Armed Forces (Investment)

Oliver Colvile Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Robertson. I am grateful for being allowed to hold this debate. May I just say what a privilege it is to be the Member of Parliament for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport? I know that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) will be delighted to hear me say so. My constituency is of course the home of 3 Commando Brigade and one of the principal homes of not only the Royal Navy, but the Royal Marines. I should also potentially declare an interest in that I am a vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for the armed forces, with special responsibility for the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. I hope that I am their champion in this place.

Upon my election in 2010, I submitted a paper on the strategic defence and security review, which clearly set out that I fully supported the control of public expenditure and in which I named long-term care for the elderly and the defence of the realm as my political priorities within that reduced financial envelope. I argued that any military expeditions should be done within the context of NATO. While I recognise that there is at present no public appetite to put troops on the ground, particularly under conditions where eventual outcomes and aims are unclear, our armed forces have a high level of support. I found that out this weekend when I watched the Plymouth Argyle versus Portsmouth football game, which I will discuss in a moment. The country expects our Government to defend British interests. If we expect our military to engage outside the UK, we must ensure that it is equipped and manned properly. I press the Government to commit to spending at least 2% of our GDP on defence. If not, could we at least have a bit more?

At the weekend, as I mentioned, I went to watch Plymouth Argyle play Portsmouth—the dockyard game—at Home Park on armed forces day. I am delighted to report that Plymouth won 3-0, but I was sad that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) had to see her side get a bit of a pasting. While speaking with some royal naval officers during half-time, I was told of a potential shortage of trained engineers. Indeed, at a meeting earlier today, I learned that the shortage could be 400,000 across the military. When the Minister replies, I will be grateful if he might explain what the Government are doing to ensure that we have the necessary number of trained engineers across all three of our military disciplines.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on obtaining the debate. May I put on record the thanks of the vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland for the tremendous work done by the armed forces in the Province, certainly during the difficult times? In this debate about the funding of the armed forces, will he include the aftercare of soldiers and of those who have come home with loss of limbs, mental health problems and so on?

[Oliver Colvile]

I will come on to that in due course.

I will be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister tells me what discussions his Department is having with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on plans for a new nuclear engineering college—located, I hope, in my constituency, but we will soon find out about that. In my opinion, the SDSR should not look simply at equipment; it should also continue to look at delivering the armed forces covenant for the families, a point made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann. That means improving housing conditions, providing better health care, especially mental health care, and education.

Most importantly, Britain is an island nation. As we prepare for the next SDSR, I urge the Government to ensure that resources are directed at protecting our trade routes. That means prioritising both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

That also means the Army, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is coming to. When we look to the future, we need to see more boots on the ground. In Northern Ireland, whether regulars or reservists, we have had a big level of recruitment, and the biggest level of recruitment to the Territorial Army or Army Reserve that there has ever been in any part of the United Kingdom. Does he feel, as I feel, that the necessary resources should be made available to ensure that where there are large levels of recruitment, as in Northern Ireland, we continue to make that happen? I understand that resources are being squeezed, but it seems a pity at a time when people want to join the reservists.

[Oliver Colvile]

I am keen to ensure that we look after the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines as well. I understand that the Army plays a significant role, but my priority this afternoon is to talk up the interests of the Royal Navy, if I may.

My right hon. Friend the Minister should not be surprised about that, because I represent a major naval garrison city and, like him, I am a Navy brat. Without a strong Royal Navy, Christmas could be cancelled. We all expect to find fresh fruit and vegetables in our supermarkets. The majority of us want to buy wines from Australia, South America, South Africa and throughout the world. Imagine the number of letters and e-mails that we would all receive, especially from children, if Christmas were cancelled because such products were not available in our shops. So a key part of our defence strategy must be to retain our nuclear deterrent.

Since the 1990s Devonport has been the only dockyard in Britain that renews and refuels our nuclear submarine fleet. We also have the deep maintenance programme for our surface ships, though we share those somewhat with Portsmouth. Earlier this autumn my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced that he had signed a £2.6 billion agreement with Babcock that will safeguard 4,000 jobs for the next four years or so. I very much welcome that and thank the Secretary of State—if the Minister will pass that back to him—for safeguarding the jobs in our dockyard for the immediate future. I am concerned, though, that in six months’ time Drake’s drum could be called back into service, especially if the polls stay as they are.

Let me make it clear: I desperately hope that we have a Conservative Government with an overall majority after the general election. Many of the pundits, however, are predicting a hung Parliament in which Labour could be looking to do a deal with either the Liberal Democrats or the Scottish National party—

[Jim Shannon]

Or the Democratic Unionist party.

[Oliver Colvile]

Or the DUP—but let me deal with the other two.

Earlier today I looked at the Liberal Democrats’ website. They are still saying:

“Britain's nuclear deterrent, which consists of four Trident submarines, is out-dated and expensive. It is a relic of the Cold War and not up-to-date in 21st century Britain. Nowadays, most of our threats come from individual terrorist groups, not communist countries with nuclear weapons.

The Liberal Democrats are the only main party willing to face up to those facts.

The UK has four Trident submarines on constant patrol, which are nearing the end of their life. A decision needs to be made about what we do to replace them.”

I emphasise that I am quoting the Liberal Democrats:

“It would be extremely expensive and unnecessary to replace all four submarines, so we propose to replace some of the submarines instead. They would not be on constant patrol but could be deployed if the threat from a nuclear-armed country increased.”

They quite obviously have taken no notice of what has been going on in Ukraine.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a crucial point. It is worth adding that the Liberal Democrats, when sending a submarine to sea, would send it unarmed, wait for a crisis to arise and then sail the submarine back to its home port in order to put the nuclear weapons on board, presumably by the grace and favour of the country now threatening us.

[Oliver Colvile]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. The Liberal Democrats are making it clear that they want to reduce the number of submarines and they might make that a condition of being in any coalition with the Labour party.

On Saturday, Nicola Sturgeon, the new leader of the SNP, told her party conference:

“My pledge to Scotland today is simple—the SNP will never, ever, put the Tories into government.”

She added that Labour would

“have to think again about putting a new generation of Trident nuclear weapons on the river Clyde.”

On Andrew Marr’s programme on Sunday, Mr Findlay, a candidate to be leader of the Scottish Labour party, set out a radical agenda for his party. He confirmed that under his leadership Scottish Labour would oppose Trident on the Clyde. He confirmed that that had been Scottish Labour’s policy for some little while. That is in line with the position of the Scottish trades unions.

I very much hope that the Minister will confirm that a future Conservative-led Government will remain committed to four continuous at-sea deterrent submarines. My concern is that if the nuclear submarines are thrown out of Scotland, the Government of the day might decide that our submarine base and dockyard should be relocated from Devonport to another site. Some 25,000 people in the travel-to-work area of Devonport depend on defence for their jobs.

[Jim Shannon]

There will always be a place for the base in Belfast, if that should happen. Be assured of our support for the Trident submarine. The DUP is committed to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Colvile]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, but I remind him that I am the Member of Parliament for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I do not want to see the submarines going off to Northern Ireland, although it plays a significant role in things.

During the 10 years that I was the Conservative parliamentary candidate for Plymouth Sutton and, subsequently, for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, I found myself campaigning almost every day to keep the Devonport dockyard and naval base open. My interest in Devonport is not only due to my political candidature, but because my grandfather was the first lieutenant of HMS Vivid, the Devonport barracks, having served as the gunnery officer on Devonport-based HMS Valiant at the battle of Jutland, and my uncle commanded Stonehouse barracks before becoming commandant general of the Royal Marines.

The previous Labour Government proposed to move the Type 23s to Portsmouth. That would have left Plymouth with five Type 22s, which have subsequently been scrapped. The Labour Government also proposed to move the submarine fleet to Faslane, while retaining Devonport for the refuelling and refilling of the nuclear submarines, despite the fact that they had not gained agreement from the families. In my opinion, despite the very best efforts of my Labour predecessor, Mrs Linda Gilroy, and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), the previous Labour Government were slowly but surely killing Devonport’s naval base and dockyard by a thousand cuts. I believe that was because Labour has no political clout in Devon and Cornwall. People need to remember that on 7 May next year.

In the past four and a half years, we have seen Devonport’s future as a naval base and dockyard become much more secure. The coalition Government have kept seven Type 23s at Devonport, moved HMS Protector from Portsmouth to Devonport from 1 April this year so that all our Antarctic resources are placed in one location, and delivered amphibious capability with Royal Marines Tamar at Devonport.

I seek confirmation from the Minister that at least seven of the Type 26s will be based at Devonport, although I would like the whole lot if I am quite honest—I realise that I am a bit greedy—and that one of the Type 26s will be named HMS Plymouth. I also ask him to clarify the timing for the move of the submarine fleet to Faslane and to state when the infrastructure will be ready. By confirming much of that, he will be helping to ensure that Drake’s drum can be put away again for the next five years and that we will not be hearing its drumbeat for many a year.

Military Covenant

Oliver Colvile Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Donaldson]

I understand the hon. Lady’s point entirely. I have not made specific reference to that because it is not within the scope of the debate. However, when we tabled our amendment to the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, we sought to include another category that would have involved all the innocent victims and survivors of the conflict in Northern Ireland, which of course would have included the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and so on. I emphasise the use of the word “innocent” in our definition of a victim. I of course take the hon. Lady’s point.

