Defence Responsibilities

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

As far as I am aware, the only information has come from Porton Capital’s lawyers, who sent a clarification following the meeting in Dubai to say that the account of the meeting given by Mr Boulter was incorrect. The lawyers accepted, on the legal case that Porton Capital faced with 3M, that none of the accusations made by Mr Boulter were correct, and no confidential information was given.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I want to place on record my support for the Secretary of State. There is no one I would rather have going in to bat for our armed forces and our country when it comes to the difficult issues in his in-tray. Can he assure me and the House that the issues in his statement will not detract from the way that he deals with the other issues in his in-tray, and particularly our immediate opportunities to get our allies to pull more weight?

[Dr Fox]

It would be disingenuous of me to say to the House that being confronted, as some of my other colleagues have been, by a non-stop bombardment from the media, day in, day out, and the effect that that has on our families, does not in some way make it more difficult to get on with our daily work. I thank my hon. Friend for her comments, and say to her that when we are confronted with these situations, we sometimes find unexpected resilience.

Radar Industry

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

I begin in the customary way, but entirely sincerely, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Turner) on securing the debate. I am always impressed by the diligent way he represents his constituents’ interests, and I hope to encourage him by showing that there is a significant amount of work for British radar companies both here and overseas.

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for saying that he gave a rather half-empty view of the radar world and the future of the British industry. I hope to persuade him that the glass is comfortably more than half full. The future of the British radar industry is an important topic and I am pleased to be able to share with the House all the good work in which the Government are involved, in support of that industry. My hon. Friend will understand that success has many fathers and failure is an orphan, and in that spirit I offer the thought that, as a Worcestershire Member, I look towards Malvern’s proud role in the development of British radar systems; I take a close interest in the development of radar.

The defence and security of our nation and people are the primary responsibility of Government, and defence is, as will be appreciated, my primary interest. There is a vital requirement for the detection of airborne assets entering and travelling through UK airspace, as my hon. Friend emphasised in his excellent speech. Radar is the primary tool used for such detection, whether for the tracking of co-operating civil aircraft or the detection and engagement of potentially hostile aircraft. UK companies such as BAE Systems, SELEX and Thales supply many of the radars that we rely on for that critical role. I want to emphasise that: I regard SELEX and Thales as British companies, and later this afternoon I will receive a delegation from colleagues in the House, making the case for SELEX, and will be visiting its excellent offices in Edinburgh on Monday to see its radar work. However, my hon. Friend is right to recognise the proud record of BAE Systems as well.

Our armed forces operate across the world—not just in Afghanistan and Libya, but also in our permanent bases overseas such as the Falkland islands. Accordingly, radar technologies sourced from British companies are deployed by our armed forces around the world, so we recognise the importance of radars across a range of military systems. They are a critical element of our air defence capability, supporting operations on land and sea and in the air. Recent operations over Libya have clearly demonstrated the effectiveness of commanding the air domain. Radars are required for combat systems working alongside our complex weapons from ships, submarines and aircraft as well as troops on the ground, so our ability to sustain and develop those systems, including our ability to respond rapidly to emerging and evolving threats, is essential to our operational effectiveness. On that point, there is nothing between my hon. Friend and me.

I am glad to reassure my hon. Friend that the UK’s industrial capability is critical to meeting the vital defence requirement that I have outlined. Indeed, we are working with BAE Systems and other UK industrial players, together with our scientists in the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory, better to understand the issues and to share our thinking regarding the evolving requirements—and they can evolve quite fast. That is very much in the spirit set out in last year’s Green Paper on technology, equipment and support. We enjoy a close and productive working relationship with our radar suppliers and look forward to maintaining that in the years ahead, so I was slightly disappointed by the way my hon. Friend characterised our relationship. I hope that BAE Systems feels that it has a constructive relationship with us.

On my hon. Friend’s points on air defence radars and wind farms, I must stress that the provision of up to three proven wind farm-tolerant radars by the wind farm developers, removing the objections of the Ministry of Defence to those wind farms and releasing significant renewable energy potential, is seen across Government as very encouraging. My ministerial colleagues have worked hard to achieve that. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has acknowledged that work, which has been achieved by co-operating across Government, and with industry, to reach an outcome that is beneficial to our national security, energy security and decarbonisation goals. Furthermore, it is not the case that the UK’s air defence radar network will be made up of a foreign fleet in the future. I am assured that UK industry is developing a wind farm-tolerant air defence radar, and I welcome that.

There are many radars in service with our armed forces. Some examples are long-range air defence sensors, medium-range air defence systems, Type 45 air defence sensors—my hon. Friend referred to the Type 45—and air traffic control sensors, many provided by UK companies, including BAE Systems. In the long- range sector, UK BAE Systems produces the Type 101 and 102 radars used in support of the defence of the UK. In air traffic control there is UK involvement in the Watchman radar—again with BAE.

However, it is in ensuring the future capability and reach of the Royal Navy that UK companies stand out. I am happy to endorse what my hon. Friend said about the Sampson multi-function radar fitted to our newest class of destroyers, the Type 45, which, incidentally, is supported by MBDA UK and BAE Mission Systems. I want to make the point that support is extremely important. My hon. Friend should not concentrate only on manufacture, although I understand its importance for his constituency. The supporting of radars is also hugely important, and it brings many important jobs. It is an important skill for the UK.

Also in the Type 45 class of ship there is the Thales long-range radar, which is supported by BAE Mission Systems, and the Royal Navy’s next generation of radar capability, the UK company BAE Mission Systems radar—the RT997. The contribution to the Royal Navy’s current capabilities by UK companies is evidenced by the BAE mission systems radar 909, fitted to Type 42 destroyers and mainly supported by the same British companies. There is also the RT996, which is fitted to many ships throughout the fleet, including Type 23 frigates and destroyers, amphibious support ships and Illustrious, for which in-service support is provided through an award-winning long-term contract with a UK company. There is no shortage of business here, especially for UK companies.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he agree that, when deciding whether to buy in the UK or from overseas and where to invest in research and development, we should be thinking about the export market, how many can be built over a particular cycle, and whether the technology is genuinely innovative? The examples that he gives fit into all three categories.

