Shipbuilding on the Clyde

Iain Wright Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dunne]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that obfuscation on the part of the official Opposition. I draw to his attention the backlog of work ahead of shipbuilders in this country as a result of our equipment plan and our commitment to build the eight Type 26 vessels. No warship yard in Europe has the prospect of eight warships to look forward to. From that perspective, those working in those yards in Scotland can take considerable heart from the fact that they are working in our yards, rather than those elsewhere in Europe.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State for Defence has stated in the past that UK warships are only built in UK yards, but what percentage of the total contract value will flow to British companies, and what specific work will be given to the British steel industry from those contracts, with regard to not only the value of the orders in the supply chain, but the swift timetabling for the awarding of contracts, to help the beleaguered British steel industry now?

[Mr Dunne]

That is a good question, and I wish that I were in a position to give the hon. Gentleman a full answer. What I will say is that the vast majority of the contracts that have been placed thus far have gone to UK contractors. In relation to the systems and long-lead items that have been placed thus far, the contracts have gone primarily to BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce; in relation to the gearboxes, they have gone to David Brown. As far as the steel content is concerned—I know this is a matter of great interest to the hon. Gentleman—I have made it very clear previously in the House that UK steel mills will have the opportunity to bid for steel tenders that are put out by the prime contractor over the course of this programme. It will be up to the British steel industry to see whether it is in a position to match those orders for the specification and the timelines required.

First World War (Commemoration)

Iain Wright Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

This has been an excellent debate, with speeches of knowledge, poignancy and passion from all Members. I do, however, want to single out the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). I, too, came into this House after a long-run by-election, so I know what he has gone through. I wish my maiden speech had been as good as his; it marked him out as somebody from whom we will look forward to hearing more. I think he will have a long and strong period of time in this House and I wish him all the very best.

I am proud that in my maiden speech I mentioned the bombardment of the Hartlepools, and I want to return to that today, because 16 December this year will mark the centenary of that event. At 10 minutes past 8 on the morning of 16 December 1914, three German battle-cruisers started firing shells off the coast of the north-east towards Hartlepool and West Hartlepool. A total of 1,150 shells were fired over a 40-minute period, and 118 people, including 37 children, were killed in the bombardment and many hundreds were injured.

I believe it is right for this House and the country to commemorate that event, because I believe it had profound and historic implications at local, national and international level. Certainly, at the local level my constituency experienced the horror and the carnage. The scene that morning in hundreds of Hartlepool homes will have been replayed countless times before and since: a mad rush to get children to school on time—children who were probably thinking about the imminent arrival of Christmas a mere nine days later. What is not so usual, thankfully, is the confusion and terror that must have arisen after the shells started raining down.

As I said earlier, 118 people in Hartlepool and West Hartlepool were killed, including 37 children. Belk street, which is still standing and is still inhabited, was particularly badly affected. That is where the youngest victim, Benjamin Lofthouse, died; he was just seven months old. Families were torn apart. The Cornforths lost three generations to the bombardment on that day. Peter Whitecross, aged eight, and his brother John, aged six, were killed together. Sarah and Hannah Jobling were aged just six and four. William and Andrew Peart were aged just five and two. The Dixon family lost three children that day: George, aged 14; Margaret, aged eight; and Albert, aged seven.

I hope those names and ages make clear to the House the big scar that the bombardment left on my constituency. Many of the streets where the shells landed are still in existence and still lived in. The families who suffered in the bombardment still live in the town. The list of people who died in the attack—the Cornforths, the Dixons, the Horselys, the Hunters—are strong Hartlepool families with long lineages. They are very familiar to me as long-standing Hartlepool families whose direct descendants are still my constituents. Although the bombardment of the Hartlepools was a century ago, in my constituency it seems much more recent.

