Defence Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Beamish and Lord Walney

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. As the process goes forward, there is obviously a lot of concern among people who work in defence procurement. It is important that things are brought to a conclusion so that they can have some reassurance. It will be interesting to see how the process goes ahead with just one bidder. We need to ensure that that is scrutinised in the other place, as I am sure it will be. I hope that the Minister will keep us informed in the House about that ongoing process.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

One of the key concerns was that if a new provider was created to run the GoCo it would effectively be difficult for another provider ever to come in and take it on. Are not those concerns aggravated by the fact that we have only one bidder going through the process to start with?

[Mr Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question and for his work in Committee. He raises an interesting point, as one of the concerns raised in Committee was what would happen after the nine-year process as regards renegotiating the contract. We will now have only one contractor who, if successful, will certainly be in pole position come the renegotiation at the end of the contract, whether or not any others are able to bid. We must consider those issues very carefully in the coming months as the process develops.

The other issues on which we spent a lot of time and about which there are still concerns are those on intellectual property and single-source procurement, about which we had numerous discussions in Committee. I think that industry still has concerns on those points. Part of the process is about not only reassuring the work force but ensuring confidence about working with the defence sector, because it is a major employer in this country. It is also important to ensure that we are at the leading edge of not only defence technology but security technology. Full involvement of the sector throughout the process will be very important. I think that the Bill will have an interesting passage through the other place.

We spent most of the afternoon on the reserves part of the Bill. I reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), the shadow Secretary of State: Labour Members—and Members generally—look with pride on the contribution that reservists make to our armed forces. I have seen them at first hand, in both Iraq and Afghanistan; they are very brave men and women, doing a fantastic job on our behalf.

On the process ahead, I welcome the Government’s slight change of heart on producing an annual report. May I say thank you to the Secretary of State for including mental health in that report? If he wishes for any assistance with the organisation involved, in terms of how it approaches that, I am quite willing to engage, or point him in the direction of other organisations that will be interested in knowing how mental health can be seen as a priority, because there is an issue, whether we like it or not, with reservists and mental health. I know that the Government have followed through on work that we did in government and have added to that, in terms of making sure that veterans’ mental health is seen as a priority.

On the overall position of reservists, after this afternoon’s debate, I would say that the jury was still out, but we did get some clarification from the Secretary of State on the reduction in the Regular Army. Remember, when the strategic defence and security review was first announced by the Prime Minister, there was to have been a reduction of 7,000; then the figure went down from 95,000 to 80,000. I think the Secretary of State was very candid this afternoon: that was about money, not about what was best for our armed forces.

Trident Alternatives Review

Debate between Lord Beamish and Lord Walney

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I had not heard that one. I thought the Liberal Democrats might come forward with a proposal to turn one of the submarines into an underwater famine relief vessel, or some such nonsense.

[John Woodcock]

The right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) has a point, but does it not prove that we have learnt from our past mistakes and clearly the Liberal Democrats have not?

[Mr Jones]

I could not have put it better myself. I will move on to discuss my hon. Friend’s constituency in a minute.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I did not say that, actually. I said what the Defence Secretary has said—that in thinking about the new nuclear submarines, we should consider whether it would be viable to have three. That is an option worth looking at. We would then have to bring forward the successor programme for Astute. If we deleted two boats—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Devon says, “It’s all right if we do it.” The fact is that if we went down to two we would have a deterrent that is absolutely useless. It would not save the £4 billion that the Chief Secretary suggested because unless we had mass lay-offs in the submarine-building programme, we would have to bring forward more work, including on the successor for Astute.

[John Woodcock]

Is that not the exact point? Would it not be helpful if the Chief Secretary made clear whether he wants to save that £4 billion over 30 years and decimate Barrow and the submarine-building industry, or whether he will bring forward the work and eliminate all those savings?

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. These are questions that the Liberal Democrats and their nonsense policy have to answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), even if I think it is regrettable that he did not take this opportunity to clarify the remark about sending Barrow workers to the Bahamas, which caused real offence in my constituency. I do acknowledge, however, that he has spent a lot of time over the past two years on this review, even if I find his conclusions completely wayward.

This was supposed to be the Liberal Democrats’ opportunity to show that they could be trusted with the defence of the realm, and I have to say they have blown their chance spectacularly. Smashing the hegemony of a blinkered defence cartel that silenced any debate on the deterrent was heralded as one of the great Lib Dem wins from the coalition negotiations. We can imagine Lib Dem Members reassuring their concerned activists: “Yes, we’re more unpopular than we’ve ever been. Yes, we’re breaking our promises to students. Yes, we’ve given up any hope of being called the progressive party for a generation. Yet we bring you a referendum on the alternative vote, and we will challenge the tyranny of Trident renewal that has bewitched the two other parties.” It has not gone very well, has it?

[Mr Kevan Jones]

As I understand it, now the Liberal Democrats’ position is pro-Trident. It might be because of the fact that they are only going to have two submarines, but is that not a major change from the last general election?

[John Woodcock]

I would describe it as a complete collapse in the Liberal Democrats’ position. Two years on, we have a taxpayer-funded document—how much did this process cost the taxpayer, by the way? The document basically confirms what we duped fools have been arguing for years—that unless people show their true colours and come out as unilateral disarmers, and in doing so advocate a path that we strongly believe would make the horror of a nuclear war more likely, there is no credible, cost-effective alternative to the fundamentals of the existing plan to replace our fleet of deterrent submarines.

The alternative review rejects as unworkable and even more expensive what had long been the Liberal Democrats’ preferred option—some sort of mini-deterrent. Then the fall-back plan of halving the number of replacement Vanguard submarines to two, fervently briefed to the newspapers over the weekend, turns out not to have been considered by the review at all. Would anyone like to explain this? Have Liberal Democrats realised that every idea they have put forward so far has collapsed under scrutiny? Did they come to a view that it was best not to test this one in the official review, lest those pesky facts and figures ruin it like all the others?

Business of the House (Thursday)

Debate between Lord Beamish and Lord Walney

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I do not really want to go back to 1945, but I shall make some references to the Higher Education Act 2004 that are relevant to the time that has been allowed.

I want to ask the Leader of the House about the change that happened this week, from allowing three hours to allowing five. The motion was not moved last night and two hours were added to the debate. I think that everyone welcomes that, but it still gives inadequate time to cover the points that we have to make in the debate tomorrow. Whether that was another great concession wheedled out of the coalition by the Liberal Democrats I do not know; I am sure that if it was, we would have heard about it by now.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that rather than looking set to fall asleep, Liberal Democrat Members on the Government Benches would be well advised to be on their feet pleading for more than the five hours that has been allotted to the debate so that they can tell their constituents and the nation how they have got into this appalling mess and perpetrated this betrayal of their constituents’ trust?

[Mr Jones]

I do not want to intrude on the personal grief of the Liberal Democrat party. As with any other Member of the House, in the limited time available tomorrow, Liberal Democrats can try to catch the Speaker’s eye to make their points. I am sure that those who signed the pledge during the election but will vote in favour of the increase tomorrow will want to come to the House to explain why they have changed their minds. It is entirely open to individuals to do that.