Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Luff Excerpts

Monday 14th November 2011 Commons Chamber

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

3. What the timetable is for the next terms of business agreement.

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

The terms of business agreements are unique to the maritime sector and reflect our collaborative work with industry to transform the surface ship build and support, and submarine support, areas. The Department has separate TOBAs with BAE Systems Surface Ships and Babcock Marine, both of which are performing well and currently delivering savings in excess of their targeted benefits. These are 15-year agreements and we have not decided whether or how they will be replaced.

[Oliver Colvile]

I presume that, under those conditions, the Secretary of State has not had an opportunity to speak to any of the defence industries.

[Peter Luff]

We have not yet had any discussions with industry about how these arrangements will be carried forward in future—in some 14 years’ time. However, the TOBAs are performing very well and delivering savings in excess of their expected benefits. I promise my hon. Friend that we will talk very carefully to all those involved, including Plymouth city council and him, about any future arrangements when the time comes, but that is not quite yet, I fear.

[Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)]

4. If he will make it his policy to oppose the creation of an EU operational headquarters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

12. What assessment he has made of the potential effects on (a) the Army and (b) UK industry of the capability sustainment programme for the Warrior armoured fighting vehicle.

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

The £1 billion upgrade to the Warrior armoured fighting vehicle is an important step towards meeting the requirements for Future Force 2020. Warrior will remain the backbone of the infantry for the next 30 years. The upgrade represents a step change in capability, ensuring that our forces are equipped to counter the threats of the future. UK industry will benefit from the creation and sustainment of some 600 British jobs within prime contractor Lockheed Martin UK and its supply chain, sustaining both skills and capability within the UK’s armoured vehicle sector.

[Jack Lopresti]

I would like to thank my hon. Friend for his answer and to welcome the announced upgrade that will provide our forces with state-of-the-art firepower for the next 25 or 30 years, but will he also ensure that our troops have the kit they need when they need it to do their job as effectively and as safely as possible?

[Peter Luff]

I am certainly happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. I pay tribute to his constituents for playing their part in ensuring that that is achieved both at Thales, which is making the battle group thermal imager for the upgrade and at Defence Equipment and Support itself. I met many staff at Ampthill a week or so ago to celebrate the great success of the Warrior upgrade programme.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

14. What recent estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of the UK’s operations in Libya.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

15. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of equipment supplied to troops in Afghanistan.

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

The provision of equipment for our forces in Afghanistan is regularly reviewed, with new equipment and capabilities being developed and delivered in response to emerging requirements. The military assessment is that our forces are now being provided with the equipment they need to undertake the tasks they are doing and that no missions are being compromised by the inadequacy or unavailability of equipment. Having met both 16 Air Assault Brigade and 3 Commando Brigade after their respective tours in Afghanistan, I know that that view is shared by those on the front line who actually use the equipment.

[Margot James]

I thank the Minister for his response. There has been much criticism of the kit supplied to front-line troops, particularly those on foot patrol in Afghanistan. Will he advise us of any improvements made specifically for those troops on foot patrol to mitigate these threats?

[Peter Luff]

As I said in my original answer, constant improvements are being made. One of the two that I would highlight has already happened—tier 1 and tier 2 pelvic protection against blast, which is being well received by our own armed services and is now being emulated by the Americans. Secondly, for the future, there is the provision of the light protected patrol vehicle, Foxhound, which will come into service in the early part of next year.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

What proposals does the Minister have to improve the equipment that will reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries among British troops dealing with improvised explosive devices and bombs?

[Peter Luff]

I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that the third layer of pelvic protection—the tier 3 protection—does precisely that. I can reassure him that work is being done constantly to ensure that those very brave operatives have access to the best possible equipment to do their important task. It is important that they are allowed to disassemble IEDs because they provide vital clues about the tactics of the enemy, which helps prevent further deaths among the widest number of forces serving in Afghanistan.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

16. How many children received support through the additional pupil premium for children of service families in the latest period for which figures are available.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The Ministry of Defence’s first responsibility when procuring equipment is to provide the armed forces with the capabilities that they require when they need them, in an affordable and sustainable way. The forthcoming White Paper will set out our approach to acquiring technology, equipment and support for our armed forces, and will explain how we will take action to protect our operational advantages and freedom of action where that is essential for national security.

[Diana Johnson]

I think that all Members will recognise the vital strategic importance of having defence production lines in the United Kingdom, as well as the importance of rebalancing the economy through modern manufacturing jobs, private sector jobs and jobs in the regions. What is the Minister doing to protect the skilled jobs and apprenticeships that are likely to go at BAE Systems in Brough? Those workers will find out on Boxing day whether their jobs are going to disappear. What is the Minister doing about it?

[Peter Luff]

I have to disappoint the hon. Lady, because decisions about where redundancies fall must be made by defence companies and not by Ministers. I understand her concern about what has happened at Brough, and she will understand what BAE Systems said, in public, about the underlying reasons for the changes. [Interruption.] I can answer the sedentary question from those on the Opposition Front Bench by saying that the White Paper, which will set out our approach in more detail and will help hon. Lady to understand the issues more fully, will be published next month.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

I fully understand the difficult balance that my hon. Friend is trying to strike between securing the best value for our forces and protecting key capabilities, but may I urge him to look carefully at French industrial strategy? When we are collaborating with a country that has an activist industrial policy, there is a real danger that our procurement policy will end up following French industrial strategy unless we are fully aware of what is happening on the other side.