The bombardment also has national importance. It was the first attack on the mainland in the first world war. It also saw the first soldier to be killed on British soil since the battle of Culloden in 1746. Private Theo Jones was a local lad who lived in Ashgrove avenue. He enlisted in the Durham Light Infantry, and was one of six members of 18th Battalion DLI to be killed on duty that day. Private Jones was 29 years old. He had left Hartlepool to become a teacher in Leicestershire but had returned home to west Hartlepool to serve in his local regiment. He had been one of the first to volunteer in those heady summer days of August 1914. His pupils had given him a prayer book on his leaving, and a shard of the shell that had hit Private Jones in the chest was found lodged in the prayer book he was carrying in his breast pocket. That prayer book will be included in a programme of events to be organised by the museum of Hartlepool and located at the Heugh gun battery, on the actual spot where British troops, including Private Jones, repelled the German attack. That has been made possible through an Arts Council grant, for which I am very grateful.

The bombardment also has implications beyond local or even national considerations, however. The first world war was four months old at the time of the bombardment, which changed warfare and military tactics massively, arguably for ever. Following the bombardment, the enemy realised the panic and disruption, loss of support for Government and sapping of public morale that direct attacks on civilian populations could unleash. Changing technology meant that warfare was not confined merely to the armed forces in somewhat distant trenches on a foreign field; the full horrors of war could be experienced by innocent men, women and children on civvy street. The bombardment of the Hartlepools was in this regard the unwanted architect of the blitz of the second world war and the terrorist atrocities of the late 20th and early 21st centuries.

It is for those reasons that the bombardment merits national coverage and strong recognition through first world war commemorations. I very much hope that the House will have an opportunity to debate and reflect on the bombardment of the Hartlepools on the centenary, 16 December. Each year at 10 past 8 on that day, my constituency holds a ceremony, organised by the Heugh Gun Battery Trust, to mark the occasion of the bombardment. This year, as the House will appreciate, it should be very special. I hope that, at the very least, the Secretary of State for Defence will attend, along with other Members; they will be made very welcome. I also hope that the Government will mark the centenary in a respectful and appropriate manner. In this way, the bombardment of the Hartlepools will be given the national recognition and commemoration that the attack, but most of all the lives lost in my constituency almost 100 years ago, fully deserve.

Defence Reform Bill

Iain Wright Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who is respected in all parts of the House for his vast knowledge of defence matters. I associate myself with the thoughtful and heartfelt tribute that he paid to the two men who tragically died in the past couple of days in the Brecon Beacons.

I will concentrate on part 1 and, to some extent, part 2 of the Bill. The provisions in part 1 are fraught with risk. I agree with the Chair of the Defence Committee that the devil is in the detail and that no other country in the world has attempted to outsource the means by which it equips its armed forces. The notion that a GoCo—the Government’s preferred option—will act as the agent of the Ministry of Defence and negotiate and sign new contracts on behalf of the Secretary of State is an inherently risky one that needs to be explored during the passage of the Bill.

A defence procurement strategy should have three objectives. First and foremost, it should provide the equipment that is necessary to ensure that this country has the protection and security that it needs. Secondly, it should provide value for money for the taxpayer in the pursuit of the first objective. I also believe that it should have the third objective of supporting and enhancing our manufacturing and innovation capability. I am concerned that the Bill, particularly part 1, does not provide for all three objectives.

I heartily agree with the Defence Committee report on defence acquisition that was published earlier this year, which stated:

“We believe that the absence of a defence industrial strategy which supports appropriate national sovereignty puts the UK at a disadvantage against competitor countries.”

In evidence to the Select Committee’s inquiry, the European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company stated that the Government’s

“feeble support to British Industry is in striking contrast to the model in continental Europe, where for major projects a cross-Departmental approach focuses on cost and value to the nation as a whole. There appears to be no mechanism in the UK to measure the cross-government impact of a contract going overseas, where short-term redundancies and long-term loss of skills shift the problem from MOD to the DHSS and other Departments: good value for money for MOD perhaps, but poor value for the nation.”

I agree with that analysis.

Why do the Government not add defence to their sectoral industrial strategies for aerospace, automotives and the life sciences? The defence industry is economically vital as well as strategically critical to this country. It has annual revenues of more than £22 billion and directly employs more than 100,000 highly skilled workers. The defence growth partnership, which is chaired jointly by the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) and the managing director of MBDA, which was an excellent appointment, is a good, tentative start, but it needs to be translated into an active strategy that maintains for the long term our operational capability and our economic and industrial competitive advantage.

