing. We are concerned that a large number of service personnel will not benefit from the provisions in the Bill. The SNP amendment would allow Parliament to keep a close eye on the uptake of flexible working in the armed forces.

We welcome measures that could have a positive impact on recruitment of women, but it is clear that the Government need to do more to meet their 2020 target. The 2015 strategic defence and security review stated that by 2020 at least 15% of the intake into the UK regular forces would be female. In the 12 months to 31 March 2017, only 9.4% of the total intake was female. With women making up just 10.2% of the armed forces, more effort needs to be put into attracting female applicants. What impact does the Minister think the measures in the Bill will have on recruitment of women to the armed forces? What more do the Government intend to do to meet their target for 2020, because on current statistics we are a long way off?

As I said, the SNP welcomes the measures in this Bill, but we believe that this was the opportunity to do far more for service personnel and their families. Although the Bill aims to tackle some of the issues around dissatisfaction, unless personnel are properly represented among defence policy decision makers, it runs the risk of being a paper exercise. I do not think that any of us in this place want that to be the outcome. Having an armed forces representative body on a statutory footing is the norm in many countries. Recognised representation is a key way that the UK Government could better understand the needs and requirements of our armed forces and their families. If the UK Government are serious about improving the lives of our armed forces, they should look at putting an armed forces representative body on a statutory footing.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

May I say how wonderful it is to see you back in your place, Mr Deputy Speaker?

I speak in support of the new clause and the wider provisions in the Bill. We have spoken before in this House about the challenges that we as a country face, and how vital it is that our armed forces have the capabilities that they need to tackle the threats that we are confronted with. Much of that discussion has understandably centred on funding, equipment, and having the right number of platforms. However, it really does not matter how many platforms we have and what their capabilities are if we do not have the skilled service personnel trained and retained in enough numbers to staff them.

We currently face a personnel deficit of 5%, with no fewer than 38 operational pinch points across the three services. Clearly, therefore, recruitment and retention is a real problem, and it is beginning to undermine our ability to deploy. While there are multiple issues that we need to address in this area, we know that flexible working offers the chance to begin to rectify the problem. As I have mentioned previously in this House, 46% of service personnel within the Royal Navy cite the lack of flexible working as a reason why they would consider leaving the military. Conversely, a third of all our armed forces cite flexible working as a reason why they would stay. So there is a very real and genuine demand in our military for provisions of the sort that this Bill brings forward.

However, for flexible working to succeed, it is vital that recruitment numbers increase, so that flexible working is a real option afforded to all service personnel. After all, introducing more flexible working at a time of static recruitment would risk exacerbating the problems we face, as we lack the numbers to fill the gaps, and people will not be able to take the options available. It will be important to monitor how many service personnel are working part-time, to identify and fill potential gaps in capacity, and to assess the effectiveness of this Bill’s aims. That is why I welcome my Front Benchers’ new clause requiring this information to be included in the armed forces biannual diversity statistics.

While a lack of flexible working is often cited as an obstacle to recruitment and retention, it is by no means the only one. There are challenges to be addressed in all four areas being looked at in the new employment model—pay and allowances, accommodation, terms of service, and training and education. In the case of accommodation, the recent collapse of Carillion—as everyone in this House knows, a major partner in the delivery of appalling service accommodation—means that these conversations are now even more urgent, and reassurance is a necessity.

On the matter of pay and conditions, little will change until we know what the pay review body is going to recommend this year to move us away from the appalling 1% pay cap. We also need certainty about the other terms and conditions offered to our personnel. Future pay rises cannot be funded by cutting tour bonuses or other allowances.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces covenant, I am profoundly aware of the debt we owe to the men and women of our armed forces. Their commitment to our country is unwavering every day. Our commitment to them, to their families and to their welfare should be unwavering, too. I fear that the message the Government are sending on this front remains mixed. Nevertheless, I welcome the Bill as an attempt to tackle some of the problems we face and a good start on the work of improving recruitment and retention in our armed forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I think it is a fact of life that the pool of 18-year-olds is becoming smaller. I hope the right hon. Gentleman was not suggesting that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) should be brought out of retirement; I do not know whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing for the armed forces, but it would certainly be interesting for them. However, he has raised an interesting point. When I was a Defence Minister, people who could have made a further contribution were leaving the forces in their early to mid-50s, for reasons connected with, for instance, pensions. Given that that pool of 18-year-olds is getting smaller, we should also revisit the idea of recruitment from Commonwealth countries, which has been successful in the past. It has made a tremendous contribution to our nation’s defence over the last few years.