[Peter Luff]

Some Members may well find themselves in considerable sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said. Let me simply say that when I engage in discussions with my French opposite numbers, such issues are always at the forefront of my mind, and they will continue to be so—for instance, at the summit that is to be held in December.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that the global financial crisis is causing a number of nations to take defence work back in-house, partly in order to protect their own work forces. Others, such as Italy, are seeking to renegotiate contracts, which is leaving UK firms of all sizes open to potential job losses. The Minister’s answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) provided no reassurance that the Government were doing everything that should be done to protect British business overseas. In fact, what we heard was far from reassuring: it was about passing the buck back to industry. Will the Minister please reassure us that he will do all that can be done to support British industry?

[Peter Luff]

With respect, the hon. Lady’s question is rather different from the one asked by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). When it comes to helping British businesses overseas, I think that this Government’s track record compares very favourably indeed with that of the lot opposite when they were in power, and I am happy to tell them that the reason the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr Howarth)—the Minister responsible for international security strategy—is not present today is that he is at the Dubai air show doing precisely that. Moreover, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was in Japan a couple of weeks ago, making the case for the Eurofighter Typhoon. We are doing a very good job speaking up for British industry overseas: a damn sight better job than the Opposition did.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

One of the most important defence manufacturing businesses in the UK is BAE Systems in Warton, which is in my constituency and is the home of the Typhoon. Will the Minister update the House on the Government’s efforts to support that world-leading product?

[Peter Luff]

We are working strenuously to support the product, although I think that in many senses it speaks for itself. What we are doing is ensuring that the wider world recognises the outstanding performance of the Eurofighter Typhoon in the activities over Libya, where it has shown itself to be superior in all respects to every other aircraft in the world today. That is the message that we are taking to India and Japan, and that we are delivering in our many other export campaigns. I am hopeful that we will achieve success in many of them, for the aircraft certainly deserves that success.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

18. What steps his Department is taking in co-operation with other countries to develop future defence initiatives against Iran and to prevent the build-up of that country's nuclear weapons technology.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

In recent weeks, BAE Systems has made it absolutely clear that the reason that there are 3,000 job losses is the slow-down in the Eurofighter order. In the light of that, can the Secretary of State clarify the Chancellor’s comments to the House on 1 November? When asked about job losses by the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), who is in his place, he replied that the job losses reflect the fact that

“the US defence budget had an impact on BAE Systems.”—[Official Report, 1 November 2011; Vol. 534, c. 758.]

Will the Secretary of State clarify which UK-US defence cuts the Chancellor was referring to?

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

The F-35 joint strike fighter slow-down.

[Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North) (Con)]

T5. There are reports that the Department’s medal review has been stopped and that an independent review will now commence. Can the Minister assure me that that will not cause further delays to veterans, such as those of the Arctic convoys, in getting a decision and that no service personnel facing redundancy will miss out on the diamond jubilee medal?

Vulcan Naval Reactor Test Establishment

Peter Luff Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Written Statements

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

The then Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), announced on 18 May 2011, Official Report, column 351, that a submarine design, powered by a new generation of nuclear propulsion system, the Pressurised Water Reactor (PWR) 3, had been selected and the Initial Gate investment approved.

Historically the Ministry of Defence has operated an onshore nuclear submarine reactor prototype at the Vulcan Naval Reactor Test Establishment (NRTE) site in Caithness, in support of in-service nuclear submarines and the development of new reactor core designs. Confidence in the technology is such that it is not now necessary to undertake reactor core prototyping activities; instead the PWR 3 reactor core design will be supported through an extensive test and validation programme using computational modelling, analogy from current reactor designs and testing of individual components and systems.

The Vulcan NRTE site will therefore not be required to support reactor core prototyping activity when the current series of PWR2 reactor core prototype tests are complete in 2015. Options for the future of the site are currently being assessed; these range from placing the prototype facilities into care and maintenance while retaining the site’s strategic capabilities, to decommissioning the site and returning it to Nuclear Decommissioning Authority ownership.

We will work closely with the Department for Energy and Climate Change, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Scottish Government during this process.

Submarine Dismantling Project

Peter Luff Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Written Statements

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

The Ministry of Defence will tomorrow— 28 October 2011—start a period of public consultation on the options for dismantling nuclear-powered submarines that have left service with the Royal Navy, including those that are in afloat storage at Devonport and Rosyth dockyards.

Submarines in afloat storage are maintained safely, in a similar way to operational submarines. As they age, however, and as further submarines leave service, the cost to the taxpayer of maintaining them is rising significantly, and space to store them is running out.

This consultation will seek the public’s views on the proposals that have been developed by the MOD’s Submarine Dismantling Project (SDP) for dismantling and disposing of the submarines in a safe, secure and environmentally responsible way. It will seek views on the three key decisions that need to be made about submarine dismantling:

How the radioactive material is removed from the submarines;

Where we carry out the removal of the radioactive material from the submarines; and

Which type of site is used to store the radioactive waste that is awaiting disposal.