The Bill, if anything, takes us further away from that objective by creating additional pressure to focus on the narrow definitions of cost, value for money and off-the-shelf solutions. It fails to take account of the long-term impact that procurement decisions have on manufacturing, industry and innovation in this country. In the long run, overemphasising price and purchasing defence equipment off the shelf at the expense of value and national capability may cost us more in terms of our defence flexibility and our defence manufacturing base, and may cause a reduction in the levels of research, investment, intellectual property and design capability in the UK.

[Mrs Moon]

I agree with every point that my hon. Friend has made so far. One area that he has not addressed is accountability. For example, will we be able to call the chief executive of the GoCo before the Defence Committee to be challenged on the spending of public money? Is accountability of concern to my hon. Friend and will he address it in his speech?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wright]

The question of accountability is important, and I seem to remember that my hon. Friend mentioned it in a telling intervention on the Secretary of State. The House needs assurance that we are getting the best value possible for public money. There is a risk that we will focus too much on price without thinking about value. My hon. Friend raises another important point on accountability. As I understand it—the Minister might contradict me, as he will have far more of an understanding on this than I do—GoCo contracts will be up to nine years long, subject to performance. However, there is no opportunity for contract extension. After nine years, a full review of a GoCo contract will be carried out and put back out to the market.

I have some concerns about that. First and foremost, the project lead-in time for defence projects is often decades. If a project is at least 10 years long, how can a nine-year contract provide any degree of certainty? If a project—whether the development and roll-out of a new ship or a new fighter—takes 15 years to develop and is in operation for a further 30 years, where is the inbuilt institutional memory and stability that allows for truly effective project management if the contract changes three or four times? Will that not make a project more expensive and prone to risk?

The overriding consideration of business, especially in such a vital sector, is certainty. A lack of certainty, and a correspondent increase in risk, increases costs within the main contractor and throughout the supply chain. As ADS has said:

“Industry needs both transparency of future intent and stability of intent to enable essential strategic business planning. Since SDSR there has not been the necessary clarity.”

The manner in which the GoCo might be set up makes that instability even worse.

I mentioned that a nine-year GoCo contract cannot be re-awarded. I fail to see how the re-awarding of a contract can be inherently negative. I hope the Minister can explain some of the thinking behind that. Surely the notion that a contractor is up for a contract again would at least keep them on their toes when it comes to performance.

On part 2, I share the understanding and concerns of the Chair of the Defence Committee about how the single source regulations office might put UK companies at a disadvantage. My understanding is that clause 14(7) allows the Secretary of State to waive the new regulations from any single-source contract he wishes, but that overseas suppliers will be outside the jurisdiction of the new single-source contract regulation. Does that not create an unlevel playing field, where only UK companies will be subject to the new pricing and reporting requirements? If we are to have a true industrial strategy—long-term stability, with co-operation across Government —how will this help to provide UK companies and their supply chains with a level playing field?

The UK brand is strong when it comes to defence capability: we are the envy of the world. Our defence capability is part of a strong, modern and innovative manufacturing offer. While I strongly believe that the overriding consideration has to be whether a piece of equipment is compatible with the objectives of our armed forces in theatre, we undermine our economic competitive advantage if we fail to recognise how strong that offer is in the global market. A quarter of annual revenues in the UK defence sector, some £5.4 billion, is derived from exports. However, defence manufacturers tell me that export opportunities are being lost because some countries are saying in response to the narrow off-the-shelf approach, “If it is not good enough for the British armed forces, why should it be good enough for us?” How will the Bill deal with that, and will the GoCo system have an explicit remit to promote defence exports across the world?