[Ruth Smeeth]

My hon. Friend has referred to serving personnel of a slightly more mature aspect. Might not the most effective way to ensure that flexible working proceeds as the Bill proposes be to ensure that at least one one-star officer takes the opportunity to sign up for it?

[Mr Jones]

That is an interesting concept, which returns me to an important point made by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon). We need new role models, and not just in the context of flexible working. We need, for instance, to see a senior general who is a woman. We can do all the talking we like about trying to encourage women to join the armed forces and take an active part in advancing their careers, but unless there is a career path that will help them to progress, many will assume that that will never be achievable. We need only look at our US counterparts and others, where female officers have attained the highest rank. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth): why can these provisions not be open to senior managers and others in the military and other armed forces? That would send a positive message that it is important.

I welcome the Bill, but disagree with the Minister in that I do not think it is a silver bullet, because people join our armed forces and are retained for reasons not only to do with work-life balance, but because of pay and other things such as career breaks, which other armed forces in the world offer, enabling people to leave the armed forces and then come back. That does two things: it gives the expertise that those individuals have learned in the armed forces to business, charity and other sectors, and brings a wealth of knowledge back into the armed forces, which is needed. Career breaks are not unusual in the United States and other countries. This Bill is a start in terms of flexible working, but I hope that that will develop through career breaks and other initiatives.

Fatalities in Northern Ireland and British Military Personnel

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.

As ever, it is a privilege to follow my Chair on the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), and to be rejoined by some of our former colleagues who served on the Committee in the previous Parliament, because we discussed this issue. I do not intend to speak for long, but I want to talk about the people and why we need to handle the situation so delicately.

Many colleagues will want to be aware that families touched by this issue are sitting in the Public Gallery. Every time we look at the issue of Northern Ireland, we need to remember that this is about people—people on all sides of all communities—as well as service personnel, including those who are serving now, those who may want to serve in future and those who served during the troubles. This impacts on every part of our military. I am speaking today as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces covenant, and our responsibility to the covenant is mentioned in the report’s conclusions and recommendations.

Given the political situation in Northern Ireland, not for a decade has there been a more difficult time to raise the issue we are discussing. I do not envy the new Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my neighbouring MP, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who has to deal with some of the challenges. None of us wants to make her job more difficult as, in the months ahead, we work towards a political settlement in Northern Ireland.

The issue, however, has an impact on people throughout the country, including those of our constituents who are ex-serving personnel. There is not a veterans’ brunch or breakfast that I visit at which people, including members of my own political party who served during the troubles, do not regularly—by which I mean monthly—express their concerns to me about what it might mean for them as they approach their 70s and 80s. They are concerned that legal action may be hanging over their shoulders. As hard as it is for the families who are still suffering the legacy of the troubles, it is also hard for those people who served during that time. We have a responsibility to them, as well as to the families, to give them reassurance going forward.

There is also a knock-on effect for those who may be looking to serve in future. We saw such an effect from Iraq, with the Iraq Historic Allegations Team. If we are continually looking to judicial responses and the law, people will simply stop signing up because of fears about what will happen to them even 30 or 40 years after their service.

The issue is not straightforward by any stretch of the imagination, but it was right for the Defence Committee to explore it and I am proud of our report. That report raises the issue and adds to the burden on the Minister, for which I apologise, but the issue is one we can ignore no longer. We need a settlement that is agreed by all parties, whichever side of the conflict and the troubles they were on.