There are some very good facilities in Northern Ireland. I commend the excellent work of the military charities in Northern Ireland, particularly the Royal British Legion, SSAFA, Combat Stress, which has done some excellent work helping those with post-traumatic stress order, and the various regimental benevolent funds, which are often overlooked but are quietly undertaking work with former members. They do a very good job and have worked throughout the period of Operation Banner, quietly supporting the armed forces and our veterans. But we sense that there is a need for a more co-ordinated approach in the implementation of the covenant.

That is why we—I, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and others—met the Prime Minister and sought a commitment from the Government to assist us with the establishment of a dedicated centre in Northern Ireland to meet the needs of veterans. This would bring together some of the military charities and the Veterans Agency as a kind of one-stop shop for veterans. There is support for this within the armed forces community in Northern Ireland and among the charities, and we made some progress. We are looking, for example, to Help for Heroes. The people of Northern Ireland are very generous in their support of military charities. Every year without exception Northern Ireland contributes more per capita to the poppy appeal than any other region of the UK, and one can understand why. We support generously other military charities, including Help for Heroes and we have been in discussion with it. It is willing, in principle, to support the establishment of such a veterans centre in Northern Ireland.

We ask the Government to give the proposal a fair wind, and I am happy to meet Ministers at some stage to share with them the concept behind the veterans centre and how it might help to ensure full and proper implementation of the covenant in Northern Ireland by helping to educate people about the services already available. We are talking not necessarily about additional services, but about bringing together existing services and signposting veterans towards them.

Finally, I refer to the community covenants. We do not have any in Northern Ireland at present, which I think is a major deficit. Somewhere in the system there seems to be a reluctance to see the implementation of community covenants. In my own constituency, the city of Lisburn, we have the headquarters of the Army in Northern Ireland, the headquarters of 38 Brigade, and we now have 2 Rifles garrisoned there. We would dearly love to have a community covenant that would encourage much more interaction, although some already exists. Lisburn is very welcoming of the Army. It always has been and always will be, but we believe that the community covenants would help to encourage an improved relationship between the armed forces garrisoned in Northern Ireland and local communities.

In comments to the Welsh Affairs Committee on 30 October 2012, the present Minister for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), highlighted the particular challenge of implementing the community covenants in Northern Ireland. In his evidence to the Committee he recognised that some local authorities in Northern Ireland controlled by Sinn Fein and sometimes, unfortunately, aided by the SDLP seem reluctant to examine the potential of the community covenant. There is a sensitivity surrounding the issue, which acts as a deterrent within the system. Even councils such as Lisburn city council, which are more than willing to introduce a community covenant, keep hitting a brick wall. I have encountered this. For some time I have been encouraging the council to introduce a community covenant and the council tells me that when it tries to do so, there is a problem somewhere in the system.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would care to come to Plymouth to see how we put together a brilliantly good community covenant. We are working incredibly hard on that. Maybe he would like to bring people with him as well.

[Mr Donaldson]

I would be delighted to visit Plymouth to see the community covenant in action. Indeed, we might even bring some of my colleagues from Lisburn to attend.

I ask Ministers, in examining this issue, to bear it in mind that there seems to a be a problem somewhere in the system, with a reluctance to have community covenants in Northern Ireland. I understand that some kind of system is currently in place with 38 Brigade in respect of community covenants. I am happy to write to Ministers on this point to seek some clarity on where we stand.

We now have 11 new councils established in Northern Ireland. They were elected this year and will take on new and extended local government powers from April next year. There is an opportunity for those councils to introduce community covenants, so let us not put any barrier in the way. If there is one, let us examine why it is there and have it removed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

May I say how apt it is to have this debate today? On Monday, with my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), I was in Northern Ireland, visiting graves with the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. It was an enormous privilege to be able to pay tribute not only to them, but to the graves of the Scots, the Welsh and the English who had given their lives during the first world war.

Before I go any further, I want to place my contribution in some context. I am the vice-chairman of the all-party group on the armed forces, with special responsibility for the Royal Marines and the Royal Navy, as well as vice-chairman of the all-party group on veterans. I have been involved, too, with the veterans’ court partnership run by Trevor Philpott down in Devon and with Forward Assist of which I am a patron, as encouraged by my very good friend, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), who unfortunately does not sit on this side of the fence, but there we go.

I am the Member of Parliament for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, which is the home of 3 Commando Brigade, a fine set of Royal Marines and Royal Navy personnel. Let me take this opportunity to thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—who is unfortunately not in his place—for investing £2.6 billion in Devonport dockyard, which will, I hope, safeguard 4,000 jobs for the foreseeable future. It is a very different place from what it was when I was first elected—I do not pretend for a moment that I have been totally responsible for that, but I hope that I have been able to put some pressure on the coalition Government to ensure that Devonport was safeguarded much more than would otherwise have been the case. During my 10 years as the candidate for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, I have been for ever asking questions—or, more importantly, answering them—about what would happen to Devonport in the future. I certainly think that it is much safer now than it has been for a very long time.

In the Plymouth area, the jobs of more than 25,000 people depend on the defence industry, and there are a large number of veterans. I pay tribute to Her Majesty’s School Heroes, which looks after some of the young children of servicemen and women. Those children must have had an incredibly difficult time over the past few years, seeing their parents go off and fight in Afghanistan and, of course, in earlier campaigns. It must be incredibly worrying for them when their parents are deployed abroad, and I am delighted that Plymouth has worked so hard to put that right.

Last year, we on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee—on which I serve, and I am delighted to have my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury as my Chairman—went to Washington to see for ourselves how the United States has been looking after its veterans. We had to take account of the fact that the United States unfortunately does not have the national health service that we have here, and does not necessarily have the same welfare provision. However, we learned a great deal while we were there.

I fear that Britain is set to face a tidal wave of mental health issues, and we shall have to do something about that. I pay tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who, as a defence Minister, did so much work in putting together “Fighting Fit”, which gave us a clear blueprint for dealing with some of those issues.

While we were in the United States, we heard from a man from Little Rock about the setting up of military courts to discipline veterans who have had problems in the justice system. That was one lesson that I learned from the visit.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman plays a very distinguished role on the Select Committee. Does he agree that the real difference between us and the United States was the fact that billions of dollars are available to services for veterans? By comparison, the amount that is available for the purpose in any other country, let alone the United Kingdom, pales into insignificance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Colvile]

I recognise that the United States is a larger country and that it has more money to spend. Nevertheless, it has been doing some very interesting things. They include dealing not only with people who were in Vietnam, but with those who have been involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. In our country, of course, there are also the members of the military who had to fight in Northern Ireland.

The rationale behind the military courts is to deal with offenders who have committed misdemeanours, before they can progress to community activity. They try to change offenders’ behaviour, and encourage members of the local community to play a part in looking after veterans. We need to get better at identifying the veterans involved. I have been working in Plymouth with a man called Ian Sheriff in connection with dementia, and I am delighted that those in the naval base have worked so hard on the Prime Minister’s “dementia challenge”. I also pay tribute to the Members with south-west constituencies who have campaigned in that regard.

We must do much more for our veterans. We should give them mobile phones, which is what happens in the United States, so that they can be rung up every six months. We also need to track them. Working on issues such as mental health is the way forward. I also support the extension of the covenant to Northern Ireland. We need to look after our veterans as well as we possibly can.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady has clearly outlined the issues. There are some variations, which need to be implemented in Northern Ireland.

[Oliver Colvile]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is incredibly important that our GPs are better trained in mental health issues, especially in garrison cities such as mine?

[Jim Shannon]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The fact is that every Member who has spoken has mentioned the effects of mental ill health. The magnitude of these issues is clear to us all. If we were not already aware of it, we should be now, especially those of us in this Chamber today.

There are some specific benefits for the armed forces in Great Britain that are not available in Northern Ireland, such as improved access to IVF treatment, which is available in the mainland, but not yet in Northern Ireland, although I would like to see that happen; priority in accessing NHS health care, and in this regard I acknowledge the commendable hard work and commitment of the former Health Minister, Edwin Poots, and the Minister for Social Development, Nelson McCausland; priority in accessing social housing; and certain educational entitlements. Those variations are unsurprising, but devolution differences should not mean that Northern Ireland’s servicemen and women are treated any differently from their British counterparts. Of course, Northern Ireland is different and we recognise that, as did the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Lord Ashcroft.

As paragraph 12 of the Committee’s inquiry into this subject stated:

“We accept that the different political and legal situation in Northern Ireland, compared to Great Britain, makes issues relating to the Armed Forces delicate and potentially contentious.”

I like to think that as the peace process has moved forward there has been greater acceptance among some of the community. If we went into west Belfast and asked some of the people there about their history, we might be surprised by those who are committed to this issue and interested. I went to an event this morning on the first world war, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson). The 6th Connaught Rangers, Belfast’s nationalists in the great war, might have had a different political aspiration but served in the British Army.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point and that was exactly the case in Northern Ireland: they protected everyone, as we all know.

Of course, paragraph 12 of the inquiry mentioned that Northern Ireland was different politically and legally, making issues relating to the armed forces contentious, but it went on to say that the armed forces community in Northern Ireland should not be disadvantaged

“compared with other groups there, or when compared to that community elsewhere in the UK, beyond that variation which would be expected under normal devolution.”

Although I understand that we are delivering 93% of the Select Committee’s recommendations, my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) made the pertinent comment that we want to see 100% of those recommendations implemented in Northern Ireland. We have only 7% to go.

