Armed Forces Readiness and Defence Equipment
Debate between Jeremy Quin and Mark Francois(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Jeremy Quin (Horsham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the First Report of the Defence Committee, Ready for War?, HC 26, the Eighth Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, Improving Defence Inventory Management, HC 66, and the Nineteenth Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, MoD Equipment Plan 2023-33, HC 451.
It is a pleasure to open this debate. There is only one way to start it, and it is how we should start every single debate on defence: with a clear-eyed appreciation of the threat to our country, our allies and our interests. Russia, which the integrated review identified and its refresh reaffirmed as our greatest adversary, has mobilised a war economy, spending nearly 40% of its budget on defence and security. Such is Russia’s rush to rearm that, notwithstanding all international sanctions, the International Monetary Fund has upgraded its economic forecast for the country from 1.1% to 2.6%, which makes it the fastest-growing economy in Europe.
Not only has Russia, through its renewed and devastating attack on Ukraine, shown its willingness to disregard every aspect of decency and international law, but its war machine is feeding an imbalance in munitions in Ukraine which we in the west are shamefully not doing enough to counter. The reality of war is that, ultimately, production lines tell. Notwithstanding the £2.5 billion that the UK is spending on military support this year, we need collectively to be doing more, not just in supporting Ukraine but in transforming our own supply lines. We need to enhance our own readiness to help deter Russia from a wider conflagration.
While the threat from Russia is grave, it is not the only threat we face. In east Asia, from which the Defence Committee has just returned, China has doubled its official spending on defence to $232 billion a year, although the real figure is much, much higher. North Korea is nuclear-armed, dangerous, unpredictable, and in closer alignment than for many years with Moscow. Iran and its proxies are destabilising the middle east, and, via the Houthis, pose a constant threat to shipping through the Red sea. In that regard, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force are actively engaged as we speak.
Following our withdrawal from Afghanistan, the willingness of the west to face up to these challenges is being studied by the global south—countries that are vulnerable to destabilisation and worse on the part of our adversaries. Any sense of the west’s being distracted, or unwilling or unable to rise to the challenge, risks encouraging the increasing number of autocratic states to act in contravention of international law. The sabre-rattling in Venezuela over resource-rich provinces of Guyana, a Commonwealth country, is just one recent example.
Has the risk picture changed for the worse in the last few years? Clearly it has. Have we fully risen to that challenge? We have not. Those of us who are old enough to recall the joy of the Berlin wall coming down will also recall that we had, in that decade, been investing more than 5% of GDP in defence—well over twice our current commitment. In 1989, there was a justifiable rationale for reductions in defence spending, but what goes down to match a decreasing threat must assuredly go back up to meet an increasing threat, and that is where we stand today.
In the Defence Committee report, we are robust not only about the professionalism of the armed forces, but about their ability to rise to any challenge. However, they are being run hot continuously, and that has a direct impact on their ability to train for, recruit and retain for, and be equipped to face the toughest challenge imaginable: a full-scale prolonged conflict, alongside our allies, with a peer adversary. That is just one of many challenges that our armed forces are designed to meet, but it is the most significant—the challenge above all others that we seek to deter.
I welcome the extensive engagement of our armed forces in this year’s NATO exercise, Steadfast Defender, but the days when that could be a routine exercise conducted by forces dedicated solely to the preparedness to face the Russian threat are long gone. Our forces’ sheer range of commitments, from global engagements to domestic MACAs—military aid to civil authorities—maintain constant pressure. The impacts are simple: recruitment and retention that is not up to the task; a hollowing out of munition stockpiles and our means to replenish them; and an inability to prepare and train for the worst-case scenario at the intensity required to bolster our allies, and with the confidence to deter adversaries. Our report highlights the urgent need for change.
To enable us to be fully prepared for peer-on- peer warfighting, something must give, be it the scale of operations and engagements or the size of national investment in defence. There is no doubt in my mind about the course that needs to be taken. The global operations conducted by our armed forces have a critical supporting role in our efforts to deter and prevent expansionism by our adversaries. What the UK needs is not a diminution of our ambition, but an increase in our investment.