Clauses 7 and 8, which are concerned with intellectual property, have been mentioned by other hon. Members. The provisions allow the contractor access to confidential and commercially sensitive information. Our intellectual property regime is one of this country’s competitive advantages, with knowledge-based firms feeling that their invention and creation will be protected in law, yet clause 7 reduces the restrictions on the disclosure to, and use by, the contractor of confidential information. A defence firm, highly protective of its technological knowledge, which might be its unique selling point and give it its advantage in the marketplace, might be happy to share IP directly with the Government, especially if it was trying to establish a long-term relationship. Indeed, I would encourage that. It would also aid the MOD by providing it with sector intelligence on the pipeline of technological innovation over the next few years, which might aid operational planning, and I know the Minister has put in place other things in that regard. However, a company might be less happy about sharing such knowledge with a competitor. A small company in the supply chain might feel particularly vulnerable to the takeover of IP by a huge contractor conglomerate, so what safeguards will the Minister put in place to ensure that suppliers’ IP is adequately protected?

I welcome the commitment on the procurement of equipment for our armed forces. Our servicemen and women fight for our country and deserve the best-possible equipment. In order to fulfil its objectives in theatre, this country deserves the highest-possible level of sophisticated, innovative military equipment. As part of that, consideration should be given to value for money for the taxpayer, but we should also be thinking about our defence industrial capability. So I finish where I began. The provisions in the Bill are fraught with risk and uncertainty and might undermine Britain’s defence industrial capability. I hope that these issues will be resolved appropriately during the Bill’s passage through the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Wright Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robathan]

The total size of the Afghan national security forces is approaching 352,000. It is for Afghanistan to make decisions for the future. We continue to support the democratically elected Government of Afghanistan, as do the Opposition.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

14. What plans he has for the future of Defence Equipment and Support; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

Our evaluation of how best to improve the delivery of procurement and support is progressing well. A soft market testing of the potential for a Government-owned contractor-operated model is due to conclude before Christmas, and the outcome of the value-for-money comparison is expected shortly. Subject to those conclusions, we are on track to make decisions on how we intend to proceed in the new year. In the meantime, we continue to drive efficiency and improvements within Defence Equipment and Support.

[Mr Wright]

Defence procurement is a key part of an active industrial strategy. Defence firms need certainty to plan and invest for the long term. There has been far too much uncertainty over the future shape and direction of Defence Equipment and Support. Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, the position is still vague, with promises made about the new year. Will he provide further clarity and, in so doing, help British businesses to invest for the long term?

[Mr Dunne]

The single most effective answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that this Government have removed the overspend in the defence equipment budget that we inherited from Labour. By narrowing the spend for the next 10 years into a £160 billion envelope, it is now clear that some 95% of that money is committed and the contractors know that the programmes will be delivered. That was not the case under the previous Government.

Katrice Lee

Iain Wright Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I am honoured to have been able to secure this debate on behalf of my constituent, Mr Richard Lee, on the disappearance of his daughter, Katrice, although extremely saddened that I have had to secure such a debate. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting me permission to speak on behalf of Mr Lee on the Floor of the House and to set out his concerns regarding the handling of this distressing case. I hope, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you will pass on my thanks to Mr Speaker for allowing me to do so. I also pay tribute to the great, unstinting and diligent work carried out by the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage)—Mrs Lee and her daughter are constituents of hers—who, I believe, will want to catch your eye later, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Mr Lee served in the British Army for 34 years and was considered to have provided exemplary service to Queen and county. The facts of the case, as they are known, are simple to relay and yet horrifyingly tragic. On 28 November 1981—her second birthday—Katrice Lee went missing from a NAAFI supermarket in Schloss Neuhaus, near Paderborn, Germany. Katrice and her mother had gone to the supermarket to buy things for Katrice’s birthday party. It is every parent’s worst nightmare: after turning her back for a moment to pick up some crisps for her daughter’s party, Katrice’s mother found that she had vanished. In the 31 years since then, no trace of Katrice or what became of her has ever been discovered.

As a father, I know the nauseating feeling people get when their child is out of their sight for just a moment in a public place. Every parent has experienced it, if only fleetingly. Mr Lee has told me that he has held on to that feeling for more than 30 years. I cannot think of anything worse.