Lord Ashcroft also recently considered alternative options as part of his review of how former military personnel assimilate back into civilian life. He recommended that part of the Northern Ireland Act, which was introduced after the Good Friday agreement, should be changed at Westminster to allow the covenant to operate in Northern Ireland. A number of Members have spoken about section 75, which makes it an offence to discriminate against anyone based on factors such as religion, race, age or disability.

Ironically, the section has been used to discriminate against some former servicemen, who cannot apply for social housing when they are in the military for security reasons. A number of constituents have come to me who have had difficulties letting the housing people know all their circumstances because of their security service. They could gain some advantage from being in the services, but cannot because of the security implications. There are issues that need to be addressed when they leave the armed forces. Lord Ashcroft suggests that the section should be altered to allow ex-servicemen to receive the

“recognition and provision they deserve”.

It is not as if we are asking for mountains to be moved; we are not. Giving veterans priority access to NHS treatments if they have been injured in the line of duty seems just and fair, and it also seems just and fair that these men and women, and their families, should be given all the help possible to secure a house and a base from which to continue their life. These people were willing to lay down their lives so that we could have our today; we say that every Remembrance Sunday, and the words are pertinent to everyone who attends Remembrance Sunday services. They mean so much, and those people have done that so that we can have our todays, and continue to have them. They should not be punished or made to feel as though they have done something wrong in their duties. Quite the opposite: our communities should do everything they can to show these men and women how grateful we are, and our Executive should do all they can to ensure that veterans and their families receive the best possible care when they return home.

When Corporal Channing Day, a constituent of mine from Comber, died after being shot in Afghanistan, we asked for a meeting with the Prime Minister. It was attended by my right hon. Friends the Members for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and for Lagan Valley, my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim, Brenda Hale, who is a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and me. We had a very good meeting with the Prime Minister. Although it was held as a result of tragedy, we initiated that day a call to ensure that all service personnel have an opportunity to participate and have the advantages that they clearly should have from the covenant.

I will summarise some of the contributions. We heard first from my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley, whose deep interest in defence matters we all acknowledge. We also recognise that he is greatly respected in this House and further afield, and not only for his knowledge of defence matters, but for his contribution in telling other parts of the world how our peace process has progressed. We cannot be the panacea that will change everything in the world—far from it—but perhaps we can offer some help, and clearly he does that.

My right hon. Friend referred to the sacrifice made by service personnel in Northern Ireland so that we can enjoy life. He referred to the almost 1,000 people who gave their lives in service between ’69 and 2002, and to those who died afterwards as a result of their service. He referred to the covenant being designed to ensure that veterans are not disadvantaged, which we all adhere to.

My right hon. Friend also referred to post-traumatic stress disorder, which became a theme in all our contributions. Northern Ireland has the highest rate of PTSD anywhere in the United Kingdom, and indeed anywhere in the world. That shows the magnitude of the issues we face in Northern Ireland. He also referred to the Royal Irish Aftercare Service, which we are all aware of—those Members who were not aware are now. It is second to none. We thank the Royal Irish for all they do.

When it comes to health and housing, a distinct group is specified under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act. My right hon. Friend talked about the issues Lord Ashcroft referred to in his report. He recommended that the armed forces in Northern Ireland had a champion. The Minister also referred to that recommendation. The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) intervened a couple of times and referred to the importance of credit unions.

The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) referred to the contribution made by those who police the Province, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley when he responded to that intervention. He also referred to community covenants and the need for the armed forces to be directly involved with local community groups, for example where they are garrisoned, and some Members have garrisons in their constituencies.

I was particularly impressed by the clear commitment the Minister gave—it is on the record in Hansard—on mental health issues in the armed forces and the fact that communities should be involved so that no soldiers or service personnel ever face any disadvantage. The Government are clearly committed to helping the armed forces.

The Minister referred to the 11 councils coming together to nominate one representative to go to the reserve forces association. In a past life I was a representative from Ards borough council, but not every council sends somebody. We hope that the 11 councils will send someone and that they will become, as the Minister said, a champion for veterans. If we get that, I think that we will achieve a marvellous amount of movement for the future.

We heard that 93% of the recommendations will be implemented in Northern Ireland. Again, that commitment shows the impact of what has been initiated in this House by many Members, and it indicates its acceptance across Northern Ireland. The Minister also referred to the Royal Irish Aftercare Service and the cadets, which I was pleased about, because I have a particular interest in the cadet force. We need to show what they have done across Northern Ireland in bringing communities together.

It is always a pleasure when we are all in agreement and saying the same thing, and it was good to hear the commitment from the shadow Minister about a high level of reserves in the TA. In Northern Ireland we have a higher level of service personnel per head of population than in any other part of the United Kingdom. I am not sure if that is due to our warring attitude, or what it is, but we do like to serve in the uniforms of British Army, Royal Air Force and Navy personnel. That runs deep in all our blood in Northern Ireland. She said that the armed forces want a level playing field, and that is exactly what we are trying to achieve. At its heart, the armed forces covenant is about people, and we ought to make sure that their treatment is the same in all parts of the United Kingdom.

As always, the Royal Navy rode high in the speech by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), and we appreciate that very much. I think there must be no place in the world like Plymouth when it comes to the Royal Navy. I always listen to his speeches with some joy. He referred to the work he has done in Plymouth, and particularly to the work that is done with children. That was quite interesting. Other Members might not have mentioned it, but I am aware of the work that armed forces personnel and charities do with children across all communities, and that is good news.

[Oliver Colvile]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous comments. Does he think that universities also have a significant part to play? Plymouth university is developing tri-service veterans’ accommodation, and the medical school can participate in that by buddying up with some of these veterans to help them through their mental health issues or whatever they need help with.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman invited my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley to attend his constituency, and he is going to take advantage of that invitation, so he will no doubt come back and tell us all about what the hon. Gentleman is doing in Plymouth, and we can use that as an example in other parts of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned mental health issues. He referred to mobile phones for veterans—something that this Government have provided and in which they been supported by the official Opposition.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), who began his comments by referring to the duty of care. If we wanted three words that summed up the whole debate, they are probably “duty of care”. We owe a duty of care to our service personnel—those who live with the scars and the pain of conflict. He noted that Sinn Fein is opposing the covenant, yet it does not sit on the green Benches in this House and make a contribution. He spoke of a voice for those who need their MPs to fight for them, and a voice for the families as well. He also spoke about mental health issues in recognition of those who have given so much.

As always, my hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim spoke with the passion that we all love to hear. He mentioned that the Secretary of State for Defence was here and thanked him for that. He spoke of the families of those who have made a great sacrifice, and the pride in our armed forces and the tradition of service that we have in Northern Ireland. He made some good remarks about the armed forces charities. He referred to the Royal Irish Aftercare Service and the £50,000 contribution that has been made to help it to do even more for service personnel and their families.

My hon. Friend referred to the need for a respite centre for Northern Ireland, and I give that a plug as well. I do so from a personal point of view, because I would like to see it in Strangford, but it does not matter where in Northern Ireland it goes, as long as we get it. I would be more than happy if he got it in his constituency, or my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley in his, as long as we get it; that is what we are after.

My hon. Friend said that he wants to see professional treatment for all those involved. He made a comment about equal citizenship and equal gratitude, and that is how it should be. We should have equal citizenship for everyone in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and equal gratitude for all those who serve in the forces. He also mentioned—sometimes this is forgotten, and I am glad it was brought up in an intervention—those from the Republic of Ireland who have served with the British forces, of whom there have been a great many.

Various charitable organisations in Northern Ireland deal specifically with the needs of veterans. For example, last year Beyond the Battlefield was set up in Newtownards to deal with the needs of veterans and their families. It aims to help those in financial, mental, physical and other difficulties. I very much support this fantastic organisation. Many of the services it offers should already be available to those military personnel, but because they have a Northern Ireland postcode they are not, despite the fact that they are UK taxpayers and have made the same sacrifices as their English, Scots and Welsh counterparts.

This is all about getting fair treatment. It is not necessarily about special treatment, but it is about fair treatment for special people—those who sustain an injury while serving. Ordinary citizens are not entitled to it. As I have said, however, veterans in Northern Ireland are currently prevented from getting fair treatment. We must ensure that we speak up for our armed forces. Our party and the Government should not be afraid to represent them and stand up for their rights.

The Minister mentioned Armed Forces day in Northern Ireland and the 10,000 people who lined the streets to cheer it on. That happened in my constituency and I look forward to inviting the Minister, the shadow Minister and, indeed, everybody else to join in next time. It is a super day that enables us to recognise the good work the armed forces do.

Every year I am privileged to hold a coffee morning for the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association—those of us who are of a certain vintage all know them. Last year was a fantastic success: some £4,200 was raised in Newtownards. We were privileged to have a local piper and ex-military man there. He served in the military for more than 20 years and it was all he knew. He came home and, newly married, struggled to find a job to support himself. He is an example of someone who tried hard to get a job and it is important that we as a community act on behalf of those people who have given 25 years of service. Pressure must be put on the Government to ensure that the remaining 7% of the recommendations of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee are delivered, to ensure that we are an integral part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Colvile Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

It is for NATO as an organisation to set the agenda for the summit, not the UK; we merely host it and pick up the bill for doing so. We have been in the lead in seeking to agree across the member states a statement about the future financing of NATO, a statement that will answer the challenge—I referred to it earlier—that the United States has been persistently and quite legitimately raising over the past couple of years. I am confident that we will have a positive statement to make at the NATO summit.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

Given that Britain is an island state that is very dependent on our trade routes, has my right hon. Friend yet decided how many Type 26s we will need and where they might be base-ported?