[Peter Luff]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope to talk later about exports and our export ability, an important part of the future of the UK’s radar industry. One of the major changes that we seek to achieve through our acquisition strategy—not only in radar but across the board—is to ensure that the exportability of a product developed for UK purposes is considered early in the life-cycle and acquisition process. When investing in capability for the British armed forces, we should develop a capability that has a ready export market. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that point, and I shall return to it.

I turn next to a future capability referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. Project Vigilance will provide an upgrade to existing air defence radar systems, with the opportunity for industry to compete for those elements of the air defence radar system that need replacement. The project is still in its early days, and its exact scope and requirements are still being decided.

Project Vigilance is currently planned to sustain the long-range surveillance and air defence capabilities provided by the T101 and T92 radars, which allow United Kingdom air surveillance and control system force command and chief of joint operations to detect, track, identify, monitor and, if necessary, take action against objects flying within, approaching or adjacent to UK and Falkland Islands airspace. Work to develop the strategy is under way.

Given the financial climate, taking an incremental approach to Project Vigilance will ensure that existing sensors are utilised to full effect, the whole air defence network is coherent and each reaps maximum benefit from other interlinked projects. That applies not only to MOD projects, but to other Departments’ initiatives and requirements, including the need, whenever possible, to enable the use of renewable energy; I say “whenever” to emphasise the great importance that we attach to that.

Surveillance data are not limited to military air defence radars; information comes from a multitude of sources that includes military and civilian air traffic management radars, and links to NATO air defence sites and tactical data links from air, surface and land platforms. Again, industry has been and will be invited to compete in these and other projects.

Moreover, the utilisation of a plethora of data sources not only provides resilience, but allows defence to optimise the air defence radar footprint to ensure that an appropriate level of redundancy is met. We must have the capacity to ensure that we can carry on doing what we need to do in adverse circumstances. It is on this foundation that the air command and control strategy is being developed, but we recognise the need to ensure that value for money is obtained from the Project Vigilance procurement strategy, as my hon. Friend would wish.

There is also good news on another radar project. Project Marshall is a large and wide-ranging project for the provision of terminal air traffic management, essentially the provision of air traffic services to military and civil aircraft operating in and out of Government aerodromes. Air traffic control services are currently provided to 70 MOD-owned airfields and air weapons ranges through the use of a wide range of equipment located on more than 100 locations in the UK and overseas.

Project Marshall has four key objectives. The first is to ensure a safe and enduring terminal air traffic management capability; the second is to address issues of equipment obsolescence through a programme of capital investment; the third is to address regulation changes and make provision for emergent regulatory issues; the final one is to rationalise arrangements to benefit from associated efficiencies and savings. This transformation project will ensure that military air traffic control services continue to be operated in a safe manner, while complying with relevant legislation. The new services are planned to commence in 2014, and several UK companies are involved in the ongoing competition.

There is more good news, this time on the naval side. I have already highlighted some of the support that the Royal Navy receives for radars from UK companies. Five types of primary and secondary navigation radar are fitted to Royal Navy surface warships and submarines. I recognise the excellent support that a range of radar contractors have provided over recent years in maintaining the primary and secondary navigation systems used by the Royal Navy.

As for the future, the navigation and situational awareness radar is planned to replace 1007, which is fitted to most Royal Naval vessels; it is being designed to provide primary navigation and sustained situational awareness on surface warships. The project is in its assessment phase and, against current plans, the radar system is due to enter service in 2016.

I turn next to the air sector. I bear in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) said about exportability. Our highly capable Typhoon aircraft have long been served by the mechanically scanned, or m-scan, Captor radar, which is produced by the four partner nations on the Typhoon project. However, as the defence environment evolves, no matter how good those mechanically scanned radars are, they are having to be replaced by electronically scanned, or e-scan, radars, which provide increased detection and agility against a wider range of targets and a less easily countered capability.

In partnership with our Typhoon partners and industry, we are developing an e-scan solution that will further enhance Typhoon’s capabilities well into the 21st century. Industry has played, and continues to play a full, active role in achieving the optimum solution on e-scan. Not only will e-scan result in a capability leap for the UK Typhoon fleet, but it will further the chances of success for Typhoon in the highly competitive fast-jet export market, where e-scan is a key discriminator for many export customers. For example, the Indian Government order depends on the development of the e-scan radar, and we attach great importance to winning it, as it will represent a lot of business for UK industry—not only in radar, but across the aerospace sector.

We must not forget exports. There are significant opportunities to supply civil radar, for airports and air traffic control services throughout the UK. There will be an increasing demand for solutions that can mitigate against interference from wind farms. There are also increasing opportunities overseas, driven by airport expansion and upgrades in markets such as Brazil, Russia, India, China and the middle east. UK strengths in civil radar and air traffic control solutions, which my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight rightly emphasised, mean that we are well placed to make the most of these prospects—but in a responsible manner, consistent with the UK’s export controls. UKTI can help UK companies sell overseas through a range of support, including trade missions, overseas exhibitions and inward buying missions. I encourage UK industry to make the most of these opportunities. Although I suspect that BAE systems needs no such encouragement, I encourage it none the less.

The defence and security equipment international exhibition takes place in Docklands this week, and it will showcase UK industry on the world stage. My ministerial colleagues and I will use that event to meet a large number of overseas Government delegations; high on the agenda, if not at the top, will be defence exports and the scope for the UK to engage in greater industrial partnerships across the globe. There are a number of attractive export prospects for UK radar systems, from a range of British companies, including those companies that I mentioned at the outset. It is a diverse sector. For example, UKTI DSO is already actively supporting BAE Systems with a campaign in Qatar.