Our brave service personnel were acting under orders. We asked them to do many things for us; we need to have their backs when they need us. As delicate as the subject is, I hope that everyone will approach it in the same way as the right hon. Member for New Forest East, who led the debate. We need to move forward and we look to the Minister for guidance. I hope that the report’s recommendations will be followed.

Modernising Defence Programme

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

Yes; I very much hope that the recommendations of the programme will be listened to closely by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. Its whole aim is to give the armed forces the opportunity clearly to set out our case for the resources that we need going forward.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

The last 48 hours may have been somewhat chaotic, but I am more concerned about the last two months. There has been rumour after rumour and speculation undermining not only our global reputation, but the confidence of our serving personnel about their future.

There have been rumours about the Parachute Regiment merging with the Royal Marines and the end of amphibiosity—all this has been nonsense. Will the Secretary of State give us assurances that we will stop seeing such rumours on the front pages of the newspapers and be informed about what is happening? More importantly, what is happening with the review and where is the threat assessment coming from? What will the terms of reference be and when will we see them?

[Gavin Williamson]

There has been an awful lot of speculation over the past few months and virtually all of it has been proved to be completely untrue. I will continue to keep the House updated on progress, as I promised to in my statement. I will do everything I can to make sure that the armed forces, as well as the House, are listened to as we develop the programme going forward.

British Armed Forces: Size and Strength

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Wednesday 24th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and to be called to speak in this debate. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) on securing this timely debate. He walks in the footsteps of many of his predecessors in being a stout defender of our armed forces. I have very happy memories of my own service, starting in his constituency in New Normandy barracks and Normandy barracks with 2 Para and 1 Para. He has done us a great service today in providing an opportunity for an important debate about the size and structure of our armed forces.

It is also, as always, a great pleasure to see the Minister in his place. I know that he takes these matters incredibly seriously. It is a reality of parliamentary procedure that questions and debates relating to defence are responded to by Ministers from the Ministry of Defence. Perhaps we could employ our collective nous to see whether at some point in the not-too-distant future we can find a way of gathering like-minded colleagues together to make some of these points and put some of these concerns to the Minister’s colleagues in other Departments, namely the Treasury and the Cabinet Office.

Like all hon. Members present, I am constantly inspired by the skill and commitment of our servicemen and women, who serve our country often in the most difficult circumstances. My concern, though—and this takes us to the nub of the debate—is that very soon there may not be enough of them to do what is required, and not only will they suffer from being over-exposed and overstretched but, as a result of having fewer personnel in our armed forces, the UK will be less secure.

With that in mind and with an eye to the forthcoming defence review, I want to draw attention to a few of the reasons why, in recent years, the importance of numbers has been downplayed. First, there is a misunderstanding about the threat environment. In recent years and months, the eyes of Westminster and Whitehall have been focused on cyber-threats and the broader concepts of soft power and security. It is important to look at such emerging threats, but we run the risk of that focus coming at the expense of a focus on the conventional threats that we still face. At a time when the UK is under greater threat than at any point since the cold war, that focus has resulted in the Government considering reducing the personnel in our armed forces to an historic low.

As hon. Members are aware, the risk associated with those low numbers is often hidden behind the term “capability”. Every time people voice a concern about size, what tends to follow is a response about technology, structures or training, and someone telling them that in the 21st century, less in fact means more. The truth, however, is that even in the 21st century, less still means less, and quantity still has a quality all of its own. I am certainly not denying that new equipment and structures can mitigate the loss of numbers, and it is of course true that technology is a force multiplier, and that well trained troops are better than poorly trained ones, but it is equally true that there is an irreducible number of people that a credible Army cannot go below.

My greater concern, however, is focused on why those misunderstandings of both threat and capability occur, and why they are allowed to take root. In my view, the answer is threefold: poor processes, a lack of expertise and undue emphasis on money. For too long, we have allowed the loud whispers of Whitehall generalists, often in the Cabinet Office and the Treasury, to drown out the voices of subject matter experts, be they civilian or military. That must stop.