The consultation will run for 16 weeks, from 28 October 2011 until 17 February 2012. This period has been extended from the 12-week minimum to account for the Christmas holidays and in recognition of the interest in the project.

A series of events, including exhibitions and workshops, will be held in and around the Devonport and Rosyth areas, where the candidate sites for the removal of the radioactive waste from the submarines are located. National workshops will also be held in accessible locations in England and Scotland.

Consultation events will be advertised in the local press and on the project website, www.mod.uk/submarinedismantling, where all relevant documentation, including extensive supporting information, will also be published. All the responses received during the consultation process will be considered by the MOD during its further analysis of the options before final decisions are made around 2013. Only then will planning applications for activities on specific sites be made.

Details of the MOD’s proposals and of the plans for public consultation are included in the SDP consultation document, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House.

Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme

Peter Luff Excerpts

Tuesday 25th October 2011 Written Statements

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

As the previous Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), announced to the House on 18 July 2011, Official Report, columns 643-645, we are proceeding with a number of high-priority equipment projects vital to Future Force 2020 as set out in the strategic defence and security review.

I am pleased to announce today the successful outcome of the Warrior capability sustainment programme competition. Subject to final contractual negotiations we intend to award a contract to Lockheed Martin UK for the demonstration and subsequent manufacture of the upgraded Warrior vehicles with a potential value of £1 billion.

The Warrior infantry fighting vehicle has been in service with the British Army since 1989 and has been deployed extensively and with distinction in theatres including Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. The Warrior capability sustainment programme will provide a major upgrade to the vehicles and extend their service life to beyond 2040. The programme includes an improved turret and a new stabilised 40 mm cannon, an enhanced electronic architecture to cope with the demands of modern communications and vehicle systems, and the provision of a common armour mounting system to allow interoperability with current and future protection technology.

The upgraded Warrior platforms will be key components within the new multi-role brigade structure, and will provide armoured infantry battalions with battle-winning capability for the future. The turret and cannon will enable the ability to fire on the move and represent a step change in lethality ensuring that our armed forces are able to counter the threats of the future. Warrior gives the Army the mobility, firepower, and protection to deliver infantry into battle and on to an enemy objective while under fire. The comprehensive upgrades will ensure that Warrior will continue to play an essential role in the conduct of land operations—whether within a coalition or nationally.

The upgrade programme delivers a cost-effective, timely, and efficient commercial solution for this essential Army capability.

The award of this contract to Lockheed Martin UK will create and sustain approximately 600 British jobs within the company and its supply chain, representing 90% of UK content, as the programme moves through the demonstration and manufacture phases. This will ensure the sustainment of UK jobs, UK skills, and UK capabilities within the armoured vehicle sector.

Ministry of Defence (Procurement)

Peter Luff Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Westminster Hall

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

I join the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) in welcoming you to the Chair, Mr Hood. I am grateful for the opportunity to serve under your excellent chairmanship. We have been on various defence expeditions together and have enjoyed them greatly, and it is good to be here today.

I agree with what the hon. Lady said about the paucity of defence debates, and of defence procurement debates in particular. I commented on that fact about two or three weeks ago in the Department, and since then there have been two Adjournment debates, so we sometimes get what we wish for. Let us hope that there are more such debates, because it is very good for hon. Members to discuss these issues.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing this important debate, which, according to my script, relates to a number of interesting and pertinent issues. I will go further in saying that there is a bewildering range of interesting and pertinent issues that cover everything from the price of beer in messes to the nuclear deterrent. The underlying philosophy behind defence procurement is underneath all that. I may not be able to do justice to all the remarks that have been made during this debate, but I will do my best.

Reflecting on what my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) said in her contribution, I pay tribute to all those who serve in our armed forces. Their courage and bravery enable the Government to fulfil their first and primary duty of providing security for our country. That duty remains ever more challenging given the complex nature of the threats that we face in the 21st century. Although, procurement—or acquisition as it is called these days—is an important part of that, it is simply a means to the end of helping those brave men and women serve their country, as they are doing right now as we speak, in two theatres.

The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) mentioned the strategic defence and security review, which sets out a coherent path to delivering adaptable and flexible armed forces. It is crucial that we put in place the right technologies, skills and industrial capability to deliver that outcome. I do not recognise his description of the lack of scrutiny of MOD contracts. If anything, we suffer from an excess of scrutiny. The Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office do an excellent job. We will soon have the next NAO report on major projects to consider, too.

[Nick Smith]

I made that remark because an NAO report mentioned the weakness of the Government’s feedback on that particular topic.

[Peter Luff]

It does not feel like that from this side of the fence. I look forward to the conclusions of the PAC on the forthcoming NAO report.

I accept that we need to be clear about how we plan to acquire and support our equipment for the armed forces, which is a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport mentioned. The support costs are typically about two thirds of the total acquisition cost, with one third being the initial acquisition. We also need to be clear about how we invest in technology to sustain the skills of the defence industry, which is something that the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) raised. That was about the only thing that I agreed with in his speech.