In summary, I assure my hon. Friend and the House that we remain committed to supporting the future of the radar industry. To me, the future of the industry looks exceptionally bright. My hon. Friend has every reason to be confident about it, and about the future of his constituents.

Defence Transformation

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

Only the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) could describe two out of 600-odd as not being a small minority. As a country, we have had a good debate about the defence review, and we think that we should be implementing its practicalities. The understandings and the strategic aim, as set out in the national security strategy, were broadly welcomed on both sides of the House. It is perfectly correct that we have a debate on the ways in which we carry it out, but there is not a huge debate in this country about the strategic direction that we and our allies are taking.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

Parliamentary questions I have tabled show that there is little understanding in other Government Departments of the contribution that defence, particularly the Royal Navy, makes to fuel security, communications and trade. As my right hon. Friend works to put the defence budget and our defence capabilities on a sustainable footing, will he also make the case that our economic recovery is dependent on increased defence spending?

[Dr Fox]

Our economic well-being, as an island where 94% of our exports go by sea, is also dependent on the security of the international sea lanes and the Royal Navy’s contribution to that. Some would say that that is not a necessary function because it is outside the United Kingdom, but it is about the protection of UK interests, and I am afraid that in a truly globalised economy it will continue to be that way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Monday 16th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

What is important in Libya is the fact that we are able to project our air power in an effective and timely manner, and we are able to do that because we have no problems with basing or with over-flight, which is exactly the analysis that we made in the strategic defence and security review.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

T3. I welcome the historic decision to enshrine the armed forces covenant in law, but what else is being done to ensure that ex-service personnel are not discriminated against, especially when they set up a home?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

My hon. Friend is quite right, and as I said just now we had a meeting at DCLG just a couple of hours ago. We are determined that armed forces personnel, be they serving or just leaving the services, which is often when they want to buy a house, are not discriminated against by mortgage providers or, indeed, by credit reference agencies.

Submarines and Frigates (Plymouth)

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2011 Westminster Hall

[Oliver Colvile]

That debate is certainly above my pay grade, but my understanding is that there is a shortfall within the defence budget, and that needs to be sorted out sooner rather than later. What is important is that we must contain public expenditure. It must be reduced, and that is part of the general thrust of what we inherited and must try to deal with.

The principal issue of the level of defence spending is not affordability, but deciding political priorities. If the events in the middle east continue, I firmly believe that our defence budget may have to be reviewed. During the past 13 or 14 years, there has been real uncertainty about Devonport’s future both as a dockyard and as a naval base. Let me make it clear that I am not suggesting that Plymouth should take precedence over Portsmouth, Faslane or Rosyth, but I am arguing that Ministers should not put too much reliance on one naval port for surface ships, and another for submarines. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has already said that we should avoid putting all our eggs in one basket. However, I want to challenge the previous Government’s plans to base-port both aircraft carriers, all the Type 23s, all the Type 45s and eventually the new Type 26s in Portsmouth, and to move the submarines currently based in Plymouth and the submarine school at HMS Raleigh in Cornwall to Faslane.

Last October, when I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to confirm that Plymouth Devonport will continue to play a major role in the defence of our country and will remain a premier naval port, he replied:

“I can absolutely confirm that.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 817.]

In all fairness, he added that both Plymouth and Portsmouth would have to face some challenges. We in Plymouth are up for that, but we are worried that if the previous Government’s plans are implemented, there will be a real threat that Devonport will be left with just three amphibious assault ships and five survey vessels.

I am grateful that the strategic defence and security review confirmed that Devonport will retain flag officer sea training, and deep maintenance work at the dockyard, and that the city will host the amphibious capability through 3 Commando Brigade, which is currently in Afghanistan. However, I am worried that the decision to move the seven Type 23s from Devonport to Portsmouth was taken at a time when the four Type 22s were expected to stay in service for at least another few years. That could make quite a difference to the balance of UK base-porting, and could do enormous damage to the skills base in a city and region where both skills and wages have traditionally been low. If the Government allow Devonport dockyard’s waterfront work to decline, they could make it difficult for Babcock, or its successor, to retain and attract the skilled work force needed to refit our nuclear submarines and surface ships. In my opinion, such a collapse in a service that provides unparalleled value for money could have an impact on whether Babcock is able to deliver economies of scale. That in turn could see greater costs for the Ministry of Defence and the taxpayer, and lead to a reduction in competition.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He may expect me to go in to bat for Portsmouth, but I add my support to his call for all three naval bases to remain open and viable. One of the millstones around the neck of both Plymouth Devonport and Portsmouth is the amount of the defence budget that is spent on maintaining historic buildings. There are about 200 such buildings in Portsmouth’s naval base and, as in Plymouth, although there is no shortage of developers who want to take over those buildings, they are restricted by the MOD’s current procurement protocols. If we want both bases to be able to wash their faces, that issue should be a priority for both the MOD and the Treasury.

[Oliver Colvile]

I agree we should make sure that we use what moneys are available, and spend them on delivering ships, sailors and the kit needed by our armed services to do their job. Later in my speech I will speak further about some of the ways in which one might manage the estate, and I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution.

If all work associated with basing the Type 23 frigates at Plymouth was transferred to Portsmouth, it is likely that the relevant skills and experience would transfer with it. Such a loss could make it difficult and expensive to recreate that frigate expertise back at Plymouth if it is subsequently decided to base some of the new Type 26s at Devonport in the future. Moving the Type 23s would leave Devonport very much as a nuclear dockyard, unable to make use of its additional work force capacity, should submarine work be in a trough.

I welcome the building of the new Type 26 frigates, but I would like to see more of them and more landing platform docks once public finances become available. Ideally, I would—needless to say—like the Type 26s to be located in Devonport. The UK maritime sector takes a great interest in the evolution of Type 26s and the global combat ship programme as the Navy’s next—and only—major surface combatant proposed to replace Type 23 and 22 frigates. Most hon. Members who represent royal naval garrison towns, including my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), recognise the significant potential for the export of that platform, and it rightly lies at the heart of the coalition Government and the MOD’s agenda. Although the sector recognises that BAE Systems has the lead in the ship design and ultimate build, the industry—and we as taxpayers—look to the Government to help ensure that the rest of UK industry gains opportunities to provide the ships with key systems and equipment. We must ensure that other defence contractors are able to make changes to the equipment provided as and when necessary.