Due respect must be given to those who understand hard power, hard security and the application of conventional force. Similarly, any review process must be done correctly, beginning with analysis of the world in which we live, including the threats posed by it and the role we want in it—not with a list of the savings that must be made, and where the Cabinet Office and Treasury think they should come from.

As such, I very much hope that the Minister and his Department use any forthcoming review to re-emphasise to those in Whitehall the importance of both strategy and of specialists. If they do not, I fear that we run the risk that any review may be no more than a fig leaf for yet another round of Treasury-inspired cuts.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), my colleague on the Select Committee, for securing this debate. Does my hon. Friend agree that the potential defence review is an appalling added pressure on our armed forces, because they simply do not know what will happen to them in the weeks and months ahead? That is simply unfair, and the Government need to get on with it and tell us what will happen.

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. She and all hon. Members will be most welcome to join me later today when we play host to soldiers from the Yorkshire Regiment. That will be a good opportunity to listen to the concerns of soldiers. She is right, however, that there is significant uncertainty about the future of our armed forces.

I understand that the Defence Secretary will make a statement in the House today; from the recent debate in the main Chamber he will know the strength of feeling across the House. There is a challenge for all of us who believe that the size and structure of our armed forces are such that they should not be reduced further, and he should understand—I hope the Minister will take this away—the significant support from Members throughout the House for the position that we want the Secretary of State to take: hold firm to the line that we cannot reduce our manpower.

[Ruth Smeeth]

I am sorry for making another intervention, and I thank my hon. Friend for taking it. I believe that the Secretary of State has decided not to make a statement to the House this afternoon.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am sorry to hear that, if it is the case. We will hear about that from the Minister later.

To conclude, emerging cyber and information threats have not and will not result in the decline of conventional threats; the opening up of new fronts does not mean the closing down of old ones; and threat mitigation is not a zero-sum game. As such, I very much hope that the Government will ensure that we do not further reduce the number of men and women who serve in our armed forces with such distinction. I very much look forward to working with Members across the House to ensure that the Government do not make any further cuts, specifically to the size and structure of our armed forces.

Shipbuilding Strategy

Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Sweeney]

The impact was absolutely devastating, and we saw the wider impact in Govan as well, which was a commercial shipyard up until 1999 when Kvaerner pulled out. That Norwegian oil company rebuilt the yard in the early 1990s for commercial oil tankers and gas carriers. The result of that collapse was disastrous. Sir John Parker said that just as we had got British shipbuilders match-fit, ready to compete, the rug was pulled from under them. Just as the industry was ready to re-enter the market and be a globally competitive player, it was wrecked. That is the sad legacy of the collapse of British merchant shipbuilding to the point where we are entirely reliant today upon the Ministry of Defence to sustain what is left of British shipbuilding capability. That is partly why I am concerned about the national shipbuilding strategy, if it is restricted in its entirety to naval shipbuilding and not the wider issue of how we re-establish a market foothold in commercial shipbuilding. The two are intrinsically linked.

If we are to achieve a competitive advantage we ought to broaden our horizons and re-establish how we deliver a resurgence in British commercial shipbuilding capability. That was Sir John Parker’s biggest regret. That is what drove his frustration at that time, and a lot of that is what underpins the recommendations in his report. He talks about a vicious cycle of changing requirements, which the right hon. Member for New Forest East mentioned, and a year-zero approach every time we have a new MOD shipbuilding programme which duplicates effort and introduces unnecessary costs. It is so bespoke in its approach to designing ships that it introduces unnecessary costs, which render British shipyards uncompetitive, even in the naval sphere, never mind the commercial sphere.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for securing this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney) has just hit the nail on the head. Does he agree that the lack of a steady drumbeat of orders to ensure our industrial base has caused this problem, and that the wonderful words of the shipbuilding strategy are not being delivered by the Government?