[Mr Hammond]

The programme for Type 26 envisaged 13 frigates being ordered. It is likely that the fleet will be split, as the current frigate fleet is split, but no final decision has yet been made.

Defence Spending

Oliver Colvile Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baron]

Or 1.7%, as my hon. Friend suggests.

I believe it is particularly incumbent on us to ensure that we have a strong defence policy—more incumbent on us than on other powers, perhaps—because in addition to our global interests and territories, we are highly dependent on maritime trade. The South China sea and the straits of Hormuz may seem far-away places, but I can assure the House that if those sea lanes ever became closed, we would certainly feel the pinch. A shock on the other side of the world, as we all know, can have reverberations here—a rise in the oil price is just one example.

There are many less tangible benefits to a strong defence policy. These include maintaining influence, supporting our defence engineering and industrial base, and global partnerships through defence diplomacy. Despite bruising deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq, Britain still rightly sees itself as a global power, at the forefront of diplomacy. It is impossible to do this without the options that strong defence gives us. Furthermore, there are many strands to the special relationship, but the ability to deploy force by land, sea and air is an essential component. If this is not present, we can expect a markedly different relationship, as former US Defence Secretary Robert Gates recently testified.

I hope we will continue to be close allies of the US. We share common interests and common values. However, we need to play our full part in being a good ally lest our influence and, ultimately, our interests suffer. We should not forget that we would be foolish to depend entirely on the US. Sometimes we may have to act alone. The Falklands is just one example of that. In the absence of US support, we need to ensure that Britain can face the world with confidence, and that will involve strong and credible defence.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree also that we must do so in the context of NATO, and that it is about time that some of our NATO allies started stepping up to the mark and putting some money into it as well?

[Mr Baron]

Nobody in the House would disagree. It is a sad fact that many of our NATO allies are not pulling their full weight. But that should not stop us accepting what we need to do, particularly given our reliance on maritime trade and our global interests, territories and possessions. If anything, it is more incumbent on us than on many of our NATO allies to wake up and realise that we need to spend more on defence, but I take my hon. Friend’s point on board.

Despite the need for a strong defence policy because of both the tangible and the intangible benefits, we continue to make cuts. The Royal Navy, for example, has been reduced to a mere 19 surface ships. Not so long ago, a strategic defence review suggested the figure should be closer to 30.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Madam Deputy Speaker.

As I think everybody has said, defence of our country must be the No. 1 priority for the British Government. The use of the military is an important tool in finding political and diplomatic solutions. After all, when diplomacy goes wrong, we need to start using our military and some of its might.

In previous speeches I have paid particular tribute to our servicemen and women, particularly in my Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport constituency, which has 3 Commando Brigade, 29 Commando, the Royal Marines and, of course, the Royal Navy base that is the home to the refuelling and deep maintenance of our nuclear submarines. I remind the House that Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport continues to play a large role in defending our country. I also remind my hon. Friend the Minister that 25,000 people in Devonport’s travel-to-work area depend on defence for their livelihoods.

It is appropriate that we should be having this debate this month, because on 6 June we commemorated the D-day landings of 70 years ago, which saw the start of the end of the second world war. Today I would like to pay tribute to my uncle, Major John Majendie, who died at the age of 94 earlier this month. He served in the Somerset Light Infantry with the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and regularly led post-war pilgrimages. Sadly, he died while preparing to make another pilgrimage to those battlefields.

In my SDSR submission, shortly after my election in 2010, I made it quite clear that, this being an island nation, the Government should focus on protecting our trade routes. Britain is our island story, and we expect our Royal Navy to perform critical humanitarian operations, as well as providing our nuclear deterrent. However, I should point out that although the Conservative part of the coalition Government is fully committed to retaining four continuous-at-sea submarines and the nuclear deterrent, the Liberal Democrats, I am afraid to say, are less happy with that.

To reduce the deficit, this Government had to take some difficult economic decisions. The last SDSR took place in that context, with every Department, with the exception of Health and of International Development, facing real financial cuts. My SDSR submission recognised that the Government had to work within a limited financial envelope, but I named spending on defence and long-term care for the elderly as my financial priorities. I argued in my submission to the 2010 SDSR that in order to do that, defence spending needed to rise to around 3% of GDP. Expenditure has hovered around 2% to 2.5% since 1997, which is surprising, given the significant amount of other stuff that our armed forces have been asked to do, in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Somalia.

I very much welcome the investment in new ships, with the Government’s decision to keep some of the Type 23 ships at Devonport, rather than moving them to Portsmouth. I also look forward to the completion of the two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, which I hope will be used, the six Type 45 destroyers and, most importantly, the Type 26 frigates, which I hope the Government will base-port in my constituency. I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for making sure that since 1 April HMS Protector is base-ported in my constituency.

Looking at today’s security threats, I am pleased that investment is to be made in unmanned aerial vehicles and is set to increase over the next decade. Those have the capability to give us a powerful global defence reach at a considerably reduced risk to life. I urge the Government to put some effort and funding into cyber-warfare as well. There would be nothing worse than for one of our submarines or, more importantly, one of our aircraft carriers to be off some piece of land where somebody was playing around with the software in order to try to fire missiles, for example. It is imperative that the Government take this threat seriously and allocate sufficient investment to ensure that we are properly protected against cyber-warfare.

We need to make sure that when people leave the services, they go to another job. We must also make sure that we look after their mental health. It is incredibly important that when people transfer their skills, those are recognised in the commercial work space. My father left the Navy having been a lieutenant commander signalman, and he ended up by becoming the head of outside broadcasting for Rediffusion Television. That was possible in those days because the qualifications were fully recognised.

Earlier this month the Chancellor came down to Plymouth and looked at Hasler unit. I hope he learned some lessons and will include them in the autumn statement.

Finally, next Wednesday the Military Wives choir is coming here to sing in Portcullis House, and I would be grateful if the Minister and his whole team attended. All these things can ensure that we have that great Nelsonian tribute that used to be played on board ship. We need to make sure that we give confusion to the enemy and make that a reality.

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Colvile Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

Absolutely. I completely agree with my right hon. Friend in his assessment of the benefits of this new system. As he says, Dr Susan Atkins has welcomed this greatly, and may I use this opportunity to pay tribute to the great work she has done? I notice that the Royal British Legion also welcomed these changes. The new system will do exactly as he says: it will help to speed things up, and where there has been maladministration the service complaints ombudsman will not shirk from making recommendations to the Defence Council, and we will see huge improvements.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

12. What progress his Department has made on its procurement of three new offshore patrol vessels from BAE Systems.

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

We are in negotiations with BAE Systems for the contract to build the three new offshore patrol vessels announced in November. As part of these arrangements, only last Wednesday, during a visit to Scotstoun, I announced that the MOD had committed £20 million to this programme, with the award of a contract for long-lead items, such as engines and gearboxes, which need to be ordered in advance. The main investment decision is due in coming months and construction work of the vessels is due to begin this autumn.

[Oliver Colvile]

Will my hon. Friend also set out the timetable for the building of these frigates and ships, and say a little about when the base porting announcement might be made?

[Mr Dunne]

I thought that my hon. Friend might be interested in the base porting announcement. As is normal practice, we will make the announcement around the time of the main gate investment decision, which, as I have already said, is likely to be this autumn. I am sure that he will advocate strongly his constituency interest, but I have to advise him that other hon. Members will be doing so as well.

Nuclear Submarines

Oliver Colvile Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

SEPA was informed in October 2012 and has been involved in the discussions since that point. SEPA is an Executive agency of the Scottish Government, but it deals with operators in relation to the discharge of its regulatory functions on a properly regulated statutory basis and, usually, on a confidential basis. Clearly, SEPA did not feel that this event, as a level zero event, needed to be brought to the attention of Ministers or anyone in the central Scottish Government.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for confirming that no lives were ever endangered by this activity. What discussions has he had with Babcock to ensure that it has the skilled work force in place and is able to deliver the work? It is important to ensure that that happens.

[Mr Hammond]

Obviously, the implications for Devonport are that a line of work, which was expected to end with the completion of the current refuelling of Vengeance, will now continue at least until 2019, with the refuelling of HMS Vanguard. At this stage, we have not quantified the precise impact on jobs and other activities at Devonport, but it is likely to be modest. Most of the people employed on the refuelling programme were expected to be absorbed elsewhere in the dockyard work force. We are confident that, with the announcements I have made today, there will be the capacity to carry out the Vanguard refuelling and to retain the ability to carry out the Victorious refuelling if necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Colvile Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Anna Soubry]

We had a lengthy debate in, I think, Westminster Hall on this very issue. I am aware of the argument that is being advanced by the survivors, but there is no evidence to support their claims, and I do not think that it would be right to set up a £25 million benevolent fund when no proper basis for it has been provided. I am always available to listen to arguments, but so far I have heard no good argument to support that case.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend ensure that the nuclear veterans data are shared with other parts of the national health service, so that it can deal with some of the issues that may arise?

[Anna Soubry]

I cannot see any difficulty with that. As long as people have given permission for their data to be shared, it seems to me to be eminently sensible.