The scale of what we spend is huge; the total spend for the whole range of procurements in the financial year 2009-10 was £20.6 billion. It is right that hon. Members should be concerned about how we spend that money. It is also right that we should say that much of that is spent very well, very wisely and very effectively by skilled and talented people. It is inevitable that we concentrate on the problems, because that is the nature of Parliament and holding the Government to account is what we do. None the less, I pay tribute to all those who do their jobs remarkably well, whether they are in the armed services, the civil service, the MOD Abbey Wood or the organisation Defence Equipment and Support. They all do a great job serving our nation.

It is true that we face some difficult decisions. I will not score any partisan points by talking about our economic inheritance, and especially the inheritance for Defence Ministers, from the previous Government. In a characteristically thoughtful and articulate speech, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) spoke about the need for fixed points in programmes for decisions. As he said, such a measure is important given the long period over which such decisions are felt. As I am frequently reminded, the last captain of the aircraft carriers that we are currently building is probably not even born yet, which puts into context the length of time we have.

I think that I can give the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View the assurance that she sought about the 10-year equipment programme. As I understand it, we now have a groundbreaking deal with the Treasury, which enables us to plan with much greater certainty the future of defence equipment and support in general.

I also want to pick up something that my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East said about the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox). The MOD is now set on a path of real recovery, real hope and real confidence thanks to his excellent work. It now falls to the ministerial team to continue that work as a tribute to his sterling leadership as Secretary of State.

I will concentrate my remarks on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey, because I owe him that courtesy. If I cannot deal with everyone else’s comments, I apologise and will write to them. I will not comment on individual cases, but I reassure my hon. Friend that the support that we give to SMEs has a high priority in my portfolio. I pay tribute to Vector Aerospace, which is one of the few companies that have been named in this debate. It is an outstanding example of a medium-sized company.

We are making a few changes that should help the SMEs considerably. We are reducing the threshold at which the MOD advertises contract opportunities and have created the new defence suppliers forum, which meets regularly under my chairmanship, to discuss how SMEs can make a better contribution to defence and how we can help them achieve that. We are learning a lot from that group’s work. We are launching a new Government-wide contracts finder that offers a free-to-access one-stop shop of public sector opportunities over £10,000. There will be more in the White Paper, the publication of which I too look forward to very much indeed. I cannot say too much about its contents but it will include a definition of value for money—something that many Members have mentioned—and talk more about outsourcing. Although there is already extensive outsourcing in defence—more extensive that many people realise—I agree that there is scope for more. The White Paper will also address the framework agreement on technical services and through-life costing, which is essential.

I am happy to reassure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View that our relationship with BIS is excellent and that there is nothing between us. I know that she would expect me to say that, but it happens to be true as well.

The White Paper will also define sovereignty requirements. I do not foresee any change in the definition that was published in the Green Paper last year.

I will now specifically address the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey. I note that he worked for GEC Marconi, where he apparently ran rings around our officials. That issue is why Bernard Gray is working at present on the new matériel strategy. One of the principal purposes of that strategy is to ensure that we have the skills in place in Defence Equipment and Support to make sure that these procurement decisions are taken well and that the contracts are well negotiated. My hon. Friend has made a powerful point, and that work is ongoing. I hope that submissions to Ministers will come before the end of the year. And watch this space, because I agree that it is important that we do procurement and acquisition well, which has not always been the case. In the spirit of consensus, I think that the Opposition’s document on acquisition is not at all bad. In my view, all it lacked was an apology, but that is another matter for another day.

Turning to Canada, I am pleased that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members obviously had such an interesting visit to the British Army training unit Suffield—BATUS—over the summer with the armed forces parliamentary scheme. That is a great scheme, which works very well under Sir Neil Thorne’s excellent leadership. I have benefited from it twice with the Royal Navy— I am a “postgraduate” according to the scheme’s definitions. Today has shown how valuable the scheme is in enabling Members to speak with authority about the armed services and to challenge Ministers on things that they find. It is what the scheme is there for, and we need to make even better use of it than we do already.

I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend’s emphasis and what I think was the spirit of his remarks when it comes to Canada. Led by my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Her Majesty’s Government are looking to develop even closer ties with Canada, as well as with other Commonwealth countries. A joint declaration of closer working between the UK and Canada has been drawn up by the FCO for signature by the two Prime Ministers, with a desire to seek

“greater interoperability between our defence forces and deepen co-operation on procurement and capabilities, to be enabled in part by a Memorandum of Understanding - MoU - on Defence Materiel Cooperation”,

and so on and so on and so on. The document was signed on 22 September by the two Prime Ministers, and it symbolises the very close relationship that we enjoy with the Canadians.

I will now talk about BATUS in more detail. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey reminded us, it was set up in Canada in 1972. The location was chosen for its ability to provide the large-scale manoeuvre exercises that at the time—the middle of the cold war—were seen as being critical to meeting the UK’s operational and tactical requirements. BATUS provides 2,690 sq km of rolling, semi-arid prairie, delivering training on a scale that is unparalleled by anything available in the UK and enabling more than 11,000 troops to be trained each year. I want to place on record our real gratitude to the Canadians, who have been our utterly reliable allies in providing this world-class training location since 1972, which allows us to train in a way that is just not possible in the UK. The training at BATUS has been essential for the preparation of our troops for operational deployments, and we owe the Canadians a great debt for the part that they have played in enabling the training to happen.