Having looked at a number of ships over the past year, I am aware that there is a tendency for pieces of equipment to be bolted on to current frigates and destroyers. No doubt that is also true for submarines and aircraft carriers. The approach I suggest will help maximise export opportunities for the UK, which in turn will deliver much needed growth and create new jobs. Although UK exports of ships have been challenging for some years, the maritime sector’s suppliers of systems, equipment and services have maintained an active export drive that could clearly benefit from further association with this flagship programme.

I understand the argument for moving submarines from Plymouth to Faslane because of the depth of the loch and access to the Atlantic on the west coast of Scotland. I recognise that Faslane has genuine merits, but I feel that the Navy should have submarines based in more than one location. Plymouth has a practical and convenient natural harbour to complement Faslane. When service families are relocated from one part of the country to another, there are always costs. However, whenever I look at arguments about location and the associated costs, I become aware that all Departments, including the MOD, have weak information about their unit costs. It is a matter for the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office to pursue with vigour and vim.

I do not want to concentrate too much on Devonport’s geographical location, but its position on the western approaches means that it is within easy reach of the necessary training area. It was of little surprise that the previous Conservative Government decided to transfer flag officer sea training from Portland to Devonport in the mid-1990s. If the seven Type 23 frigates were moved from Plymouth to Portsmouth, they would regularly have to travel 150 nautical miles to participate in any training exercises.

Fresh water from the Rivers Plym and Tamar means that the Sound is permanently flooded, and the channels are kept from silting up. Plymouth Sound is not subject to the same amount of commercial traffic as the Solent. Although a terrorist could potentially sink a ship in the Sound—as they could in the Solent—by placing all our frigates and destroyers in Portsmouth, we could run the risk of bottling the vast majority of our surface ship fleet in one port without easy access to the channel. Portsmouth is a busy commercial port, which, with increased traffic, could make naval shipping movements more complicated and hazardous.

I will conclude by talking about the social impact that would be faced by Plymouth and the sub-region should there be a further reduction in the Royal Navy’s presence. Over 38% of the city’s employment depends on the public sector, not including the 5,000 people who work in the dockyard, which is also dependent on defence contracts. The city council, working with trade unions and other interested parties, has commissioned work from Plymouth university to quantify the impact that a further downgrading of Plymouth as a naval base and dockyard would have on the local benefits bill should there be a further loss of skills and jobs. Once that report is ready I will, if I may, brief the Minister on it so that he is aware of some of its findings.

That is not the only piece of work the city is undertaking. As many hon. Members know, Plymouth has an excellent, dynamic university with a fine reputation for marine science research and engineering. It is a global centre for maritime activity and has an historic dockyard and dramatic waterfront. I am currently working with the dean of the university’s business faculty, the editor of the Western Morning News and the council to identify ways in which Plymouth can create a cluster of maritime industries. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently wrote to the editor of the Western Morning News to voice his support for that initiative and encourage the dean and the editor to explore ways of making greater use of land that may become available once the base-porting strategy has been finalised. That land-management initiative could deliver further savings to the MOD and ensure that more money is available to be spent on equipment and troops—especially important at a time when the defence budget is under such pressure. I would welcome the chance to brief the Minister on that work once it has been completed. An enterprise zone to deliver that maritime cluster would be most useful.

Whatever decision is made on the base-porting of frigates, destroyers and submarines, I would be grateful to be told the timetable so that we in Plymouth can make the necessary plans to accommodate any changes. As a country, we must place greater emphasis on defence within Government spending than we currently do. We must recognise that we cannot do everything, and we should make our contribution to NATO through an air and sea power capability that reflects our history, geography and wider interests. The Royal Navy should be a central part of that, and I believe that Plymouth can play an important and cost-effective role in helping to make that contribution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

I will try to be as non-partisan between the services as possible but, following the hon. Lady’s provocation, I cannot resist pointing out that the Navy would have been an even quicker responder to the Libyan crisis had we not decided shortly before that blew up to take our last remaining aircraft carrier out of service. I have raised that issue a number of times, particularly with the Foreign Secretary, who on the most recent occasion informed me—I am sorry that he has such a low opinion of my knowledge of things nautical—that an aircraft carrier would not have been necessary because a Tornado could not be flown from it. I am reassured to know that the Government are well aware of which aircraft can fly from aircraft carriers and which cannot, but I do not hesitate to say that if we had had an aircraft carrier in commission when the events in Libya blew up so unexpectedly, I would have bet the farm on the fact that that particular warship—an aircraft carrier—would have been the first to be dispatched to the Mediterranean in response. It is very unwise to make decisions in peacetime, and still more unwise to make decisions when we are involved in not one but two conflicts simultaneously, that will bind us rigidly into circumstances that we might regret when the strategic situation changes as unexpectedly as it almost always does.

Let us consider the position with regard to frigates and submarines. I have never hesitated to say that the 1998 strategic defence review was a well thought-out document. The problem, as we know, was that the plans it outlined were not fully funded, although at least one had the feeling that a theory was being set out, which meant that some sort of balance was understood and some sort of flexibility was retained. We did not take the view that because our circumstances in the world were more limited in terms of the interventions we could make, we should reshape our defence forces in such a way that we would be incapable of responding to an unexpected crisis as we had responded in the past.