Armed Forces Restructuring

Oliver Colvile Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

First, I reassure the hon. Lady that nobody will be made redundant in a pinch-point trade; these redundancies are happening only in areas where we are carrying surpluses. As a result of restructuring, a change in the way we deliver the service means that the posts of 16 RAF dental officers, nine RAF dental nurses and five RAF dental technicians are no longer required. She is right to raise the issue of retraining, and I recall that she raised it in respect of previous tranches of redundancy. We have put in a lot of effort in this tranche to make sure that we put even more emphasis behind the opportunities for retraining. Where people have the skills and the willingness to retrain, they will be fully supported through the chain of command to retrain and redeploy within the armed forces. We have no wish or ability to lose talent and skills that we have, so long as we can deploy them in a way that is usable within the new structure that we are putting together.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

What impact will this announcement have on Devonport-based ships and the Royal Marines based in my constituency? Will he ensure that we can recruit more doctors and dentists, bearing in mind that we have one of the finest medical schools in the country?

[Mr Hammond]

As I have been at pains to point out, the fact that we are making people redundant in certain areas does not always mean that we will not be continuing to recruit in those areas. The armed forces are bottom-fed organisations, and we have to get the correct rank structure within each of the specialisms. My hon. Friend will have heard me say that the maximum number of Royal Navy redundancies will be 10, all of which will be in the medical and dental field. I expect the impact on the Royal Navy to be very limited. We will, however, have smaller medical and dental services in the future, to reflect the way in which we provide those services to our armed forces in peacetime.

Royal Navy Ships

Oliver Colvile Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to work under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I am delighted to have secured a debate on future ships for the Royal Navy. That may seem an odd subject, considering that the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers will not be operational until 2020 and that the Type 26 global combat ship, for which advance plans are in place, is not expected to enter service until June 2022.

The development times for such vessels are long, and although the plans to replace the Invincible-class carriers with the QE-class carriers were made in 1997—16 years ago—and the green light to replace the Type 23s with the global combat ship was given 15 years ago, the first sheet of metal has yet to be cut. If we combine that lengthy development period with, first, Britain’s ever-evolving place and role in the world; secondly, the changing threats and challenges that we face away from traditional deep-blue-water engagements; and, finally, the seismic changes in war-fighting technology, it makes perfect sense to ask what role the Royal Navy should play in the future and how it should be equipped to perform that role.

Let me take each of those points in turn. The previous strategic defence and security review made it clear that, as a maritime nation, we will retain significant global interests, with our prosperity, stability and security largely dependent on access to the sea and the maintenance of uninterrupted free trade. Having served in the armed forces, I would be the first to support a large permanent military capability, but history shows that that is a luxury that the nation cannot always afford. For hundreds of years, the size of our armed forces has concertinaed, and this decade will be no different. With defence spending falling from about 4% of GDP in the cold war to 2% today, it is right that we consider what the default size of our armed forces should be to allow us to meet our national and international security obligations and to respond, with or without our allies, to sizeable short-term commitments.

Although we cannot predict the future, we can say with some certainty that our forces will be deployed. Thanks to modern, 24-hour news coverage, which allows the nation to take a more proactive and vocal interest in the type of interventionist engagements that we participate in—as reflected in the recent vote on punitive intervention in Syria—and to the fact that there is no appetite for repeating the intervention challenges of Iraq and Afghanistan, we are likely to be more selective about the engagements that our forces are committed to. Future operations are likely to be multinational, light-footprint, manageable and easy to extract—essentially, low-risk entanglements—especially when mass is not immediately available or politically desirable. That bodes well for the greater utility of the ship—if it is built with the flexibility to modularise for the task.

Let me turn now to the changing threats and challenges that we may face. I draw Members’ attention to the latest book by respected author, strategist and counter-insurgency expert David Kilcullen, in which he speaks of

“the dangers of marginalised slums and complex security threats of the world’s coastal cities, where almost 75% of the world’s population will be living by midcentury.”

He predicts

“a future of feral cities, urban systems under stress, and increasing overlaps between crime and war, internal and external threats, and the real and virtual worlds.”

Of course, not everyone will agree with his rather grim predictions, but it cannot be denied that an increasingly interdependent world will be characterised by intense globalisation and competition, favouring many people, but alienating others.

With 80% of the world’s population living within 100 miles of the sea and most human maritime activity, such as shipping, fishing and hydrocarbon exploration, taking place 100 miles out to sea, most of the world’s economic activity will be conducted in a narrow strip of land and sea—the so-called littoral. It is there that we will find the poorly governed or the ungoverned space that leads to future conflicts—whether prompted by natural or man-made disasters—and that provides the breeding grounds for trouble. That, in turn, will threaten Britain’s interests. That is where future tensions and conflict will occur, as the world shifts towards a multipolar construct. Britain must adapt to that new landscape if it is to continue to play an active and engaged role in shaping global change. That means developing more flexible, mobile and defendable military capabilities, and the Royal Navy has a key role to play in that.

Given the platforms that are about to come online, it could be argued that almost all the kinetic operations that we have carried out recently could have been achieved from the relative safety of the sea. By way of illustration, I should point out that 35% of US air operations over Afghanistan were conducted from carriers based in the Indian ocean, while 40% of all allied sorties in the Libya campaign came from a single carrier—the Charles de Gaulle—before it had to retire for maintenance.

That is a powerful argument, if ever there was one, for commissioning both QE- class carriers, not just one. I will not comment too much on those carriers, because I made my views clear in my Royal United Services Institute report, but they will be game changing for British military capability. Two carriers would allow us to develop not only carrier strike, but a permanent expeditionary capability, unlike the use of Apaches on Ocean, which was a temporary move.

That leads me to the advances in war-fighting technology. The current revolution in technology is changing the conduct of warfare—arguably, to a far greater extent than the arrival of the longbow at Agincourt, the Gatling gun in the US civil war or the tank at the battle of Cambrai. Such so-called force multipliers give the user greater war-fighting effect at an ever greater distance from the target. Each new development moves the conduct of war into a new chapter.

The same applies in the maritime environment. The development and application of new technology—in essence, tactics—over hundreds of years, and, possibly, a local rule that allowed the spoils of war to be shared by the crew, allowed the Royal Navy to dominate the high seas for a long time, charged by Parliament with protecting and growing British trade routes and interests. We have seen the development of full-rigged ships; cannons, which replaced the need to board enemy ships; and the dreadnoughts, which had fewer but larger guns. In the last century, we saw the introduction of submarines, aircraft carriers and torpedoes. With the technology coming online today, tomorrow’s battles—wherever they are—will be fought not just by those in the theatre of war, but, arguably, by a similar number of operators hundreds of miles from the battlefield, as unmanned warfare becomes the norm.

The advanced systems coming online will transform the ability of all three services to collect intelligence; to deter, or efficiently and clinically to defeat, the enemy at range; and to blur the lines of responsibility between the services. Operationally, we are only beginning to appreciate that, as reflected in the Libya campaign, where HMS Ocean, with a combat range of 8,000 miles, carried Apache helicopters, with a combat range of 300 miles and armed with Hellfire missiles, which have a range of 8 km. A stand-alone system was temporarily placed on a platform, crossing service boundaries no less, to assist with an objective. The question I therefore pose today is: could there be more of that ability to modularise systems to meet the variety of tasks that we now require of our fleet? That means challenging the Royal Navy’s desire for all its ships to be permanently capable of high-end warfare tasks.

The Type 45 destroyer, for example, is a formidable ship, arguably the top of its class in defending the skies at sea and attacking other ships. It is, however, so high-spec that it cannot hit things on land, as traditionally that has been the domain of the RAF and, latterly, the sub-surface fleet. It is built for high-end and deep-blue warfare, yet it spends 50% of its time conducting SDSR taskings, such as counter-piracy and counter-drugs operations, and humanitarian operations, such as those that we have recently seen in the Philippines.

I have no doubt that we need high-end capability, but that kinetic capability must be able to harness the full spectrum of complex weapons technology and take on future technologies by being more modular and systems-based. I therefore very much welcome the fact that the lines between the frigate and the destroyer are being blurred in the design of the Type 26 global combat ship. I understand that it should be able to fire Tomahawk missiles from the Sylver vertical launch system A70 pods and that there is space on board for two Wildcat helicopters and a number of rigid inflatables, as well as 40 Royal Marine commandos. One does not need to be an able sea dog to recognise how much more versatile the design will be. It will certainly be more proficient in expeditionary warfare in the littoral environment.

With the detailed ship design yet to be agreed, will the Minister consider increasing the size of the mission bay and deck to offer greater space beyond that for the planned two helicopters? I stress the point: whether manned or unmanned, the airborne capability extends the versatility of a vessel, from the high-end to the soft power influence, giving the ship vastly increased expeditionary capability. We are now seeing unmanned aerial systems, or drones, to use common language: the ScanEagle, the Fire Scout and Boeing’s Hummingbird. They will be the norm in the skies; they will be a permanent part of war.

I will not go into the details about selected precision effects at range, but I would encourage increased synergies in the complex weapons systems employed by all three services. Is there any reason why Storm Shadow cannot be fired from a ship or, indeed, Brimstone from a Wildcat? Another example is the Mistral MBDA surface-to-air launch system, which can be fired from helicopters or ships and is also man-portable. That is a bit of kit that is versatile across all three services—a great example of one system being shared across the board.

I ask the Minister to recognise the convergence of interest in the battle space and the challenges of the continued siloed approach to procurement. I will cite one British example. The Fire Shadow, procured by the British Army, is a surface-launched precision loitering missile with a range of around 100 km. It is transported by trailer behind the back of a 4-tonne lorry. There is no reason why such a cheap but accurate bit of kit could not be modularised and placed, when required, on board a ship. Heaven forbid, it could even be run by the Royal Artillery, although perhaps that is a step too far. I believe that that is the mindset that should dominate future joint effect—modular systems covering all four phases of war that can be brought together.