[Alison Seabeck]

I want to ask the Minister a simple question: do BATUS and the recent new agreement give scope for any increased use of BATUS, as the German side starts to scale back?

[Peter Luff]

The hon. Lady not unexpectedly anticipates remarks that I will make in a few moments. I will turn to that issue then, if I may.

I will now address the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey about the costs involved with BATUS. The BATIC—British Armed Forces’ Training in Canada—agreement makes clear provision for the cost-sharing of goods and services relating to UK training in Canada, including the provision of all goods, services and facilities supplied in Canada or procured through Canadian sources. The costs are shared in accordance with agreed formulae, which my hon. Friend talked about in his speech, and those arrangements are scrutinised carefully. In addition, the memorandum of understanding is open-ended and may be renegotiated—that will give my hon. Friend some encouragement—at any time with the mutual consent of both parties.

In my view, the UK quite rightly pays the lion’s share of the costs of BATUS, on the basis that we use the facility significantly more than the Canadians. That is absolutely right and proper, and I have no problem with the cost-share involved in these arrangements. I agree that there is always scope to reduce costs, but other locations, as suggested by some hon. Members during this debate, are simply not equivalent and they would incur costs of their own, including significant set-up costs. So I am sure that the scope for savings is always there, but it may be more limited than my hon. Friend imagines.

[Gordon Henderson]

I accept what my hon. Friend says about the useful nature of BATUS. Nevertheless, does he not accept that it is wrong for the British taxpayer to have to pay such a high proportion of the costs without the MOD having a greater say in how those costs are accrued?

[Peter Luff]

I will look at some of the specific points that my hon. Friend made during his remarks, but I must say that I am broadly content with the overall structure of this arrangement, which delivers great value to British taxpayers and great opportunities for British armed forces, while strengthening and deepening our relationship with an important ally.

I must also say specifically that there has been no cancellation of helicopter training in BATUS. It is true that there are some different arrangements with contractors, including changes to some of the transport arrangements, but the training facilities involving helicopters have not been affected in any way. It is very important that that is understood.

[Gordon Henderson]

I am not sure whether we MPs were misled during our visit to BATUS, or whether the information has not yet filtered back to London, but I assure the Minister that there are two aspects of helicopter use during battleground operations: one is the use of helicopters to help injured people during the exercise, which is still being maintained and which involves BATUS using Canadian pilots; the other aspect, which has been cancelled, is the training that allows helicopters to be used to take troops into battle, as they would be used during a real battle operation. That second part of the training is the part that has been cancelled.

[Peter Luff]

I will clarify exactly what the arrangements are in a letter to my hon. Friend, so that there is no misunderstanding at all, but my information is that no aspect of our training arrangements has been affected by the new arrangements for helicopters.

Turning to the range control building at BATUS, it is true that there is an existing building, which provides the safety and co-ordination function required. It controls access and oversees safe practice on the range area, which is extremely important where live ammunition and weapons are concerned. Of course, it also controls movement around the prairie during live firing. In 2003, the Canadian Government approached the MOD with a number of infrastructure requirements that they felt needed to be addressed to enable the future use of the BATUS facility, including improvements to the range control building. I agree that the decision to upgrade that facility may not have been the UK’s first priority, but the facility was in very poor condition and met neither UK nor Canadian building regulations. A number of options were considered and the only viable option was to construct a new building. The contract for that was awarded in February this year, so I am afraid that the possibility of cancellation is no longer one that we can countenance.

I promised the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View that I would talk about future training in BATUS, which relates to what other colleagues have said. I will simply say that BATUS is 2,690 sq km compared with Salisbury plain’s 375 sq km, so BATUS is about eight or nine times the size of Salisbury plain. We must assess BATUS in the context of our overall training requirement, both in terms of the capacity and the nature of environments in which we need to train. We must also ensure that we end up with an overall solution that is the most cost-effective mix.

There is more work to be done before we can draw any conclusions, but what is certain for BATUS, any other training area and indeed for defence as a whole is that we need to drive out any unnecessary cost and to prioritise ruthlessly between what is “essential” as opposed to what is “highly desirable” or just “desirable”. I know that our Canadian partners will support us, so any work that looks at BATUS will be a truly collaborative effort. Not only does the memorandum of understanding require that collaboration, but Canada is one of our closest and most valued allies, and our interests are closely aligned. So, to answer the hon. Lady’s question, work is being done in this area.

I will briefly address the tank-lifting ramps at Tidworth. In view of the time that I have left to speak, I will not give my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey all the remarks that I have here. It is true that the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers could fix the ramps; it is also true that there are some issues around the contract; and I will look at that matter and write to him about it, because he has a point. I assure him that there has been absolutely no impact on operational capability. It is an important point, but he need not be concerned about the preparation of our armed forces or the health and safety of personnel using the site.