In saying that, I am acutely aware of the regular charge that additional UK investment in defence is wasteful if the Ministry of Defence does not get its house in order on procurement. The Public Accounts Committee has set out in its report the difficulties faced by the MOD in meeting its equipment plan objectives. Reports over the years, not least from the Defence Sub-Committee under my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), have highlighted where the MOD needs to do better on procurement. I have no doubt that we will hear from my right hon. Friend and others about some of the core weaknesses that these reports have revealed.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The answer to my right hon. Friend’s question is yes. Could he explain to the House that one of the things that the Committee thought about very carefully was how candid we should be about the weaknesses in our armed forces? After much careful deliberation, we did not include anything in our “Ready for War?” report that we had reason to believe our potential adversaries did not already know.
National Shipbuilding Strategy
Debate between Jeremy Quin and Mark Francois(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Quin
I make no apologies for taking time to come to the House with this strategy, because we want to make certain that it is a strategy that works, and that is exactly what we are delivering. There is no jingoism or nostalgia about this strategy; it is hard facts that will deliver for our shipbuilding industry. It is a shipbuilding industry that needs to embrace the modern technology of artificial intelligence and environmental sustainability. That is why we are establishing the UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions, with £206 million behind it. It is a strategy that will support our ship buyers with a home shipping guarantee system, in the same way that we support our exports with export guarantees. We have a National Shipbuilding Office that is doing great work and is cohering across Government and delivering for the entire industry.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of warships. We can be very proud that we are putting more money into warships —£1.7 billion will be the spend by the end of this Parliament, doubling our current commitment. The Type 31 frigate HMS Venturer had her steel cut in Rosyth, with HMS Glasgow now well under way on the Clyde. Opportunity exists for Type 32, with up to five entering service with the Royal Navy, and a certainty that we will be going beyond our current level of 19 frigates and destroyers by the end of this decade.
The hon. Gentleman referred to FSS ships, which he knows will have a very substantial element of UK build. They are on time to be delivered within a couple of years of the procurement. We are doing our utmost to ensure that we derive value from this strategy and that it will deliver for Britain.
The hon. Gentleman asks why we cannot have a “build in Britain” strategy. As he knows, that is exactly what we do for warships, and it is this Government who have extended that to say that, for every ship being acquired by the MOD, we will make a case-by-case examination to see whether that needs to be a build in Britain. We have broadened that scope.
When we go beyond defence and warships, we cannot, on the one hand, say that we will support the international rules-based order, yet, on the other, ignore rules organisations such as the World Trade Organisation. We need to work within those rules to get the maximum value for our country, which is exactly what the NSO will do. We have a programme of 150 vessels, £4 billion of support going into British shipbuilding over the next three years, and exciting opportunities that our industry can follow.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The British-built Type 45 destroyer is arguably the best of its class in the world, but it has been plagued by persistent problems with its propulsion system. The Ministry has a “put right” programme, but it will not be completed until 2028. Given that we now have to deter a Russia that is prepared to bomb maternity hospitals, we need those ships fully capable and fit to fight now, not in six years’ time. Will the Minister go from this place back to his Department, review the entire programme and issue an urgent operational requirement, so that if they were required, those wonderfully capable ships can fight to keep our country and NATO free?
Jeremy Quin
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Type 45s are excellent bits of kit. They are one of our bits of equipment that I know our adversaries fear, and rightly so. The concern we always have is balancing operational requirements; as he knows, we have two Type 45s out on station at the moment, so we must make certain that we can bring those ships back in for their power improvement project upgrades. I can confirm that we are looking at ways to accelerate the PIP programme, and I recognise that it is important that we do so.
I also apologise to my right hon. Friend, and I dropped him a note this morning. In response to an intervention yesterday, I said that Dauntless was undergoing sea trials, but I had conflated sea trials with the test and commissioning phase. That is where she is now, but the three new diesel engines are working successfully and she will be embarking on sea trials in a few weeks’ time.
Defence Supplementary Estimate 2021-22
Debate between Jeremy Quin and Mark Francois(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
It has been a fascinating debate, ably kicked off by the Deputy Chairman of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar). He, like so many of the Labour contributors to this debate, is part of the respectable wing of his party. It is, I think, a great relief to the country that we have my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) as our Prime Minister at this time, rather than the proposition presented to us by the Labour party at the last election. The leadership he is showing in these difficult circumstances is exemplary.