As the design for the Type 26 is consolidated, I offer two options: option 1, do we need all 13 of them to be of such high specifications, or could, say, five of the eight have a more simplified design, where tailored assets are assigned depending on the task at hand? On option 2, if we commissioned just eight Type 26s, we could use the additional funds to procure 10 cheaper, larger modular ships with the deck and mission space for a minimum of four rotor systems to effectively conduct counter-piracy and counter-narcotics operations and defend home waters and to excel at upstream engagement, stabilisation and humanitarian tasks.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that it is important that we also have ships that will protect our aircraft carriers? After all, the key thing that Nelson always talked about was the need for frigates to support the rest of the flagships and other such things.

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I commend him for his work in supporting what goes on in Devonport. He is absolutely right that ships can and often do work individually, but they might be required to be part of a larger flotilla or part of a taskforce, which might include defending an aircraft carrier. Clearly, with a limited number of platforms, that would be harder to do, so an increased number of ships would make the job easier.

The types of role that the Type 26s could be engaged in—upstream engagement, stabilisation and humanitarian tasks—are the very things the SDSR is saying that we should be doing more of, to promote Britain’s interests. I believe that such a design might even allow the provision for an Army company strength to be based on board. Essentially, the ship could be a small moving location—a sea-based platform for operations to be conducted on land. In essence, it could act as a safe lily pad from which land and sea-based assets could be safely deployed without the need for any boots to be permanently on the ground. Such a ship would then free the high-end ships for NATO, middle east, south Atlantic and nuclear deterrent duties. Indeed, as my hon. Friend has just said, they would be free to form part of a flotilla to protect our aircraft carriers.

The Minister will be aware that the surface fleet is coping—but only just—with meeting its maritime obligations with 19 destroyers and frigates, when 23 ships is the defence strategic direction mandated standard. We are therefore taking an operational risk, and that is managed, but option 2 would mitigate that risk. I urge the Minister to gain some inspiration by looking at the United States littoral combat ship, or the USS Freedom, a catamaran-style ship. The US is exploring exactly the same more modular-based approach. The MOD wrote a joint concept report colourfully entitled “Future ‘Black Swan’ Class Sloop-of-War”, published in May last year, which talks exactly about the concept of a far cheaper ship, with the money invested instead in the systems that go on it.

As we slowly approach the next SDSR, will the Minister look at one further system that I believe would be game changing in the maritime environment? The V-22 Osprey is a US multi-mission military tiltrotor aircraft. It is an example of the large utility helicopters of the future. It already operates on the US Wasp-class carrier and can fly higher, faster and further, and it can of course land on the deck of any frigate or destroyer. It would be able refuel our F-35s. Such a system would have an enormous impact in the maritime environment. I believe that leasing six from the United States, similar to what we did with the C-17s, would make logical sense.

In conclusion, it has been said time and again that, no matter how advanced, ships can only be in one place at a time. We have impressive naval ships, but they remain very specific in their remit and too siloed in harnessing systems from all services—and, of course, there are only 19 of them. Our ships are conducting a number of international duties that they were not built to achieve. Looking ahead, Britain must excel at influencing activities in the littoral environment. I believe that that aim is best served by simpler and cheaper platforms, where the sophistication and investment is focused on the modular systems on board, rather than on the ship. I hope that I speak for both sides of the House in paying tribute to all those who serve in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. I offer my thoughts today in the spirit of ensuring that the House considers how we can best equip the Royal Navy in future in the lead-up to the next SDSR.

Several hon. Members rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

I pay tribute to the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who has a long track record and experience in defence matters. I congratulate him on securing the debate and on outlining many thoughtful points, in particular relating to the littoral dimension, global strategic challenges, and interoperability and joint effect.

When considering future and current vessels, one must consider future and current maritime roles and taskings as an important starting point. I think that Members from across the House agree that naval forces are there to protect and patrol, to secure freedom of movement, to enforce the boundaries of territorial waters, to control exclusive economic zones, and to secure the environment—a significant consideration—renewables and critical infrastructure. That is particularly important when one bears in mind what is likely to happen in the decades ahead with offshore wind, tidal and wave power and the development of super-grid systems, which are likely to connect Iceland, the Faroe islands, Scotland, Norway and the rest of Europe. Other dimensions include subsea infrastructure and, of course, the trafficking of drugs and people. I had a quick look at the Royal Navy’s website before the debate and noted the five key current areas of maritime security, which were counter-piracy, counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism, keeping sea lanes open and “around the UK”.

I join the hon. Member for Bournemouth East not only in praising UK personnel and those of other countries for their life-saving roles far from home—including, most recently, in reacting to the humanitarian catastrophe in the Philippines—but in acknowledging the importance of anti-piracy operations, and the maintenance of free-trade routes through measures such as Operation Ocean Shield, which is ably commanded from a Norwegian vessel, the Fridtjof Nansen.

It is the fifth and surely most important task in the Royal Navy’s list that I want to address in the context of future and current conventional naval vessels, capabilities and tasking: maritime domain awareness, or MDA, to use the Navy’s terminology, which we should understand. It is the effective understanding of anything associated with the maritime domain that could impact on security, safety, the economy or the environment. I want to examine the issue in terms of recent developments close to home.

There is no better place to start than with an incident that happened two years ago and has close connection to my part of the world. The 65,000-tonne Admiral Kuznetsov anchored on the edge of UK waters off my constituency. Other Russian ships that also sought shelter in the Moray firth included the anti-submarine warfare ship Admiral Chabanenko, and the escort ship Yaroslav Mudryy. The vessels did not warn domestic authorities that they were going to come so close to the coast, and are believed to have blamed bad weather for making that approach. It was the first time the Kuznetsov, or a vessel of its size, had deployed near UK waters, and it was the closest in 20 years that a Russian naval task group had deployed to Scotland or anywhere else in the UK.

In previous years, Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft would have been loitering and would have been aware of the presence of a Russian deployment of that size. Of course, by 2011, the UK had no such aircraft; it is the only northern European military without them. Nevertheless, the Russians were there without any UK escort. At that stage, the Ministry of Defence was relying on Scottish fishing vessels to report developments, including fly-tipping by the visitors. When the MOD became aware of the Russians’ presence, a 30-year-old Type 42 frigate, the HMS York, was scrambled from Portsmouth, around 1,000 miles away. That distance, at 20 to 24 knots, takes more than 24 hours to travel. The responsibility that the HMS York was fulfilling was that of fleet ready escort, which means being the deployable and capable vessel in UK waters ready to perform emergency response tasks. The Kuznetsov case raises serious questions relating to current and future naval vessels, and I would be grateful if the Minister could address them. I know that he is well advised today, so I am sure that he will have time to respond to my points.

Is the availability of a fleet ready escort a mandated task of the Royal Navy? Will the Minister confirm that, owing to the unavailability of vessels, the fleet ready escort provision has been repeatedly gapped? Will he confirm that Ministers need to be informed by the Royal Navy every time such a gap exists? Will he confirm how many times over the last five years and for how long the fleet ready escort has been gapped? Will he confirm that offshore patrol and mine countermeasures vessels have been assigned for fleet ready escort duty during gapped periods? When considering future ships, it is important to understand the current state of play and what one might want to ensure does not happen in future.

Staying with recent experience, in May 2007, Tornado F3 jets from RAF Leuchars in Fife were sent to intercept two Russian aircraft spotted observing a Royal Navy exercise off northern Scotland. The jets were scrambled after the foreign planes were detected by radar in the skies over the western isles. They were identified as Russian Bear Foxtrot planes, commonly seen by RAF pilots during the cold war. In this case, they were intercepted and their return was escorted.

Although there have been recent developments, I do not want to explore in any detail in this forum the interest shown by some countries in subsea infrastructure, but I am sure that both the Government and Opposition Front-Bench representatives will understand its importance and the importance of its integrity. The examples that I have given underline that, with regard to the maritime domain awareness of future and current vessels, there are important tasks close to the UK that must be properly managed as a priority.

I want to raise the question of tasking in our immediate wider maritime region and, in particular, the contribution towards joint allied responsibilities and training. NATO has, as part of its immediate reaction force, standing NATO maritime group 1, which primarily operates in the eastern Atlantic. Similarly, standing NATO mine countermeasures group 1 operates in northern waters. They are relevant for future and current naval vessel provision, as they are standing operational commitments for allied nations, which provide destroyers, frigates and mine countermeasure vessels. It is notable that the UK has not provided vessels to either of the groups for several years.

Similarly, on joint training, there is a real issue of properly committing current and, hopefully, future vessels. Last month saw the largest NATO training exercise in northern Europe in nearly a decade. Some 6,000 troops from 20 allied and partner nations took part in Steadfast Jazz, which involved land, air, and sea elements. Of the 6,000 participants in the exercise, the UK contributed precisely 52 personnel aboard a single mine hunter. It followed a large-scale exercise with maritime dimensions in Norway, where the UK provided just one aircraft, which is more than has ever been provided to the NATO air policing commitments in Iceland.

When it comes to our immediate maritime backyard, the UK is sadly posted missing too often and is not taking its responsibilities seriously. The absence of any mention of the high north and Arctic in the most recent strategic defence and security review eloquently underlines my point.