The investigation to find Katrice was botched from the very start. It appears that, because Katrice was the daughter of a serving British soldier stationed in Germany, there was considerable uncertainty as to who should take the lead in the investigation—whether it should be the Royal Military Police or the German authorities—and that valuable time, resources and evidence were either wasted or lost as this tussle over territorial jurisdiction and responsibility was debated. As a result, border staff were not notified of Katrice’s disappearance immediately, despite the fact that Paderborn is only two hours’ drive from the borders of the Netherlands and Belgium, as well as the northern ports of West Germany. No road blocks or checks were put in place, even though autobahn 33 cuts through Paderborn. Staff in the NAAFI supermarket on the shop floor and the tills where Katrice was last seen were not interviewed until six weeks after she went missing. Almost even worse, a sergeant-major at the base, who was close to the family and who had even looked after Katrice’s sister the week after she went missing, has only in the past month— 31 years after the disappearance—been identified as a key witness and interviewed by the authorities. How many other key witnesses and how much vital evidence have been lost due to the inadequate and incompetent handling of this case in the early days and weeks after Katrice went missing?

The family believe that the Royal Military Police were led quickly to an early conclusion by the German police inquiry that Katrice had wandered off out of the supermarket and had tragically drowned in the nearby river. However, the family strongly believe that that is simply implausible. It is difficult to believe that a two-year-old could wander out of a busy supermarket, past a crowd of shoppers, down a ramp, past a female ticket seller, across a crowded car park and then walk alone and undetected for more than 200 metres before somehow falling into the river.

Katrice had a real phobia of water, and the family strongly believe that, even if one could accept that she could emerge undetected at the water’s edge, she would have gone nowhere near the river. In addition, the river at that point had storm grates attached to it, but no evidence, such as a piece of clothing, has ever been found to have been captured by the grates in the river. The river has never given up any evidence that Katrice fell in, and yet that has been the authorities’ accepted scenario, without any tangible evidence, for many months and years.

The investigation has been subject to a catalogue of errors for decades. At the time of her disappearance, Katrice had a turn in her left eye—as did her sister—that would need corrective surgery at some point when she turned nine or 10. The Lee family raised that point personally with the officer heading the investigation, as they believed that it was a relatively unusual characteristic that could be used as part of the case and identified as a potential line of inquiry. Six months after informing the head of the investigation about the matter, the family asked the investigating officer whether progress had been made, only to be told by the officer in charge that he denied all knowledge of the information and informed that it was a “figment of the Lees’ imagination”. It does not seem unreasonable or particularly onerous for Interpol to have carried out a check of any medical procedures on a turn in a 10-year-old’s left eye in Germany or elsewhere on the continent in about 1989 or 1990, but no such lines of inquiry were pursued.

In February 2001, police and Army investigators took blood samples from Mr Lee and the whole family in the hope that advances in DNA analysis and technology would provide fresh leads. The DNA samples were to be placed on an Interpol database. However, earlier this year, some 30 years after Katrice went missing and more than a decade after the original samples had been provided, my constituent and the rest of the family were asked once again for samples. Despite the requests from Mr Lee, no explanation has ever been given for the second request. My constituent does not know whether the original DNA samples have been lost, degraded, used or checked against criminal evidence or hospital records.

It is little wonder, given what the family have been put through by the sheer incompetence of the investigation, which, let us not forget, came on top of their distress over their missing Katrice, that trust has broken down.

In a letter to me dated 6 July 2012, the Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan), who at that time had responsibility for defence personnel, welfare and veterans, stated:

“the Royal Military Police are conducting a thorough reinvestigation of the circumstances surrounding Katrice’s disappearance, and it is hoped that the application of modern investigative techniques may bring new information to light. However, this is a sizable task which initially involves the review of thousands of documents, and will understandably take some time.”

Although I welcome the reinvestigation of the case, that comment from the Minister worries me greatly. It sounds like a classic case of kicking the matter into the long grass to get the Lee family off the Royal Military Police’s back for a while and to keep the embarrassments relating to the initial handling of the case out of the public domain. That is why it is vital that we have transparency in this case.

Will the Minister, who is a decent and honourable man, resolve tonight to undertake a number of things? Will he provide, here and now on the Floor of the House, a firm commitment on when precisely the reinvestigation will be completed? The family want not a vague promise, but a definite date for its conclusion in the next few weeks or months.