This has been a fabulous debate, and it is a sadness to me that the time allocated is in no way sufficient to reflect the passion of the contributions and their quality, the huge admiration we have for our serving personnel, or the vital importance of what my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, referred to as this critical insurance premium for our country.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) said, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) referred to so poignantly in his point of order, it is so shocking that we are debating these issues while war rages in our own continent—that ghastly barbarity to which my right hon. Friend alluded.
Like so many speakers this afternoon, I pay tribute to the extraordinary defence of their country that has been mounted by the Ukrainian forces and civilians. Last summer, I was privileged to attend the 30th anniversary of Ukraine’s freedom celebrations and saw President Zelensky among his own people. I would never have imagined then the emotional scenes we saw yesterday in this House. As the integrated review recognised almost a year ago, the view that post the Berlin wall coming down we would enjoy a perpetual peace dividend could not and should not be assumed. Old aggressors have been reanimated and new dangers have arisen, requiring a forward-leaning and agile armed forces. We need to be prepared to defend and deter threats emanating from Russia and from states that violate international law in such reprehensible and egregious ways.
Mr Francois
We have seen in Mariupol today what the Russians are truly capable of. We must now deter further adventurism. On that point, will the Minister conduct an urgent review of the operational availability of all our equipment? Where things need to be brought up to scratch quickly, will he issue urgent operational requirements—UORs; he knows what I am talking about—to do whatever we need to do to have all our equipment on top line, should we need it, and can we start with Type 45?
Jeremy Quin
I reassure my right hon. Friend that we are absolutely focused on making certain that we have proper operational availability. On Type 45, as he may be aware, Dauntless has come out of the power improvement project and is now on sea trials. Daring has gone into Cammell Laird. We are looking at ways we can advance that process, but I would say that we have two Type 45s out on station doing their job even as I speak.
As the integrated review and defence Command Paper set out a year ago, Russia poses
“the greatest nuclear, conventional military and sub-threshold threat to European security.”
The IR also emphasised the need to strengthen NATO, which is critical to preserving our security and prosperity in the Euro-Atlantic area.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Jeremy Quin and Mark Francois(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Quin
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. As I said in my substantive answer, I have been working in Poland, Ukraine, Greece, and many other parts of the world where Babcock has aspirations. The United Kingdom has a great belief in the Scottish yards—far more belief than the Scottish Government appear to have, given some of their recent contracts.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I, too, welcome the AUKUS deal, which gives great form to global Britain and could be very good for jobs in both Barrow and Derby. Can we remind the Australians, when they begin their 18-month assessment, that the UK’s Astute submarine is arguably even more capable than the United States’ Virginia class? And, by the way, it is cheaper.
Jeremy Quin
My right hon. Friend is a great advocate for British engineering and British defence jobs. There is an awful lot that is good about our Astute programme, but I am not going to second-guess the Australians’ 18-month assessment. They will work that through, but both we and the United States are there to support them in the delivery of this extremely important strategic capability.
Ajax Armoured Vehicle Procurement
Debate between Jeremy Quin and Mark Francois(3 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jeremy Quin
The most important report from my perspective is the health and safety report, which will deliver an entire timeline as to events that are troubling and concerning, and that will be published in full. In parallel, we have been doing a lot of work, as I said to the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), on how we move from IOC to FOC. We are looking at all aspects of this programme. As I said in the written ministerial statement and repeated today, on the conclusion, finalisation and publication of the health and safety report, I will be saying what our next steps are, not only in relation to health and safety but across the project as a whole.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
This £4 billion debacle is an example of exactly why the MOD’s procurement process is completely broken. The IPA analysis has already been referred to. Each year, it goes through the top 36 MOD procurement programmes and grades them with a traffic light. Ajax is red, unlikely ever to be achieved. How many of the 36 were green and successfully on track? None. Zero, zilch, nothing. Not one major MOD procurement programme is successfully on track. This is over £100 billion of British taxpayers’ money. The procurement system at Abbey Wood is a shambles, and presiding over this steaming heap of institutional incompetence is the Minister. You are losing 36-0 on behalf of the British taxpayer. [Interruption.] It might be nice if you were not laughing about it. This is massive amounts of taxpayers’ money. You are 36-0 down, you have got a broken system and you are in total denial. What are you doing about it?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I call the Minister, please remember to not use the term “you”. I ask for shorter questions, please.