At one point during the years of the Labour Government, a naval base review was carried out. My hon. Friend the Minister will recall that we, as the shadow defence team in opposition, were adamant that it would be most unwise to rely on only two naval bases in the entire country, one of which would be in Scotland and the other in either Portsmouth or Devonport. In particular, we had regard to the argument put forward so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport in his introduction to the debate: if we put all our eggs in one basket, or all our ships in one or two ports—one at one end of the country and one at the far end from that—we will be in danger of the basket of eggs getting smashed or the ships getting bottled up. We therefore argued strongly for retaining the ports at Devonport and at Portsmouth, and it would be a grave mistake to change that argument now. If we believe that it is strategically wise, strategically necessary and, I would say, strategically essential to continue to have the potential to use both Devonport and Portsmouth as naval bases in the future—I can never emphasise enough that we cannot predict the future—it follows that we must spread out our assets to ensure that both ports remain viable. I have no prejudice as to which assets should be in Portsmouth and which should be in Devonport, but some assets should be in each of the two ports.

The Labour Government took office in 1997, and when their SDR was undertaken we had a total of 35 frigates and destroyers. The deal done in the SDR was that in return for the great future promise and asset of two large aircraft carriers, the number of frigates would be modestly reduced from 35 to 32, and the number of attack submarines—nuclear-powered, but not nuclear-armed—would be reduced from 12 to 10. We know what happened over the years: the number of frigates went down successively from 35 to 32, as predicted, and then to 31 and 25. If I remember correctly, at the last count the figure had gone down to 19. It is true that during that period six new Daring class—Type 45 —destroyers came into play, and they are, of course, much more powerful, potent and potentially lethal, so one could argue that they are a much better deterrent than the destroyers they replaced. However, one should fight shy of getting into the position that Geoff Hoon, the then Secretary of State for Defence, got into of saying that because a new warship is so much more powerful than the warship it replaces, the number of “platforms”, as they used to say—the number of ships to the rest of us—becomes irrelevant. That is not true, because no matter how powerful a warship is, it can be in only one place at any one time. Unfortunately, but necessarily, the activities of the Royal Navy often have to take place in many places simultaneously. At the moment, we are considering what we should do in relation to events in Libya.

There is something else that slightly bothers me: I lost count of the number of times that Conservative spokesmen said in opposition that although we could not be sure whether we would spend more money on defence until we saw what the books actually said about the economics, we would definitely keep expenditure on defence in line with the commitments undertaken. I often stood up and said that we would need either to spend more on defence or to reduce our commitments. In reality, as we know, we are very stretched indeed as a result of the ongoing commitment in Afghanistan, and we now find ourselves suddenly with an additional commitment in Libya. After some prodding, the Foreign Secretary conceded that its cost, on which I was rather aggravatingly pressing him, would be met from the Treasury reserve, but all signs are that the commitment to a Libyan no-fly zone will not prove decisive in ousting Colonel Gaddafi, even though it may prove, and arguably has proved, effective in preventing him from initiating the wholesale mass slaughter that he was not only ruthless enough but stupid enough to announce to the world that he intended to visit on the citizens of Benghazi.

If those two statements are true—first, that the no-fly zone will not be enough to oust Gaddafi and, secondly, that it will nevertheless be effective in limiting the massacre of innocent civilians, which was our purpose for intervening—the logical consequence is that the commitment will go on for a considerable time. The Government will have to think hard about what they are prepared to spend on defence.

The Government cannot meet the costs from Treasury reserves indefinitely. We all know what then happens: we tend to get ourselves into the situation encountered by Tony Blair, who said towards the end of his time as Prime Minister that spending on defence had remained roughly constant at 2.5% of gross domestic product throughout the decade of Labour rule, but then added the crucial words, “if the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan are included.” In other words, the cost of those two wars was effectively being counted as part of our basic expenditure on defence. Such a thing will always happen.

The Government must think clearly about whether to put the economic case at the top of their agenda or whether to put up there instead the ability to intervene, as we have intervened in Libya. They cannot have it both ways. Many countries, including in Europe, would doubtless love to be able to intervene to stop massacres in Benghazi, but they do not do so—or not more than minimally—because their simple view is, “Well, we’re very sorry but we’re too small, too ineffective, too weak and too poor, and we cannot afford to maintain the armed forces necessary to do that sort of thing.” That is fair enough.

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend makes a case for flexibility and options versus the economy, but it is worth remembering that we need a strong Navy with the right number of platforms to protect trade, our fuel security and our fibre-optic cables. Our economy depends on the Royal Navy.

[Dr Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which takes my argument forward exactly as I intended. The key point is that the things that she outlines are constants. Those requirements of a strong Royal Navy will carry on regardless, even if we were not involved in those additional conflicts. It really worries me that if we continue to be driven by every crisis that pops up in other parts of the world, whether or not we have what is commonly described as a dog in the fight, something else will have to give. Unless we see a genuine increase in resources and in the priority given to defence, if we continue to take on roles such as the worthy one of trying to intervene in Libya, something will have to give, and it is precisely the sort of core functions to which my hon. Friend adverts that may suffer.

If we cap the defence budget, we might have to sell off or mothball vital defence assets, or not introduce new assets that had been planned for, but I am concerned that whenever a crisis pops up in another part of the world, we want to be at the forefront and to punch above our weight. There will be only one outcome of that approach: our very limited defence resources will be used up in dealing with these ad hoc crises, which are not of our choosing, but then one day, when we face an existential threat to the security of the United Kingdom, we will not have the assets necessary to defend ourselves. I predict that there will be attempts to derail the renewal of the nuclear deterrent on the grounds that we are so stretched in other conventional areas that we cannot afford to build those submarines.

That is not a subject for this debate but, with your indulgence Mrs Brooke, may I say that I am particularly alarmed about the Trident Commission? The commission is orchestrated by a well-known anti-nuclear group called the British American Security Information Council, and is funded by such anti-nuclear bodies as the Ploughshares fund and the Joseph Rowntree charitable trust but, nevertheless, such distinguished people as two former Secretaries of State for Defence—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) and Lord Browne of Ladyton—have agreed to sit on it. What will the commission come up with? In my opinion, it certainly will not come up with a recommendation for the like-for-like replacement of Trident. What will it say? Will it say, “We’d better not have continuous at-sea deterrence,” or, “We must join up with the French”? Whatever it says, I bet that the root of its argument will be the statement that we cannot afford to continue with a properly self-sufficient strategic independent nuclear deterrent. If so, future generations may have cause bitterly to regret the sort of arguments that have been put forward when we one day find ourselves vulnerable as a result of that omission.