[Mr Sweeney]

I absolutely agree. We see a cognitive dissonance between the vision of the outcome desired and the prescription to deliver that vision and commitment, which are not in alignment. They are not going to deliver it. That is the tragedy of it. We all want to see the national shipbuilding strategy succeed. We are trying to deliver our own collective understanding of what is best for the British industrial capability into this document, so that we achieve the outcome of a globally competitive and effective shipbuilding industry in the UK again.

My hon. Friend mentioned a feast and famine approach to British shipbuilding, which has long been an issue, particularly as the commercial capability has fallen away. I look in stark contrast at the American approach to shipbuilding. The Arleigh Burke destroyer programme plans to build 77 ships. Those ships have been consistently under construction with the same hull since 1988. They have been built since the year before I was born, and it still plans to build more. That is a consistency of approach that we ought to think about adopting in the UK. It would essentially be a continuation of the Type 23 frigate programme, but adapting its technology and capability and maintaining the learning curves achieved over a 30-year build programme. That would be a huge opportunity for British shipbuilding. Why do we insist on stopping every time we build six Type 45s and starting from scratch on a Type 26 when a Type 45 platform could have been adapted to deliver the same capability as a Type 26? The approach is wrong-headed.

The Type 45 project has 13 different types of watertight doors. Why do we have such a huge level of variance in the programmes? We have no standardisation, no grip on the design, no standard approach to delivery, and no innovation in adopting new products and defence standards. We have no resilience or innovation in defence when it comes to an entrepreneurial way of delivering ships. If we were to benchmark it against how Meyer Werft build a complex cruise ship, the lead time between specification to delivery of the ship is minuscule compared with what we do with the equivalent ship of, say, our Type 26 platform. It is years and it is unacceptable. We need to seriously grip that if we want to drive down costs, deliver value in the naval shipbuilding industry and achieve the outcomes in terms of numbers for the Royal Navy that we desire.

The prescription is chaotic. It talks about a vision for having more

“certainty about the Royal Navy’s procurement plans”,

yet it wants to introduce a competitive programme for a Type 31. That goes right back to the early 1990s with the Type 23 programme, when Swan Hunter was competing with Yarrow shipbuilders on the Clyde, and what happened? None of those shipyards could invest in modern facilities and modern practices that would deliver the benefits in terms of timescale and minor efficiencies that would allow the ships to be built for value for money. It ended with the collapse of Swan Hunter and a drip-feeding of orders. There were huge redundancies in the shipping industry and huge uncertainty. This is a recipe to return to that model that was deeply flawed in the 1990s and led ultimately to the loss of British shipbuilding capability. That is why we are appealing today for a commitment to uphold what was originally planned in the terms of business agreement, which was extinguished.

A letter of 19 October from the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), said that the terms of agreement was extinguished. It committed to a single world-class site for complex warship building on the Clyde and investing in that shipyard facility to make it world class, upper quartile. That would deliver the benefits industrially to allow us to deliver a national shipbuilding programme for frigates and destroyers, which would ensure that they had a consistency of build that would deliver the long-term benefits, learning curves and efficiencies. It would drive down the cost of the ships and allow them to be built at volume, which, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East mentioned, is necessary to sustain a larger Royal Navy fleet. That is how we should do this. It is not about spreading it around, which will not work.

The Royal Fleet Auxiliary programme has better potential because it has a lower gross compensated tonnage and is a less complex ship, although it is still complex. If the tonnage of 40,000 tonnes each was spread around the remaining UK shipyards, that would provide the bedrock of capacity to sustain all the shipyards around the UK, while having the designated complex war shipyard on the Clyde. That is what happens with the Canadian and Australian shipyards and it is what happens in the United States. That is the approach we ought to have. Why has the national shipbuilding strategy not taken account of international benchmarks? Why has it not got a commercial shipbuilding focus as well to develop a longer term model based on European norms? Why are we not committed to building British ships, including the Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships, in the UK? I could go on for much longer because I am closely associated with the topic.

In summary, I have outlined what we want to see changed in order to make the national shipbuilding strategy worthy of the name it deserves. We need world-class UK shipbuilding back, and the way to do it is to adopt those suggested improvements.