This is all especially relevant to Scotland when it comes to current and future conventional vessels. Scotland is a maritime nation with a sea area five times larger than its land area. Our coastline is over 11,000 km long, and is longer than that of the People’s Republic of China and that of India. It constitutes 61% of the entire UK coastline, and there are more than 800 islands. Remarkably, however, there is not a single major, ocean-going, UK conventional vessel based in Scotland to perform the key tasks that I have outlined; no frigates or offshore patrol vessels are based in Scotland. That can and will change after a yes vote in next year’s independence referendum in Scotland. Last week, the Scottish Government published their White Paper, “Scotland’s Future”, which included plans for naval forces. I commend the White Paper to Members of all parties, although I understand that the print run has already been fully exhausted.

[Oliver Colvile]

rose—

[Angus Robertson]

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to place an order, I am sure a copy will be sent to him. Of course I give way to him.

[Oliver Colvile]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting case, but I point out that every proposal has been to ensure that the nuclear submarines remain up at Faslane, which is useful for employment in that part of Scotland.

[Angus Robertson]

This issue is close to my heart, and I would be happy to debate at great length the Scottish public’s overwhelming opposition to nuclear weapons being based in Scotland—something ignored, sadly, by the hon. Gentleman’s party and by the official Opposition in Westminster—but I am looking closely at the clock. In the White Paper, however, which I commend to him, the plans for Faslane are for a vibrant conventional naval base, and I am sure that most people would welcome that. I am delighted at the strong commitment in the White Paper to maritime capabilities, including frigates, OPVs, patrol boats, auxiliary ships and, crucially, newly procured maritime patrol aircraft.

UK assets and liabilities are key, and they must be a consideration for the Ministry of Defence, now and after a yes vote. Future vessels are very relevant. The referendum will have a significant bearing on issues relating to current and future vessels, but as yet we have had no indication from the Government as to their preferences on defence assets. According to the most recent UK asset register, published in 2007, MOD assets totalled more than £92 billion in value; on a population share basis, Scotland would be entitled to £7.7 billion in defence estate, equipment and vessels, or a financial offset. With regard to future vessels, that is important, because the UK Government have to date given no indication of the effect of a yes vote on their planning assumptions or procurement plans.

The MOD has projected the need for £160 billion of spending on defence equipment and support over the next 10 years; £13 billion of that spending is predicated on continuing guaranteed Scottish taxpayer support. With independence, Whitehall will need to work with the Scottish Government on joint procurement even to come close to those commitments. It is in the interests of both Governments to work together. The Scottish Government’s White Paper included the following commitment:

“This Scottish Government will take forward the procurement of four new frigates, to be built on the Clyde, preferably through joint procurement with the rest of the UK.”

That presents a good chance for massive procurement gain, with the potential to extend the production run of the Type 26 frigate. Unless the Government were to signal a further reduction in demand for frigate numbers, we could see more ships built rather than fewer, which is good news for the Clyde, good news for taxpayers across these islands, and good news for defence with appropriate conventional capabilities.

In conclusion, current and future naval vessels have essential tasks at home and further afield. I have stressed the importance of providing for necessary maritime territorial and regional defence, which is the core business of defence responsibility. Sadly, the UK Government have taken their eye off the ball, so I look forward to a sovereign Scotland taking those responsibilities seriously, and having the vessels and capabilities to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) on securing the debate. As he knows, he and I have been talking about the future of the Royal Navy for the past three years, since I was elected. I am very aware of how important the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines are in my own constituency of Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I will be arguing a strong case for the Royal Navy during my contribution.

I should say, however, that the Government have had a difficult time. They have found themselves with enormously problematic public finances and have therefore had to make significant cuts in the delivery of public services. I am sorry that they should find themselves in that position. We should most certainly control the public expenditure envelope, but my view is that politics is about delivering priorities as well, and I believe that our chief priority should be the defence of our country.

This is an opportune time to have this debate, as the Government will not only consider the next round of the strategic defence and security review in a couple of years’ time but decide the amount of money that will be spent. As others have said, when the “Options for Change” review took place in the 1990s, about 4% or 5% of the country’s GDP was being spent on defence; that is now down to around 2%. It is important that, over the next few years, we look at the amount of money that we are investing in defence. I hope that this debate will send out that message. If the Minister would be willing to work with me, I am very willing to work with him on trying to argue our case to the Government and to the Treasury.

Representing Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport as I do, I pay tribute to the Government for deciding that they will continue to make sure that Plymouth has the licence for refuelling and refitting nuclear submarines. I recognise that the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) would prefer not to end up with nuclear submarines in Scotland. Bluntly, we are quite willing to end up with them in Plymouth if we possibly can. We would welcome it. We recognise that it is the stake in the ground, as far as Devonport is concerned. There has to be work going into Devonport. About 38% of people working in the city depend on the public sector. Another incredibly important point is that we have a low skills base. The one thing that Devonport and Plymouth have going for them is their global reputation for marine science and engineering research. The Royal Navy is a significant player in that sector, along with Plymouth university, and I hope that we can continue to build on that.

The Navy is so important because we are an island—a maritime nation that depends upon using sea routes to bring our food and imports into the country. The Ministry of Defence should have two priorities: it should make sure that we have not only a strong Royal Navy but a strong RAF as well. We must protect our sea routes and air routes so that we can get bits of kit and imports into the country. Could we imagine Christmas without oranges or the kinds of fruits that we depend upon being able to import? Looking at the events of the first and second world wars, we can see how close we came to finding ourselves starved to death by our aggressors.

Aircraft carriers are important: they provide a launch pad for aircraft to cover and dominate the air when we are landing troops—I hope, our Royal Marines—on beaches. We should not forget that. However, this matter is not simply about having aircraft carriers. Nelson, who is the great hero of the Royal Navy and, I would argue, Britain, said that we must ensure that we have plenty of ships, including frigates and other vessels that can protect our other activities on the sea. They are utterly vital, and investment in them is important.

Plymouth has the licence for refitting and refurbishing our nuclear submarines, and it is key that we retain our nuclear deterrent. I have been very supportive of ensuring that we have four submarines, so that we have a continuous sea deterrent. I would like confirmation that the Conservative party will remain committed to that and that it will not be subject to any discussions with other political parties after the general election if we unfortunately find ourselves in a coalition again. We must have a strong Navy, which will mean a strong Devonport and a strong Plymouth. I am very keen to ensure that.

The issue is not just the seaborne deterrent, but how we can use our Royal Navy to deliver soft power. We all know that, if we end up putting a ship into port, everybody is interested in knowing what is happening and what the ship is going to do. They also thoroughly enjoy the idea of occasionally having a drink on board. I assure the Chamber that we have done much work in that regard. I understand that people in Sierra Leone are still talking about a Royal Navy frigate or aircraft carrier being just over the horizon and about how, if they do not behave themselves, the Royal Navy will be turning up immediately on their beaches. Therefore, soft power is very important.

We must ensure that, in the next SDSR and in the next spending round, the Navy is recognised and has the Government’s full and utter support.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) has long been an articulate commentator on Army issues; more recently he has taken up the cudgels on behalf of the Royal Navy. If I were in charge of the Royal Air Force, I would look to my laurels, because I am sure that it is next on his agenda. To give the Minister maximum time to consider my questions, I will ask them at the beginning of my contribution rather than at the end, so he will be at liberty to ignore anything I say afterwards.

First, when the main gate contracts are signed some time next year after the Scottish referendum, will a minimum of 13 frigates be ordered? Secondly, does the Minister accept that the unit cost of new frigates will be much cheaper if all 13 are ordered at the outset? Thirdly, eight of the 13 frigates will specialise in anti-submarine warfare. Was that figure derived from doctrinal consideration, and if so, what is it? My concern is that if we are to have seven frigates available for that purpose, we would need 10, not eight. I think doctrine requires at least seven to be available. Fourthly, how many of the new frigates would be necessary to escort a taskforce, whether that is an amphibious or carrier taskforce? Finally, what consideration will be given to adoption of the plug-and-play method of warship development that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East referred to, and the importance of getting hulls in the water first and then building up capacity over the lifetime of the vessel?

In the time available, I hope to speak about strategy, numbers and design concept. You have drawn the short straw, Mr Hood, in chairing this debate, because when I made my maiden speech on defence in the Queen’s Speech debate in 1997, you spoke after me, and were kind enough to predict that the House would be hearing a lot more from me on defence in the years to come. You were absolutely right, and I have been banging on about it ever since, although I had not expected to be making the same sort of repetitious points and representations to a Conservative-led Government as I did to the Labour Government during the more than six years in which I was my party’s spokesman on the Royal Navy, but there you are. Politics is a strange profession.

[Oliver Colvile]

My hon. Friend has a great deal to contribute, because he had a distinguished career as a reservist in the Royal Navy.

[Dr Lewis]

The distinction that I achieved cannot be overemphasised: I advanced from probationer ordinary seaman to full ordinary seaman. I was very proud to be one, because even in those days—it was from 1979 to 1982, or thereabouts—I was too old to be an officer cadet. I feel the bus pass jingling in my pocket.

Yesterday, I took the day off and had the great pleasure of travelling to Southampton university at the invitation of Commander Chris Ling, commanding officer of Thunderer Squadron, which is the defence technical undergraduate scheme at the university, and Lieutenant Amie Jackson. She—I emphasise “she”—is the commanding officer of the warship HMS Blazer, which is attached to the university’s Royal Navy unit. It was wonderful to celebrate with them the opening of their new joint headquarters at the National Oceanography Centre. Looking at the fine young people who are coming through the system and having a first-class maritime education there, I could not help wondering how many opportunities they would have, and how many naval vessels would be available for them to serve in, in the years ahead, when they go on, as so many of them do, to professional careers in the Royal Navy.