How does that relate to base-porting? It is simple: during times of economic stringency, it is vital to conserve defence assets. Whatever final decision my hon. Friend the Minister and his colleagues make about what should be based at Portsmouth or Devonport, one point is vital. Something must be based at each of those two ports so that their viability is retained, because we might need those naval bases one day not simply to allow us to intervene in wars of choice, but to safeguard ourselves against an existential threat to the United Kingdom itself.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Howarth]

It is wonderful that the hon. Gentleman can still come to the support of his former boss, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, after the devastation he wreaked on the country.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that, in addition to the deficit that we inherited, it was the web of incompatible programmes that made the strategic defence and security review a particularly difficult exercise to carry out? Does he also agree that if there is any justification for not having a carrier strike force in the short term, it is that the SDSR has drawn a line in the sand and we are now preparing for the future? To do that, we need to look at maintaining three Navy bases in this country.

[Mr Howarth]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The SDSR sought to reflect the position that we found ourselves in. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View was perfectly right to refer to the Treasury. Inevitably, the Treasury had an influence on the SDSR. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport made the point at the start of the debate that government is a question of priorities. This Government is not a Conservative Government; it is a coalition Government and the priorities were set by the Cabinet. The good news is that the Ministry of Defence took a lesser hit than many people imagined it would, and that is in large measure thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who ensured that the MOD did not fare as badly as some people had feared.

My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East said that he wants me to be robust, and I will be. He is absolutely right to say that we face a dangerous world. That is what we said when in opposition, and the world is just as dangerous—if not more dangerous—than it was then. However, the cupboard is bare and we have had to allocate our resources as best we can. He also made the fair point that the 1998 strategic defence review was itself never fully funded, and therefore last year, when the Chancellor came to allocate the Budget across the Departments, the Ministry of Defence was hobbled by the fact that it was already underfunded for what it was trying to do—we took a double hit, one might say. These are challenging times, and the SDSR has had, and will continue to have, an impact on all areas of defence, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to maintain a strong and capable fleet that preserves our long and glorious naval tradition.

Nowhere is there greater evidence of that than at Devonport, which is the largest naval base in western Europe, stretching along four miles of coastline. The naval base and the associated dockyard employ approximately 12,000 people and are an important part of the local economy. The dockyard has been privately owned since 1997, and operated by Babcock Marine since 2007. Babcock also manages naval base support services in Devonport. Devonport contributes to the UK’s defence capability through its vital role as the only facility in the UK able to carry out the deep maintenance of submarines, and it undertakes the long overhauls that all submarines must undergo at least once during their service life. As well as that unique role, it carries out valuable work on the support and maintenance of complex warships, and is a centre of excellence for sea training and for the UK’s amphibious capability.

Babcock Marine, along with BAE Systems Surface Ships, is one of our key maritime industrial partners, and the Department works closely with it to ensure that Devonport and the other naval bases and dockyards have the level of work they need to sustain them, ensuring that critical skills, such as high-end design, systems engineering and combat systems integration are not lost, and that we continue to maintain the ability to carry out such work in Britain.

Military Covenant

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I declare an interest as I am attached to Royal Navy Reserve, King Alfred, Portsmouth.

I want to make three points. First, many Members have pointed out that the covenant and defence are not the turf of one political party or another; they are far too important, and must be beyond political gain. Those of us in the Chamber today, and those of us who speak regularly on these issues, must work with our parliamentary colleagues to build understanding and interest in the contribution our armed forces make not just to security but to our entire way of life.

We need deeper understanding of the challenges that our armed forces and their families face in doing their duty, and I am pleased to announce that this year, for the first time, we will be holding a Trafalgar night in the House of Commons to showcase the contribution the Royal Navy makes to our way of life. I am delighted that the shadow Secretary of State has agreed to co-host that event with me. It shows how we can build depth and breadth in our colleagues’ knowledge of defence and related matters.

Secondly, I repeat a point made by the Secretary of State. The covenant must be about actions, not just about words. We judge our service personnel in a binary way. Did we win? Did we secure our objectives? Our armed forces invariably do so. As politicians we do not have the same reputation. Given the catalogue of anecdotes about the failures of previous Governments, it is unsurprising that we face a sceptical audience in the armed services and their families.

The debate has been about words—about legal status—but our focus beyond today must be on action and results. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State and his ministerial team; they have done a lot in a short time on operational allowances, mental health services, rest and recreation and education, but the covenant is about much more than welfare issues, which leads me to my third and final point.

The covenant is just as much about our industrial strategy, the size of the defence budget and the voice of the military in future defence reviews as it is about welfare issues. In future months, I shall be arguing not just for service pensions to be linked to the retail prices index, for medals for submariners and the Arctic convoy, for damp-coursing in naval housing and additional allowances for those who search for improvised explosive devices, as well as for those who dispose of them, but also for a larger defence budget in future years, support for exporting Royal Navy-designed ships and for military representation on the secretariat of the National Security Council. Why? Because if the armed forces covenant is to be realised, it requires funds. It requires that we make the right procurement decisions and that we have a Parliament that listens to and learns from the concerns and day to day issues of service personnel.

In that sense, the subject of the debate is a decoy. Despite wonderful contributions, it is a piece of theatre. We know that the military covenant will be enshrined in law, but it will be the subsequent actions of the House on the broader, more fundamental issues that ultimately decide whether the covenant is worth the paper it is written on. I urge the shadow Secretary of State to focus on that in future Opposition day debates.