I now turn to the very important issue that my hon. Friend raised, which is drink—beer. The three-mess system is very much at the heart of the military ethos. Junior ranks’ messes are private sector enterprises, because all bar stocks are purchased by the contractor and the messes are wholly commercial ventures. In the officers’ messes and senior non-commissioned officers’ messes, bar stock is purchased by the mess and paid for through mess members’ subscriptions. Any profit is returned directly to the mess and lower prices can be set. I agree that there is a distinction there, but I am told that the three-mess system goes to the heart of military traditions and ethos. It is not a matter of contract—it is a matter of armed forces’ choice—and this politician is not going to interfere in the traditions of the armed services. However, I have been assured that military front-line commands keep this matter under constant review, so I understand my hon. Friend’s concern.

In the minute that I have left, I will address nuclear missile systems. I smiled when the hon. Member for Islington North got to his feet, because I could see the other “usual suspects” in Westminster Hall and I knew what would happen. Actually, I think that the hon. Gentleman’s concerns have largely been addressed. The long-lead items for HMS Victory were bought 15 years ahead of the construction of the ship, and the oak for the ship was laid down accordingly. Long-lead items are an established part of military procurement, and they always will be. I do not think we need to make any apology for that.

I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East said, and he is right to keep us to our pledge. I assure him that the main gate decision being delayed until 2016 brings certain advantages, in that there will be a more mature design by then for us to approve. However, I hope he will hold us to the fire on an important capability that guarantees our freedom, as he so rightly reminded the Chamber. I also heard what the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) said. He and I have often talked about this issue, and I will correspond with him about some of the specific points that he made.

Finally, as for the aircraft carriers, it is true that we are getting a more capable and stable carrier variant than the previous Government decided to have, and it is also true that that has a cost. However, at least we are buying increased capability for an additional sum, because the previous Government delayed the carriers for a year, which cost £1.6 billion, and just got them a year late.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Luff Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

4. What progress he has made on increasing the number of small and medium-sized enterprises bidding for defence contracts.

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

This Government value the flexibility, responsiveness and innovation that SMEs bring to defence, which is why we are taking a number of actions to make it easier for them to participate in defence programmes, both as direct suppliers and as subcontractors. We are simplifying our bidding and contracting processes to make them easier for SMEs. I now chair an SME forum for representatives of small businesses, so that they can better understand and respond to the particular issues they face in doing business with the defence community. We will also set out a number of more specific measures in the White Paper that we will publish later in the year on equipment, security and technology.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I thank the Minister for that answer. I recently met Stephen Shepherd of S Dawes Weaving and Chris Blackadder of Howorths Textiles—both are manufacturers in Nelson, in my constituency. Those SMEs are interested in bidding for more work from the MOD. I would be grateful if the Minister could offer them and other SMEs in my area any advice on bidding for and winning more contracts.

[Peter Luff]

I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend, and Mr Shepherd and Mr Blackadder, that we have a cunning plan to help SMEs, as I hope my original answer suggested. For example, we are revising our internal guidance to ensure that SMEs are not rejected at the pre-qualification stage on the basis of rigid turnover-to-contract value ratios. I would be very happy to arrange for Mr Shepherd and Mr Blackadder to meet departmental officials to ensure that they are fully informed of the opportunities they now have.

[Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op)]

In answer to a question I tabled in June, the Minister suggested that only about 50 of some 6,000 new contracts placed directly by the MOD in 2010-11 across the UK are known to have been awarded to Scottish-based SMEs. Given that that is based on an estimate, does he not agree that it is unacceptable that the MOD does not have the actual figures so that we can scrutinise the amount of work going to SMEs and, at the same time, end some of the myths promoted by the separatists?

[Peter Luff]

I sort of agree with that question and I sort of do not. I do not think that it is our job to keep careful records of exactly which SMEs get which business, but it is part of our job to ensure that Scotland shares fully in the benefits of defence expenditure. I get very surprised when the Scottish nationalists frequently represent Scotland as in some sense losing out, which the hon. Gentleman alluded to in his question. That is simply not the case. I have visited Scotland on many occasions over the past few months and seen the massive footprint of defence in Scotland and the massive contribution made to employment and jobs, all of which will be at risk in an independent Scotland.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

Westland helicopters has a licensing agreement with Boeing to build Chinook helicopters. Why was the order for 14 new Chinooks worth £1 billion given direct to Boeing rather than the licensing agreement being used to give the order to Westland so that it could take on half the work?

[Peter Luff]

I think it is stretching a point a bit to define AgustaWestland as an SME, but nevertheless I am happy to confirm that I happen to have in front of me the previous Government’s defence industrial strategy, which says of AgustaWestland that it is important to understand that AgustaWestland’s role is

“neither predefined nor guaranteed, but dependent on their performance and the value for money of their propositions.”

Our position is very similar and I am happy to be able to confirm to my hon. Friend that the contract we have for the construction of the new Chinook helicopters will lead to some £350 million-worth of work flowing to the British supply chain, which—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are extremely grateful to the Minister, but we need to move on.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

Last week, in a written answer, the Minister confirmed that the MOD’s estimate for the number of contracts issued in the last financial year was 2,370 in England but only 50 in Scotland. Does he believe that that is fair and equitable?