Will the Minister go further and pledge to commission an independent investigation or inquiry into the Royal Military Police’s handling of the case? I am concerned that embarrassments about the way that the case was initially dealt with and subsequently handled over many years have led to a cover up of the facts. A reinvestigation by the Royal Military Police of a case handled by the Royal Military Police does not fill me with confidence that all possible criticisms and flaws will be brought to light. Only an impartial and independent review will do that. Will the Minister pledge to have one?

Will the Minister also pledge to give the family access to the case files? I understand the point fully that such access may hamper the independence of a future trial, but for goodness’ sake, this case is 31 years old. The family holds more experience and expert knowledge on this matter than any other group. In looking at the files, they might see holes, discrepancies or potential lines of inquiry that might not otherwise be apparent. Will the Minister ensure that access to the case files is granted to the family?

The family would also like to meet the Prime Minister. He has met the families of other missing children, but not the Lees. He stated in a letter to the hon. Member for Gosport that he is too busy. I want the Prime Minister to meet Mr Lee, father to father, and for him to pledge that all the necessary resources of his Administration will be made available to help the Lee family receive answers. Will the Minister facilitate such a meeting?

My constituent has suffered the anguish of his daughter going missing every single day for 31 years. That anguish is deeper with the knowledge that the investigation was botched from the start, that the incompetence continued for many years and that we are no further forward in finding out what happened to little Katrice. Thirty-one years is far too long. The Minister needs to pledge firm action to reassure Mr Lee tonight.

Defence Budget and Transformation

Iain Wright Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

The answer to the second question is yes, the funding for the successor submarine is based on continuous at-sea deterrence. I am not sure about the 25 figure; the figure in the SDSR is 19 frigates and destroyers.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has mentioned long-term value and a sustainable equipment programme for our vital UK industry, but given the debacle in respect of the Royal Navy fuel tankers, for which not a single British supplier or shipyard was invited to bid for the £500 million contracts, what reassurances can he give on providing real long-term value for the UK defence industry by enhancing our British manufacturing capability as well as our military capability?

[Mr Hammond]

We have made it very clear that where there is a sovereign capability that needs to be retained in the UK—such as in complex warship building, aerospace technologies and submarine building—we will enter into agreements with the private companies that have that capacity in order to ensure it is sustained. The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong about the MARS—military afloat reach and sustainability—tankers, however. British companies were invited to tender and were involved in the process. In the end, none chose to submit a bid, and the only bid we received from a European company was far in excess of the winning bid, received from a South Korean company.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Wright Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I assure my hon. Friend that we are having regular discussions with US counterparts; I am going to Washington immediately after the new year holiday. Whatever happens, our strong security and intelligence relationship with the US will continue. It benefits both parties and is at the very heart of our strategy.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

On Friday, I attended a ceremony to commemorate the 97th anniversary of the bombardment of the Hartlepools. It was the first direct attack on the mainland for centuries, and 118 people, including 37 children, were killed. Given the national and local significance of the event, what steps will the Government put in place to commemorate the centenary in three years’ time?

[Mr Robathan]

I pay tribute to those of my grandfather’s generation who did so much in the first world war—what they did is almost beyond our ken. The issue is to do with history, and for that reason the Department for Culture, Media and Sport leads on it. However, as the hon. Gentleman may know, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) has been appointed the special representative on the first world war and he will deal with all the commemorations. He will co-ordinate input from the Ministry of Defence, the DCMS and the Imperial War museum for the nation as we approach the centenaries of the 1914 to 1918 period.

Oral Answers to Questions

Iain Wright Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Peter Luff]

I am happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that the position in relation to the Chinooks is exactly as was set out in the SDSR. Indeed, I will be visiting the Boeing production site very shortly to see the production line for myself.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Given today’s reports in The Times, and following Ministers’ responses earlier this afternoon, it appears that the Secretary of State has some stark choices. He can restrict the capacity for British military capability and influence by cutting personnel and equipment still further, or he can secure a better deal from the Treasury. Which option does he prefer?