Afghanistan

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

There were in fact no cuts announced today, other than in some of the newspapers, which were catching up on some of the announcements in the SDSR. No changes that were made in the SDSR will have any impact on operations in Afghanistan.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

I also recently visited Afghanistan and can testify to the excellent job that our armed forces are doing in carrying out their duties. I do not believe that the same can be said of President Karzai or Members of the Afghan Parliament, and this is not just a capacity or knowledge issue: there is also too little focus on human rights and the quality of life of the Afghan people. Does the Secretary of State agree that we must address the political deficit, to ensure that in the long term the blood and treasure that this country is spending for the benefit of both our countries will not be in vain?

[Dr Fox]

I agree with my hon. Friend, but I think that the signs are perhaps more optimistic than she suggests. Certainly, those who have had regular meetings with President Karzai will recognise that, since the Lisbon summit, he has become less worried about the time lines of 2011 and the summer deadlines that he previously believed to be extremely important. He is now more focused on the 2014 transition. That has had a beneficial effect on the ability of the Afghan politicians to look at the wider range of issues, and we will continue to stress the need for that in our ongoing engagements with President Karzai and other members of the Afghan Government.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Thursday 4th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

The long-awaited and long-overdue SDSR has been an extremely difficult task, and I place on record my thanks to the Secretary of State, his team and all those who have worked on the review. Portsmouth base alone considered 900 options over the summer, and I pay tribute to the Navy and civilian staff for doing an incredible job in a very short time.

I am delighted that the review has not been sea-blind and has shown an appreciation of the role that the Navy plays and its contribution to other Departments such as the Foreign Office, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Treasury. That contribution is not just about our country’s security but about our entire way of life—our ability to trade, our hydrographical and meteorological services, tackling crime and providing help in times of crisis. However, the breadth of its role should never detract from the depth of its contribution to the defence of the realm.

To see the scale of the challenge that the SDSR presented, one just has to examine the disparity between what the 1998 strategic review suggested for the Navy and the current number of ships in service. For example, it suggested 12 Type 45 destroyers, and we are building only six. In future, to close the gap between need and affordability and to preserve the development and maintenance capabilities that we want in our bases and dockyards, we need a planned but flexible approach to procurement and to maximise every opportunity to increase UK exports. We must get away from small orders built at lightning speed, which short-change the Navy and the yard and place stress on the defence budget. I am delighted that we will focus more on industrial strategy and defence diplomacy, and I look forward to the opportunity that the Type 26 will bring to improve procurement practices and increase exports.

We should remember that we have not sold a new Navy-designed ship abroad since the 1970s, but it is achievable. We are already selling standard kit to the US navy, and British gas turbines will power the DDG-1000 destroyer and are already powering the USS Freedom. I urge the defence team to focus on trade deals where they are viable and strategically advantageous.

During the course of the review there has been much discussion of the inflexibility of the carrier contracts, as well as costly delays to the programme. Many Members have formed the view that that is why we are to have the carriers. I wish to use this opportunity to set the record straight. There are considerable running, docking and maintenance costs attached to having the carriers, and I do not believe we would have them if we had not concluded that they were absolutely necessary. I echo the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), who said that we needed two carriers if we were to have them available every day of the year. However, that can be no excuse for poor procurement and inflexible contracts, even for vital items.

My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) is absent from our Benches today. Sadly, he is attending the funeral of the late Councillor Alan Shotter, his friend and election agent. If he were here, he might well be arguing that we should lock ourselves into a contract for Trident’s replacement, such is his concern about the matter. I know that he would be pressing the Secretary of State on that matter and joining in the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh). My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East wrote in a recent article that

“time and again, we hear the facile refrain that complex modern weapons systems are ‘legacy programmes, irrelevant to the threats we face now’.”

We have heard that said about the carriers and about Trident during the review. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to make the case for early sign-up to Trident and remind the House why continuous at-sea nuclear deterrence is so important, and I will continue to remind the House of the importance of carrier strike.

The arguments that we heard over the summer that carriers would be deployed only in the event of a world war are plain wrong, and ignore the fact that we have deployed carrier strike force in every humanitarian and conflict situation that we care to mention—the Falklands, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Iraq and Afghanistan. It has extended Britain’s reach into land-locked countries across the globe. Even when the carrier fleet has not been pressed into action, its constant presence has served as a deterrent to those who would harm us and our interests. I urge the defence team to do all they can to plug the gap in the carrier strike force, which some defence analysts have said has existed since 2005.

I want the House to be excited about the new carriers. I am disappointed about the retirement of the Harrier, and I note the Secretary of State’s comments on the matter. The decommissioning of the Ark Royal is also sad. Her battle honours are many, most notably in Iraq in 1993, and they will never be forgotten. However, the QE class carriers will continue her legacy. For those not familiar with those amazing ships, the Ark Royal can fit comfortably on one of their flight decks. They are amazing, and I urge all Members of the House to take every opportunity to see them being built—built with great skill in British yards. They are well able to meet the challenges of this unpredictable world. They are multi-use, they provide value for money and they will last 50 years. We will use them, they will prevent conflict and they will lead our response if and when the most dread circumstances arise.

The green light for both carriers to be built gives Portsmouth base the stability to develop further as the home of the surface fleet. The SDSR and countless other studies have always concluded that Portsmouth should be the home port. Hon. Members who take The Times will be familiar with my favourite political sketch writer’s column. In her coverage of Monday night’s well-attended Adjournment debate, she confused the names of the base port, Faslane, and the maintenance dock, Rosyth, to produce Forsyth. Whether that was by design or error, it was very apt, because for many years we have had Scottish Members of Parliament and Portsmouth Members of Parliament yelling “Higher, higher” or “Lower, lower” at successive Secretaries of State in debates about where the carriers’ home base should be. Although I am a fan of Brucie, I am glad that we can draw a line underneath that and that Portsmouth will be the carriers’ home port.

[Mr Arbuthnot]

Did my hon. Friend share my alarm when she saw the headlines about two weeks ago saying that Portsmouth might close down? Did she think that basing the carriers there would make that much less likely, until she decided that the story was something to do with a football club?