I said that I would talk a bit about strategy. I have always acknowledged on a cross-party basis that the concepts of Labour’s 1998 strategic defence review were very sound. They recognised that we were no longer facing as our primary concern the cold war threat on the continent, and that if our forces were engaged, it would be in more far-flung theatres. As we were no longer an empire and no longer had a string of bases all over the world, it would be necessary to have a portable, movable sea base that we could use to take our joint forces to the theatre in which they were engaged. That seemed sound then, and it is sound today. That concept required two sorts of taskforce: one to allow air power to be projected from the sea, hence the aircraft carriers; and the other to enable military power to be landed from the sea, hence the amphibious taskforce. Broadly speaking, we have the central elements of those taskforces.

We know that the aircraft carriers are moving steadily forward, whatever financial peaks and troughs they have had in their chequered history, and that they will come to fruition. I would like to predict that the Government will bring both carriers into service, because it would be sheer madness to build one of the largest ships that the Royal Navy has ever seen and not deploy it.

The Albion, the Bulwark, and our Bay-class ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service form the core of the amphibious taskforce, and again, it would be interesting to know—although I do not expect an answer today—what plans there are to think about the next generation of assault ships to follow the Albion and the Bulwark. However, the point about the two taskforces, and the relevance to today’s debate, is that they will have to be protected against air threats, surface threats and submarine threats. As I said before, if we need a certain number of frigates—let us say as many as four to protect a taskforce, if it were in a serious regional conflict—given the roles that the frigates will have to perform in other areas, including ongoing and standing tasks, I find myself querying how the idea that we will generate a minimum of seven available anti-submarine warfare frigates from only eight out of the 13 will work.

I shall say a brief word about numbers. I start from the standpoint that we are simply not spending enough on defence. I know all the economic arguments about that, but the fact is that as a proportion of gross domestic product, defence spending has declined too far down our list of priorities. Spending was between 4% and 5% during the cold war years. When Labour came into office in 1997, it went from 2.9% to 2.6%, then to 2.8%. Then, in successive years, it was 2.7%, 2.7% again, 2.5%, 2.5% again, and so on. That looked fairly consistent, but the problem was that during that period, we were engaged in fighting two large regional conflicts, and the Treasury was not prepared to stump up the extra money to fund those conflicts in full. As a result, we found the core military budget being eaten away by the financing of current conflicts, and since then, under the present Government, the situation has not improved. I believe that we are down to something like 2.1% of GDP at present, and I feel that that is the root of the problem.

At the time of the strategic defence review that set out those concepts, the Labour Government proposed reducing the combined number of frigates and destroyers from 35 to 32. The admirals gritted their teeth and accepted that, but it quickly emerged that 32 had actually gone down to 31, and the then Secretary of State, Geoff Hoon, formulated what I later dubbed the “Hoon excuse”, which was, “It doesn’t really matter that we have lost an extra frigate, because they are more powerful than they used to be, so 31 ships can do what 32 used to do.” That, I am afraid, was the start of a very slippery slope.

The next bite taken out of the total by the Labour Government took the number down from 31 to 25. I remember standing up in the House of Commons at the beginning of 2007 waxing eloquent about persistent rumours that the Government intended to mothball, if not permanently dispose of, another half a dozen frigates to take the total down to 19. In the end, that gradually slipped away, but a couple of Type 23 frigates were paid off, and effectively the total went down to 23 from 25. It took the Conservative-led coalition coming in before we went down to 19 in the 2010 SDSR, yet the concept set out in 1998 remained basically sound: we needed to be able to fulfil certain standing tasks, to protect a mobile base, and to escort an amphibious taskforce or an aircraft carrier taskforce. I do not see what doctrinal developments since then justify such a radical reduction in the numbers.

That leads to me to my final point, about the design concept, which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth East mentioned. It is about whether it might be worth looking at the other five more general-purpose hulls that are proposed to bring the total number of frigates up to 13, and whether it might be worth considering doing something simpler to get more hulls in the water from which we can regenerate the surface fleet. Back in February 2005, in putting forward that concept, I was unwise enough to say that, really, the replacement general-purpose frigates ought to be “as cheap as chips”, which is not the sort of phrase that a proud Navy wants to hear. However, the point is based on an important development that I referred to in my opening questions—the idea of plug and play.

When the Type 45s were designed and put into service, they had a very large gymnasium. Why? Because they were designed in such a way that at a future stage in their life cycle, when we could afford it, we would be able to plug into that large space a module of land attack cruise missiles, which would hugely increase the ships’ power, even though we felt that we could not afford to do so at the beginning. It is perfectly possible to design ships that are relatively simple, but that have that capacity; I am extremely glad to see the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) nodding in agreement. We are very capable of upgrading those ships in their lifetime, and adding to their capacity. Perhaps it is too late now—I do not know—but we could at least try to keep the number of hulls a bit larger and lessen the complexity a bit; we would then have the basis for upgrading the quality of the vessels during their lifetime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Seabeck]

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

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

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

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

[Oliver Colvile]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Alison Seabeck]

Of course I will give way to my constituency neighbour—as long as he is quick!

[Oliver Colvile]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech, but one of the things that is incredibly important as well is to ensure that some of the Type 26s will be base-ported in Devonport. I would be grateful if the Minister could answer that as an issue, too.

[Alison Seabeck]

The hon. Gentleman is prescient beyond belief, because my next paragraph says that there of course needs to be a discussion about where the Type 26s are base-ported. Sadly, the hon. Member for Gosport has been called away and is not in her place. That decision needs to be taken on strategic grounds. We need to consider how we protect our skills base and we need to ensure that we do not have all our eggs in one basket. I listened with interest to the hon. Lady, who made a plea for base-porting—all base-porting in effect—to be in Portsmouth. As I have said, that, in my view, is a sentimental, not a strategic, view. We need to protect skills across all our bases. Clearly, I have a strong view about Plymouth and ensuring that we have a drumbeat that works for our work force as well.

Of course, the new vessel will be designed with stealth and unobservability in mind and will need to be acoustically quiet. It will be interesting to see whether she resembles in any way the futuristically designed Sea Shadow or USS Zumwalt. The latter has an outline that is not too dissimilar from the very early iron-clad battleships, so this is quite an exciting time in ship design. I am sure that those involved are extremely stimulated by the challenge that the Type 26 offers.

Equally, the launch of the new QE class will be a milestone in naval history. That programme has been through the wringer in terms of procurement, under the last Government and certainly under this one. We do need to know, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth East pointed out, whether there is an intention to mothball the second boat and perhaps keep HMS Ocean going for longer. What is Ocean’s future? Plymouthians will certainly have a view about that and would welcome an answer.

On procurement, we do need to do much better. I put my hands up, in terms of some of the problems that we had under the last Government, on this. We need to be clearer through the SDSR about our future needs—the type of wars we need and want to fight, as well as how those demands play into our industrial strategy and industrial base. That said, we also have to have a vehicle that can deliver our new ships on time and on budget. Two weeks ago, we saw the collapse of one of the two remaining consortiums bidding for the GoCo model for future procurement, which was bad news for the Government. It is difficult to see how the Government can continue to pursue that option when their own report stated that the competition would still be possible with two bidders, but that a further withdrawal should initiate a formal reconsideration of whether a GoCo was viable.

The Minister needs to make his mind up, and fast, ideally before the Defence Reform Bill is considered in the other place. What is it to be? Will it be new ships and weapons systems procured through a GoCo, or will it be a DE&S-plus model that oversees the delivery of the Type 26 and the successor programme?

Defence Reform Bill

Oliver Colvile Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baron]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. To double the mobilisation is a big enough challenge. The plan represents a fundamental change in another respect, which provides a further reason to scrutinise it in some detail. I am proud to have served alongside TA soldiers, but the bottom line is that they were in large part in-filling. We helped each other along.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Baron]

I will not, if my hon. Friend does not mind; I am responding to another intervention.

Those TA soldiers were in-filling, but let us not forget that part of the present plan is to deploy reservists as units. That is very different from what has happened before; it represents yet another whole-scale change to the plan. It is therefore only right that we should scrutinise it in detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baron]

No, I have already given way to my hon. Friend as well. Actually, I am doing a disservice to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile). He has not yet asked me a question, and I give way to him.

[Oliver Colvile]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I apologise for being late; I have been upstairs in the Northern Ireland Select Committee. What impact would my hon. Friend’s amendment have on the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, both of which play a significant role in my constituency? They have already been the subject of significant cuts, and the Army appears to be being protected as a special case.

[Mr Baron]

My hon. Friend missed the earlier part of the debate, and he has not heard the exchange of questions and answers. We are asking for a brief pause—it could be very brief indeed—while the plans are scrutinised. That is within the Government’s gift.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Arbuthnot]

My hon. Friend is right about that. The new cyber-command that has recently been brought on stream will achieve precisely what he describes. It will not be possible to achieve that expertise within a purely military environment; we have to rely on those who have civilian expertise, too. Because of all this, we will need new investment, in satellites and in software—in the sort of things that will not be visible to the man in the street—all at the same time as we are trying to sell to the public increased spending on defence. That will be difficult to achieve while we are reducing in Afghanistan.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend also agree that reservists who come from a commercial background will bring different working practices. That will be incredibly important as we begin to get ourselves ready for this expansion.