[Peter Luff]

I do not know about you, Mr Speaker, but I am a half-full man, and the Scottish nationalists seem to be talking about half-empty glasses. I think the hon. Gentleman is quoting extremely selectively from the answer I gave him and, for what it is worth, I share his disappointment about the SME performance. I do not believe the figures or trust them, because they are extraordinarily low. I have seen the vibrancy of the Scottish defence sector for myself on a number of visits and I believe that the share of business is much higher. I invite the hon. Gentleman to abandon his ludicrous plans for an independent Scotland and join me in building a still more robust defence industrial base in Scotland rather than talking it down all the time.

[Mark Lancaster (Milton Keynes North) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on the steps he is taking to encourage more SMEs to bid. One criticism we often hear from SMEs is that they are lured into bidding for contracts, only to lose out to much larger firms at the last round with little or no feedback from the MOD. May I encourage the Minister to ensure that in such cases SMEs get full feedback on why their bids have failed?

[Peter Luff]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a very powerful point. If any hon. Member has an example of an SME receiving inadequate feedback from my Department, I want to hear about it. SMEs deserve full feedback. They have an awful lot that they can bring to defence; their innovation and the cost savings they can offer are extremely important and they must be told why they have failed when they do fail.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

5. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of his Department’s budget during the comprehensive spending review period; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

9. What recent assessment he has made of the export prospects for the Eurofighter Typhoon.

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

Typhoon has already been exported to Saudi Arabia and Austria, where it is in operational service. It is also competing in a number of other important markets. Oman has announced its intention to buy Typhoon, and India has selected it for the final phase of its medium multi-role combat aircraft competition. It is also competing in a number of other countries, including Japan, Malaysia and Qatar.

I confidently expect an increase in interest in Typhoon, following its highly successful air defence and ground attack roles over Libya, in which it has consistently demonstrated exceptional levels of reliability, performance, accuracy, and overall cost-effectiveness over and above our very high expectations.

[Margot James]

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that Typhoon’s success is down to UK leadership in the design and manufacture of world-class aircraft and that Government support is needed, not just to maximise export potential but to defend this vital national interest?

[Peter Luff]

On the question of supporting exports, I know the close interest that my hon. Friend takes in Japan, particularly through her role in the UK-Japan 21st century group. I am happy to reassure her of the close interest that I personally have taken in the export campaign to Japan, which I visited in April, where I discussed Typhoon with many Japanese interlocutors. I am hopeful of a successful outcome. She is absolutely right, too, to emphasise the importance of the underlying design skills and technology—for example, our strong support for Europe’s first second-generation active electronically scanned radar will be key to our success in these export campaigns.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

Ministers talk rather too often about buying off the peg from our international partners, including the USA which, we understand, is struggling at the moment, too. Should Ministers not seek to enhance sales, encourage value for money from British companies and ensure that we retain jobs and skills in the UK? Perhaps the Minister can tell the House whether, given the fall in international demand for top-quality British goods such as the Typhoon and subsequent job losses, he intends to ensure that such phrases are not used in future and that orders go to the UK first.

[Peter Luff]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position and, as it is her first outing, I will be relatively kind in my response to her. [Interruption.] I have to say that I have read with considerable interest her party’s defence review procurement document, which advocates a similar policy in relation to off-the-shelf and modified off-the-shelf, so she should read what her own party is suggesting before criticising us. As for her comment that demand for Typhoon is falling, it is true that the four partner nations are stretching out production, but demand is rising fast around the globe, and I am confident that Ministers have a strong commitment to their export diaries, which will lead—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We need to move on; I am grateful to the Minister. [Interruption.] Order. The Minister’s answers are simply too long—we need to make progress.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

I am grateful for the efforts that the Defence Secretary and his team have made to try to export Typhoon and secure jobs for my constituents in Lancashire at Samlesbury and Warton. However, should the British Government be successful in helping to win those orders abroad, what guarantees can we try to secure from BAE that this is good news for work in Lancashire, and not just good news for BAE shareholders?

[Peter Luff]

I think that it is guaranteed that it will be good news for Lancashire. Of course, the precise composition of the bids is a matter for the company, but I think that it understands the importance of protecting its design skills in my hon. Friend’s constituency, for which he speaks up vigorously and effectively in the House.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

11. What procedures exist to ensure that British military equipment used in operations abroad does not fall into the hands of others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

T2. Many small and medium enterprises in Pendle are keen to know when the yellow book review will be completed. Is the Minister in a position to update the House on progress?

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

I am delighted to be able to do precisely that; it was published a few hours ago. [Hon. Members: “Read it out!”] It runs to more than 100 pages, so I think that I would be in trouble with the Speaker if I did that. Section 4 is specifically about SMEs. I invite the whole House to pay careful attention to this important document and to take part in the consultation on it.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

May I say how much I agree with the Secretary of State when he says that we cannot allow the unpopularity of the Iraq conflict in many quarters to prevent us from standing up for what we believe in in other countries around the world? That is why there remains consensus across parties about the action in Libya and Afghanistan. However, now that there is a timetable for the drawdown of our combat role in Afghanistan, can he update the House on how much longer he anticipates Her Majesty’s forces remaining engaged in Libya?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

T5. Is the Secretary of State aware that the future of high science, research, innovation and design in our country very much depends on a fine balance among the defence industries, universities and the private sector? Many of us believe that that is now at risk because of failing demand from the defence sector.