[Penny Mordaunt]

Over the summer, there have been headlines about Portsmouth and many other bases, which has caused great stress for people working in the industries affected, and I am glad that they now have a clear path and reassurance. I never worry about such headlines about Portsmouth, because I know the excellent partnership that exists there between the private sector and the Royal Navy. However, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the carriers now give us the green light to develop services further.

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

Does my hon. Friend not also recognise that Plymouth has a significant role to play in the defence of our country? Making sure that we have an amphibious fleet will be important.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Absolutely. One great outcome of the defence review is that all three of our Navy bases—Faslane, included—will have a role in servicing the Royal Navy as we go forward.

In Portsmouth, we have the work force, the suppliers, the accommodation, the training and the supply chain facilities. It should not be forgotten that we also have the correct weather conditions to enable safe transit to and from the open sea. As we go forward to discuss the maintenance of the carriers, I very much wish Rosyth the best of luck in securing maintenance work, but a lot will have to be done in Portsmouth because of the opportunistic nature of the refit work, which results from the operational pressures on carriers. It also means that we can now progress in generating our own power and enhance our refit and maintenance services. The excellence of that unique partnership between the Royal Navy and the private sector means not only that Portsmouth will remain the home of the Royal Navy, but that it is fast becoming the port of choice for navies around the world. The city should be incredibly proud of that achievement. It has nothing to fear from an off-the-shelf approach to procurement, such is its excellence in build, refit and training.

I shall end with an appeal to all hon. Members. Now the SDSR is over, we should continue to keep defence high on our agenda. This is the starting point. Much is yet to be decided and we must ensure that as this Government put the country back on a financial even keel, we continue to make the case for excellence in procurement and maintaining defence budgets, for the benefit of servicemen and servicewomen and our country. Although we will not reopen the SDSR, we must ensure that we fully understand the reasons for the decisions that have been taken, such as on the Harrier, better to understand what future decisions might be. As we do so, as I am sure all colleagues will, we would do well to remember the Ark Royal’s motto: “Zeal Does Not Rest”.

Defence Treaties (France)

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

This is about our being able to co-operate, and not to integrate at the sort of level that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I make no comment about his own culinary tastes.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

The Secretary of State mentioned that the treaties would enhance our relationship with the United States. What assessment has he made of the willingness of the US to share intelligence information with us now that we have signed those treaties?

[Dr Fox]

This is nothing to do with our intelligence relationship with the United States; this is about practical military co-operation with our biggest continental ally.

Aircraft Carriers

Penny Mordaunt Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I pleased that the question of how our new Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers are to be maintained has attracted such widespread interest in the House. My constituents and everyone in Fife can only be reassured by the keen interest shown by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House in this important issue. I hope that the House will consider this important matter seriously and sombrely.

For the benefit of hon. Members who are present, it might help if I explain why this debate is so important, not just to west Fife, but to the wider defence establishment and, indeed, to our national interest. Only two functioning dockyards in western Europe are big enough to take the Queen Elizabeth class carriers: Rosyth dockyard in my constituency and the one in Brittany, France. I hope that the turnout tonight shows the widespread support for the Government to choose the UK dockyard and to support UK jobs and the defence industry.

Rosyth dockyard has a long and proud tradition of supporting our Royal Navy, and of returning warships to active service in prime condition on time and on budget. The House may recall that at the outbreak of the Falklands conflict in 1982, Rosyth dockyard worked night and day to ensure that the taskforce was able to sail south in the best possible condition.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

The Falklands conflict is a good example to show the importance of operational readiness and the stress that will be on the carriers. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that means that the bulk of maintenance work will have to be done in their home port of Portsmouth, and is that why the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) told my constituents that they would be based there?

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s comments, but she obviously needs to work on her pronunciation of my right hon. Friend’s constituency. It is absolutely right that Royal Navy warships receive the best possible care and maintenance, and I hope that she will join me in urging her Government to back UK jobs and the UK’s defence industry.

We would never wish to see events such as the Falklands repeated, but—to pick up on the hon. Lady’s point—I believe that it is a matter of national importance that the United Kingdom retains the capability to send the Royal Navy’s flagship into operations in the best possible condition. We have highly skilled, highly trained staff at Rosyth, and I want to pay tribute not only to the management and work force but to the local schools and colleges that provide excellent training and support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Luff]

Understandably, the hon. Gentleman invites me to make commitments that I cannot make at this stage. I understand his point and I promise it will be taken fully into account. [Interruption.] An Opposition Member says from a sedentary position that it is a very serious question. I entirely agree, which is why I will not give an answer off the cuff from the Dispatch Box tonight.

Our planning assumptions for the support requirements of the Queen Elizabeth class have been that each vessel will require a period of major maintenance every six years, including a period in dry dock for hull cleaning, survey and preservations, which we expect will take about 36 weeks. In addition, the operational vessel will require up to 12 weeks of maintenance per year, depending on operational tasking. Again, I must stress that these assumptions remain under review as we continue to develop the support solution, which will include consideration of the support requirements for a vessel at extended readiness. I simply cannot answer any specific questions at this stage.

We are also currently examining a number of potential options on which company or companies could undertake future maintenance work for the Queen Elizabeth class. These include, but are not limited to, solutions involving the Aircraft Carrier Alliance—the means by which the carriers are being constructed—and the surface ship support alliance, which will provide efficient, sustainable and affordable engineering support to the Royal Navy.

In addition, I would like to remind the House that although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) reminded us in her intervention, Portsmouth has been confirmed as the base port for the Queen Elizabeth class carriers, that does not automatically mean that all the maintenance work will be undertaken there. A number of options are being considered for the future support of the Queen Elizabeth class, including facilities at Rosyth, together with other UK, and possibly overseas, locations, all with sufficiently large facilities. There are more than two yards that can do this work.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Because of the operational readiness that the carriers will have to provide, does my hon. Friend agree that outside those major maintenance episodes every six years, the maintenance work is likely to be opportunistic and therefore done within the home base, which will be Portsmouth?