[Peter Luff]

I am very sorry indeed that the previous Government introduced such massive cuts to the defence science budget, which did great harm to the issues that the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about. I can reassure him that the defence White Paper on equipment, support and technology, which will be published later this year, will address these issues very seriously, because he is right to draw the House’s attention to this very important question.

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

I recently visited the Brentford air cadets, squadron 342, in my constituency and was really impressed by the training that the young people are given in respect, discipline and community responsibility. What more can we do to encourage more young people to get involved in the cadets?

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T6. The Secretary of State and I have a considerable number of constituents who work at the MOD’s Abbey Wood site in Filton. There is real uncertainty there at the moment about how many jobs will be lost, what new work will be sent there and what work will be lost. Could he give some certainty to the people working at the plant about the future of their jobs?

[Peter Luff]

I make regular visits to the Filton Abbey Wood site, as the hon. Lady knows, to discuss those issues with the staff, and I appreciate the concern that they face. The chief of defence matériel, Bernard Gray, is currently conducting a full review of matériel strategy and how the organisation will be structured in future, and I hope that its outcome will give precisely the certainty that she rightly seeks for her constituents.

[Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on the leadership that he has shown on Libya. What action is he taking with his Libyan counterparts to help prevent the risk of insurgent activity, in preparation for the national transitional council taking complete control?

Independent Review of Single Source Pricing Regulations

Peter Luff Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Written Statements

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

On 26 January 2011, Official Report, columns 10-11WS, I announced that Lord Currie of Marylebone would chair an independent review of the regulations used by the Ministry of Defence (MOD) in single source, non-competitive, procurement, the so-called Yellow Book. Lord Currie has now submitted his independent report, a copy of which has been placed in the Library of the House. I would like to thank Lord Currie and his team for the report. The MOD and other interested parties will now consider his recommendations.

The Government welcome Lord Currie’s recommendations. In broad terms his report focuses on achieving a more open relationship between MOD and defence industry, ensuring standardised high-quality cost data are provided by contractors to the MOD. This will help ensure greater transparency of costs and should improve the MOD’s ability to negotiate realistic prices. Industry will be incentivised to deliver efficiency by the opportunity to make greater returns should they deliver cost savings for the MOD. Making industry more efficient should not only achieve value for money to the taxpayer, but also lead to a more competitive role for the UK defence industry in the export market.

Small and medium enterprises (SMEs) will be offered fewer data reporting requirements and a simplified profit rate process. Larger contractors will provide an annual statement on how they have engaged SMEs in their supply chain.

Lord Currie recommends these arrangements are overseen by an independent Single Source Regulations Office (SSRO) which would replace the existing review board to provide stronger oversight over both MOD and industry.

The Department will now consider the report’s recommendations as part of the next stage of consultation, which will run until 6 January 2012. Responses to all aspects of the report are welcome, but the Government particularly seek views on the merits of the establishment of the SSRO or possible alternatives such as the strengthening of the existing cost assurance and analysis service. A final report will then be produced which we intend to publish in early 2012 when I shall report back to the House.

Radar Industry

Peter Luff 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.

Chinook Contract

Peter Luff Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2011 Written Statements

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

The Secretary of State for Defence announced on 18 July that, as a result of the Government’s commitment to a real-terms rise in the equipment budget of 1% after 2015, he had given the go-ahead for the procurement of 14 Chinook helicopters, 12 to expand the fleet and two to replace those lost on operations in Afghanistan in 2009.

I am pleased to be able to confirm that we have now signed a contract with Boeing for their delivery. This will expand the Chinook fleet to a total of 60, which will provide a significant capability lift to the front line. The total value of the procurement including development, manufacture, and support for the first five years is approximately £1 billion.

The first of the new Chinooks will enter into service with the Royal Air Force in May 2014, making an immediate contribution to the operation of the UK Chinook capability and allow more of the mature airframes in the fleet to be available for operations in Afghanistan in 2014 should they be required. All of the new Chinooks will be delivered by December 2015. Three helicopters will be ready for operational deployment in early 2015 and all 14 will be fully operational by early 2017. This significant uplift in helicopter capability is just another in a series of steps we are taking to modernise our armed forces and meet the adaptable posture outlined in the strategic defence and security review.

Defence

Peter Luff Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Llwyd]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money MOD Bicester has paid to (a) Palletways (3PL Contract), (b) Pertemps Employment Agency and (c) City Sprint and other private couriers since the decision to implement the closure of regional distribution centres; and if he will make a statement.

[Official Report, 12 July 2011, Vol. 531, c. 1-2MC.]

Letter of correction from Peter Luff:

A further error has been identified in the ministerial correction given to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) on 12 July 2011. I regret that because of an administrative error, the figures were incorrectly totalled.

The previous correction given was as follows:

[Peter Luff]

[holding answer 26 April 2011]: The total payments made to Palletways, Pertemps Employment Agency and private couriers (including City Sprint) since late 2007 when the regional distribution centres were closed, are provided in the following table:

[Peter Luff]

[holding answer 26 April 2011]: The total payments made to Palletways, Pertemps Employment Agency and private couriers (including City Sprint) since late 2007 when the regional distribution centres were closed, are provided in the following table: