“Equipment, Support and Technology for UK Defence and Security: A Consultation Paper”

Peter Luff Excerpts

Monday 20th December 2010 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to lay in Parliament a Green Paper entitled “Equipment, Support and Technology for UK Defence and Security: A Consultation Paper”.

The first duty of Government is the security of our nation. It is therefore essential that the UK equips itself with the right tools to tackle current and future threats. The convergence of defence and security that underpinned the strategic defence and security review means that we should seek to bring together our approach to equipment, support, and technology in both the defence and security sectors. I have therefore worked with the Minister for Security in preparing this Green Paper to reflect our new approach. We have also included cyber security as a separate section because it is a new and fundamental challenge.

Our default position is to use open competition in the global market; to buy off-the-shelf where we can; and to promote open markets in defence and security capabilities. We will take action to protect our operational advantages and freedom of action, but only where essential for national security.

The UK currently enjoys a strong industrial presence in the defence and security markets and export success abroad in those markets; last year, defence and security exports achieved around £8.5 billion revenue. We are committed to doing more to promote exports of both defence and security products from the UK to responsible nations, as well as to boost the role of small and medium-sized enterprises, both in their direct and indirect supplies to the Government and their agencies.

The Green Paper is available online at http://defenceconsultations.org.uk/. The formal public consultation period will run from January to March 2011. We would encourage all interested parties to contribute to the debate. The Government plan to publish a White Paper on these issues in 2011.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Luff Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

6. What estimate he has made of the likely effect on the economy of his decision to build two aircraft carriers.

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

The construction of the two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers is expected to create or sustain around 7,000 to 8,000 jobs in the tier 1 shipyards of Appledore, Govan, Portsmouth and Rosyth, with a further 2,000 to 3,000 jobs in the wider supply chain. Equipment subcontracts to the value of some £1.3 billion have been placed to date, boosting local economies across the UK. The strategic defence and security review confirmed that both carriers will be built, and we expect that construction work on the programme will continue until late in this decade.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the Minister for that encouraging answer. He may be aware that I have introduced the Apprenticeships and Skills (Public Procurement Contracts) Bill to encourage better use of the public procurement system to increase the number of apprenticeships available. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that defence procurement increases the number of apprenticeships available, helping to build on skills bases in areas like the north-east, which has a proud history of manufacturing in this sector?

[Peter Luff]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her initiative, and I can say that defence contractors up and down the country are committed to apprenticeships—and I pay tribute to them for that. It is very important that we maintain the skills base of our defence manufacturing industries, and they will be invited to contribute to the consultation that we are launching shortly on our new defence equipment policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

8. What assessment he has made of the value-for-money of the contract to build two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy.

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

The strategic defence and security review concluded that a carrier strike capability was needed for the future. The most cost-effective way of delivering that capability from around 2020 is to continue building both the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, fitting the operational carrier with catapults and arrestor gear to enable the use of the more capable carrier variant of the joint strike fighter.

[David Mowat]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that it cannot have been right on the eve of a general election, weeks before we reached the certainty of the strategic defence review, for a large UK supplier to enter into a contract with the Government? It was very difficult to break, so it effectively prejudged the result of the defence review. Is the Minister happy that BAE Systems acted in good faith in this matter?

[Peter Luff]

Cancellation costs are a very complex area. The contract for the aircraft carriers was related to the programme of work, agreed by the previous Government under the so-called terms of business agreement, to sustain the ability to design and integrate complex warships in the UK. Over the next few years, the QE class is providing that work load, with a Type 26 global combat ship taking over later in the decade. If we were to cancel the contracts for the QE class under TOBA we would need to provide replacement work, which would come at a cost, compounding the inevitable costs of cancelling the QE class ships, one of which is already well under construction. This brings us to the position so clearly outlined by the Prime Minister in the SDSR announcement. I would not point the finger of blame so much at BAE Systems as at my predecessor, who acquiesced in the delay of the carrier contract, which led to £767 million of increased costs in the last financial year alone, and a total of £1.56 billion over the life of the programme, making his peerage just about the most expensive in British political history.

[Mr Speaker]

May we have shorter answers from now on, please, and not long statements?

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

As the Minister knows, the best way of obtaining value for money for the “cats and traps” is to fit them during the construction of both Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales. Can he update us on the progress made by his civil servants in discussing the issue with Babcock, and will he also tell us when he will report to the House on the final decision?

[Peter Luff]

The hon. Gentleman has a habit of asking me questions that I cannot answer. No decisions have been made yet, although they are currently being made. However, I can reassure him that we are considering carefully which system of “cats and traps” should be fitted to the carriers. Once again, he has made a point very well on behalf of his constituents.

[Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

Two new aircraft carriers fitted with joint strike fighters will put Britain’s naval strike force in the premier league, but how can the Minister justify the absolute necessity in the longer term if he is prepared to accept no aircraft cover in the shorter term?

[Peter Luff]

I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman has even asked that question. It is clear that we can accept the capability gap now to ensure that we have a truly capable carrier in the future—and it will be a truly capable carrier thanks to the decision to change the carrier variant, which will significantly enhance the power and projection of the vessel.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

9. What recent steps he has taken to increase the level of defence exports.

--- Later in debate ---

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

14. What arrangements are in place to monitor the progress of his Department’s major equipment procurement programmes.

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

I receive monthly reports and quarterly detailed project health checks on the Ministry of Defence’s largest projects. Last year, discounting deliberate policy decisions made by the previous Government, the MOD met all its targets to deliver its major projects to cost, time and performance. This year looks equally encouraging. The top 30 major projects are also reviewed annually by the National Audit Office and in this year’s report the Comptroller and Auditor General said:

“In-year performance on the majority of large defence projects which we examined has been encouraging".

But we should not wait for the NAO to tell us how we are doing at the end of the year. That is why I can announce to the House today that the Secretary of State and I are forming a major projects performance board that will review our most significant projects regularly.

[Claire Perry]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that in a long line of procurement failures from the previous Government, the £38 billion overspend in the defence budget takes the biscuit? Will he reassure the House on what steps will be taken so that that level of commercial failure will be, like the idea of a Labour Government, a thing of the past? [Interruption.]

[Peter Luff]

I hear howls of protest from those on the Opposition Front Bench, but over the weekend I heard the shadow Secretary of State fessing up to major failures in procurement. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend.

I am happy to tell you, Mr Speaker, that I cannot comply with your request for short answers and do justice to my hon. Friend’s question because we have a range of measures in place to achieve precisely that outcome, including stronger controls over the entry for new projects in the equipment programme; a formal project start-up process that considers requirement risk, technical viability risk, affordability and deliverability; improving key skills; working closely with the NAO; and reaffirming our commitment to regular defence reviews. All that will achieve exactly the outcome that she so rightly desires.

[Mr Speaker]

We are most grateful.

[Mark Lancaster]

Historically, one of the fundamental problems with procurement has been a disconnect between Ministers, civil servants, uniformed personnel and the defence industry. How do we intend to address that problem in the future?

[Peter Luff]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We talk of a conspiracy of optimism in these major projects that has so often characterised procurement decisions in the past. The list I rattled through in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) partly addresses the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster). I am sorry that I said it so fast, but it was important to get it on the record. If I do not deliver on that, I think my job will be on the line.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

12. What recent steps his Department has taken to reduce the risk of cyber-attacks on the defence estate; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

16. What studies his Department has undertaken on the feasibility of operating the existing fleet of Sea King search and rescue helicopters beyond 2016; and if he will make a statement.

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

As part of the review of the search and rescue helicopter project a number of options have been considered, including extending the current search and rescue Sea King helicopters beyond 2016. An announcement will be made shortly.

[Tony Cunningham]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but will he explain why he plans to spend about £7 billion on American search and rescue helicopters rather than upgrade the Sea Kings at a fraction of the cost? Sea Kings did an incredible job during the flooding in my constituency.

[Peter Luff]

Apart from anything else, that is the plan we inherited. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that all options are being considered extremely carefully. I repeat that an announcement will be made shortly.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

17. What steps his Department is taking to raise the standard of service accommodation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

22. What recent discussions his Department has had with representatives of the defence industry on the effects of the reductions in expenditure proposed in the strategic defence and security review.

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

Ministers and officials have had many discussions with industry representatives both during and since the outcome of the strategic defence and security review was announced in October, including a full meeting of the National Defence Industries Council, which I chaired last month.

[Graham Jones]

In October 1,000 people were put out of work by BAE Systems in Lancashire, and last week a further 1,300 job losses were announced, owing to SDSR cuts. Does the Minister think that these job losses are a price worth paying, and does he agree that they will have an adverse impact on the economy of east Lancashire?

[Peter Luff]

I emphatically do not think that is a price worth paying, but sadly it is a price that we have to pay, thanks to the economic incompetence of the previous Government.

--- Later in debate ---

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

May I take the Minister back to RAF search and rescue? Does he not understand the concerns of my constituents and the many thousands of people who walk and climb in the Lake district that we might be about to pay substantially more for an inferior service? If it remains the cheapest and best-value option to re-fit the existing helicopters, will he consider doing so?

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

I can reassure the House that the Government are absolutely committed to best-value options, unlike the Labour party. I repeat that the announcement will be made very shortly and the hon. Gentleman will be able to judge the decision on its merits. I am afraid I can say nothing further until then.

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

T6. Will the Secretary of State give the House an as full as possible update on the ability of the Afghan Government to prevent terrorist organisations from organising within their own borders?

Operational Logistics Information Capability (Improvements)

Peter Luff Excerpts

Friday 3rd December 2010 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has signed an 11-year contract with Boeing Defence UK (BDUK) for the future delivery of operationally essential logistics information across defence.

The new contractual arrangement has been developed under the umbrella of the Future Logistics Information Services (FLIS) project, and represents a step-change improvement to the quality of logistics information available to the armed forces. Logistic support is vital across the full range of military tasks, including those in support of military operations in Afghanistan.

At present, logistics information is delivered by a complex set of contractual arrangements, supported by an MOD in-house team. Those posts will transfer to BDUK under Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 2006. Under FLIS, BDUK have been appointed as the single incentivised contractor, at a cost of £800 million over 11 years, to deliver MOD’s logistics information capability. FLIS is a modern commercial arrangement with BDUK as the single supplier responsible for delivery of current systems in a more effective and financially efficient manner. BDUK will manage a number of sub-contractors, many of whom are currently prime suppliers to MOD.

The new arrangement will ensure the long-term delivery of operationally essential logistics information to both MOD and industry and the significant financial efficiencies will contribute to the Government’s strategic deficit reduction programme, without reducing operational capability.

This new contract with BDUK provides an effective framework which will improve the delivery of today’s logistics information needs, and enable future changes to be made as a result of the strategic defence and security review to reflect the changing needs of defence.

Light Protected Patrol Vehicle

Peter Luff Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Written Statements

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

Following the announcement I gave on 12 October 2010, Official Report, columns 9-10WS, regarding the award of preferred bidder status to Force Protection Europe, I am pleased to announce the successful contract negotiation of the Light Protected Patrol Vehicle (LPPV) competition. The new vehicle, Foxhound, will replace the existing Snatch Land Rovers and Weapons Mount Installation Kit (WMIK) vehicles on operations in Afghanistan. An initial tranche of 200 vehicles is being procured through the urgent operational requirements process, and we expect the first vehicles to be delivered for training in late 2011 prior to their first operational use in spring 2012. Further buys of Foxhound will be subject to the confirmation of our wider requirement.

Force Protection Europe’s vehicle represents leading-edge technology and will provide an unprecedented balance of protection, weight and agility for a vehicle of its class. Foxhound is a new design developed specifically to meet the requirements of UK armed forces, and is only now possible due to the considerable investment by the Ministry of Defence and UK industry in this technology. Foxhound is designed and manufactured in the UK, creating or sustaining over 750 jobs. It is also ideally placed to take advantage of the export market, which the Government are fully committed to supporting.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Luff Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

2. What representations he has received from senior military officers on the deployment of V-shaped military vehicles.

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

Ministers routinely have discussions with senior military officers on a wide range of issues, including vehicle protection. The advantages in blast protection that can be provided by a V-shaped hull are well understood and Mastiff, Ridgback and the new Wolfhound vehicle all incorporate this into their design. The vehicle selected for the new light protected patrol vehicle will also have a V-shaped hull. It would, however, be an oversimplification to suggest that vehicle protection is driven solely by hull design. The type of protection used on any given vehicle is very much driven by the capability the vehicle is designed to meet and the threat it is expected to face.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer, but as he will know that has not always been the case. There was originally some resistance from the Army to introducing the V-shaped hull vehicles and if it had not been for the work of people such as Ann Winterton in this Chamber, as I am sure he recognises, they might never have been introduced. Given that, will the Minister assure us that when the troops finally withdraw from Afghanistan, the Government will not dispose of these vehicles in favour of the prehistoric design of the future rapid effect system’s vehicles?

[Peter Luff]

It is a great pleasure to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Ann Winterton, whose sterling work on this issue and many others in this House has made a contribution to the happier place that we are in than might otherwise have been the case. Commanders probably now have the range of vehicles they need to cope with the different threats they face in theatre. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to emphasise the importance of ensuring that once the Afghan war is over we learn the lessons and have the appropriate range of vehicles in place to ensure that we can deal with future threats, too.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given that the question of deployment depends very much on availability and reliability—not only of our vehicles and equipment but of those of our allies—and given that aircraft carriers are V-shaped vehicles—[Interruption.] They are undoubtedly V-shaped vehicles; there is no doubt about that at all. What views does the Minister have on the fact that the French aircraft carrier, Charles de Gaulle, has broken down yet again and is not available?

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

[Peter Luff]

Mr Speaker, your characteristic generosity has allowed the hon. Gentleman to proceed with his question. I am not sure that a carrier is a vehicle, but never mind—we will let that go. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and, like him, I wish we could buy three of our own aircraft carriers; he challenged me on this on Monday. We cannot do that, I am afraid, and I think we have adequate arrangements in place to sustain carrier strike in the future.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

3. What his most recent estimate is of his Department’s likely expenditure on Trident replacement in this Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

12. What plans his Department has to increase the effectiveness of its defence research and technology programmes.

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

We are publishing a Green Paper before the House rises for the Christmas recess that will set out our intended approach to industrial policy and the closely related issues of research and technology. The result will be published in a White Paper next spring that will formalise our approach for the five years until the next strategic defence and security review

[Andrew Bridgen]

I thank the Minister. Does he agree that the Ministry of Defence’s strategy for investment in research and technology will determine the areas in which indigenous industrial capacity will thrive? Likewise, when the MOD decides not to invest but to buy in from abroad, that capacity will not thrive.

[Peter Luff]

It is certainly the case that ensuring sovereignty in the use of our armed forces often requires specific industrial capabilities to be maintained in the UK. That often involves research and development. However, I must emphasise that competition in the global market remains our preferred means of acquiring equipment at the best value for money, which means buying off the shelf where possible. I freely acknowledge that the issue is complex, which is exactly why we will consult formally on it in the Green Paper to which I referred.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Could the effectiveness of defence research possibly have been enhanced if we had had a defence training college? The Minister will know of the bitter disappointment in south Wales about the announcement in the comprehensive spending review. What can he tell the House about the potential future of that development?

[Peter Luff]

The hon. Gentleman is ingenious in his use of his supplementary question. That is not a matter for which I am technically responsible, but I can reassure him that we are still examining carefully the consequences of the decision. That is all I can say at present, I am afraid.

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that when money is tight, as it quite often seems to be, defence research and technology is an easy target for cuts because the effect is felt some way down the line? We saw that under the last Government. Can we please avoid seeing it under the current Government?

[Peter Luff]

I could not agree more strongly with my right hon. Friend. The last Government’s massive slash-and-burn approach to the science budget was a major scandal and makes our task a great deal more difficult. The SDSR document makes it clear that we are maintaining our essential science and technology investment, and I can tell him that at present, we expect that budget to rise slightly in cash terms over the CSR period. That is not the ideal outcome, but it is a good one and I hope he will welcome it.

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

13. What consultation he plans to undertake in determining the future of RAF Marham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey (Wirral West) (Con)]

14. What timetable has been agreed for the building of the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers.

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

The strategic defence and security review was clear that we plan to deliver the carrier strike capability from around 2020. We are now working to provide the level of detail needed to decide exactly how that intention should be turned into reality. As the planning work is expected to take some months, we are not yet in a position to provide further details.

[Esther McVey]

On behalf of my constituents and the greater Merseyside area, I congratulate the Minister and his Department on the decision to continue the building of two Queen Elizabeth class carriers. Will he acknowledge with me the benefits for Wirral of the manufacturing continuing at Cammell Laird?

[Peter Luff]

The decision has not been without its controversy, but I am delighted to pay tribute to the work force at all the yards conducting the work on the carriers, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I have seen that work at first hand in government, and it is a remarkable tribute to them. Whatever the controversy of the past, I am sure the work force will continue to give the project their very best, as they have up to now.

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

Given that it will be significantly cheaper to build the “cats and traps” into the two aircraft carriers during construction, will the Minister confirm that when working up its plans, the MOD intends to work from the assumption that that is how it will be done?

[Peter Luff]

The hon. Gentleman is a doughty advocate for his constituents and for this particular project. All that I can tell him at this stage is that work has begun to consider the optimum means of delivering that capability, as a result of our decision to change to the much more capable carrier variant of aircraft. That includes considering the type of system, the cost, the procurement route, the delivery date and whether both ships should be converted. We are at a very early stage, and all I can say to him is that he should carry on pressing.

[Mr David Hamilton (Midlothian) (Lab)]

17. What assessment he has made of the likely effects on the future of military bases in Scotland of the redeployment of service personnel stationed in Germany.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Phillips]

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the considerable concern expressed by a number of commentators about the capability that will be lost to the Royal Air Force with the cancellation of the Nimrod MRA4 programme. Will he tell the House what steps will be taken to ensure that that loss of capability does not adversely affect our national security?

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

I must honestly say to the House that this was one of the most difficult decisions we were forced to take as a result of the mess in the national finances and the grossly overheated MOD budget that we inherited. Since the withdrawal of the Nimrod MR2 in March, the Ministry of Defence has mitigated the gap in capability through the use of other military assets, including Type 23 frigates, Merlin anti-submarine warfare helicopters and Hercules C-130 aircraft, and by relying, where appropriate, on assistance from allies and partners. That was originally assumed to be a short-term measure. We are now developing a longer-term plan to mitigate the impact of cancellation on our continuing military tasks and capabilities.

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

Regardless of what side of the House we are on, we are all very concerned about this weekend’s reports of the smuggling of highly enriched uranium in Georgia and other parts of the Soviet Union—[Interruption.] I mean the former Soviet Union. We know there is sometimes only one step between organised criminals and global terrorists. In the light of those reports, can the Secretary of State guarantee that any UK-funded projects to combat the proliferation of, or trade in, chemical, biological and nuclear material will have their funding protected through this spending review period?

[Sajid Javid (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

T3. The Government are right to focus on the cyber-threat facing our nation. Fortunately, in Britain, we have many home-grown technology companies, including in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that, in the interests of our national security and our national economy, we should prioritise the use of these domestic companies to the fullest extent?

[Peter Luff]

I am delighted to agree with my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour. The strategic defence and security review identified cyber-risks as one of the four tier 1 risks to national security, pledged additional funding for investment in this area of capability and said that partnership with industry will be key to ensuring value for money. It is also a theme that we are exploring in the Green Paper on defence industry and technology policy, which has been extended to include security, and I would be delighted to visit the companies in my hon. Friend’s constituency of Bromsgrove at some stage in the future, if he would find that helpful.

[Mrs Linda Riordan (Halifax) (Lab/Co-op)]

T2. More than two thirds of defence experts think that the defence review was a lost opportunity. Does that not prove that the review lacks strategy and was rushed to fit the needs of the spending review, rather than the needs of the armed forces?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

T7. I would like to thank the Secretary of State for including a UCAV programme—a programme for unmanned combat aerial vehicles—in the SDSR, which is important for jobs in my constituency. Will he say when he will be in a position to give the House more details on the UCAV programme?

[Peter Luff]

There are two aspects to this. First, there is the future of the fixed-wing sector strategy, which we will be consulting on as part of the Green Paper and White Paper process. There is also the question of UK-French collaboration on unmanned combat aerial systems of the kind that my hon. Friend talks about. The declaration that accompanied the Anglo-French summit last week made it clear that we would establish a joint assessment of

“requirements and options for the next generation,”

which are expected from about 2030 onwards.

Aircraft Carriers

Peter Luff Excerpts

Monday 1st November 2010 Commons Chamber

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

It is right that I should begin by joining the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) and the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) in paying tribute to the armed services at this time of all times, and also to Rosyth for its work in preparing the country for the Falklands war and for its skills, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife.

I seem to pick my Adjournment debates, or perhaps they pick me. On the last occasion, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) initiated a debate on the aerospace industry which we had thought would last half an hour. It lasted for three hours, and attracted an only slightly smaller audience than tonight’s debate. Tonight we have had the privilege of being footnotes in parliamentary history.

I am glad to be able to respond to the debate in, I hope, a constructive spirit. I am tempted to say some of the things that are on my mind, but I shall leave them for another occasion. [Interruption.] I shall resist the temptation.

Let me begin in the customary way by congratulating the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife on securing the debate, which comes soon after the Prime Minister’s announcement of the details of the strategic defence and security review. The review was, by definition, strategic, and we are now working through the detail that flows from that strategy. Given that some of the issues discussed by right hon. and hon. Members tonight have focused on specifics, I hope that the House will accept that I am not yet in a position to answer all their questions. I will, however, try to provide as much information as I can in response to the issues that have been raised.

I particularly welcomed the contribution of the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. I well remember sitting on the Opposition Benches and making similar points on behalf of my own constituents, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find my response as constructive as I found many Government responses then.

Let me say how impressed I have been by the work undertaken at all the shipyards involved in the Queen Elizabeth class project. Although I have not yet had an opportunity to visit every yard, I recently visited the Govan shipyard to see the progress on the Queen Elizabeth carrier. While I was there I spoke to a range of staff, all of whom showed their skills and complete dedication to the project. They were a credit to the programme, and I pay tribute to them.

The progress achieved so far, such as the delivery of the bow unit and installation of diesel generators, is genuinely remarkable. To appreciate the scale of the project, one has to see it with one’s own eyes. That success is largely due to the skills of shipyard workers not just at Rosyth but around the country, at Appledore, Birkenhead, Govan and Portsmouth, and on the Tyne.

I shall not go into the wider issues raised by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. Let me merely say that the strategic defence and security review has confirmed that we will build both carriers. The Government believe that it is right to retain, in the long term, the capability that only carriers provide: the ability to deploy air power anywhere in the world, without the need for friendly air bases on land. Once delivered, the carriers will be in service for about 50 years. Indeed, the final commander of the carriers is unlikely even to have been born yet.

At this point we expect to operate only one of the ships, the other being retained in extended readiness. I assure the House, however, that we will maximise the carrier’s effectiveness by adapting it to operate the more capable carrier variant of the joint strike fighter, which will require the installation of catapults and arrester gear. Conversion to CV will take longer, but it will provide greater interoperability with key allies such as the United States and France.

The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife asked a number of detailed questions, but I am afraid that I can travel only a certain distance in answering them tonight. We plan to deliver the carrier strike capability from around 2020, and are now investigating the optimum means of achieving that outcome, working with members of the Aircraft Carrier Alliance and wider industry as well as our international partners. We expect the work to take a number of months, but the building work will continue to maintain the momentum in the delivery of this important capability. We will investigate a number of different aspects, including the type of launch system, the procurement route, the delivery date, and whether one or both ships should be converted and in what order. However, I stress that no decisions have yet been made, as the work has only just begun.

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

Can my hon. Friend at least go as far as dispelling any rumour or suggestion that the second carrier will be sold rather than remaining a part of the Royal Navy?

[Peter Luff]

That option is indeed spelt out in the SDSR document, but I think that it is unlikely to be adopted. Extended readiness is a much more likely option.

I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that until the work on all the options we are looking at has been completed, we will not be in a position to confirm the exact nature of our contracting approach for future support or maintenance work. The main investment decision for support arrangements for the Queen Elizabeth class is expected to be taken before the middle of this decade—that is as precise as I can be tonight—and will reflect the aircraft launch system changes that have been agreed in the SDSR. [Interruption.] An Opposition Member says from a sedentary position, “After the general election.” That is a completely irrelevant consideration; this decision will be taken at the right time for the project.

[Thomas Docherty]

Does the Minister not understand that if the HMS Prince of Wales does not have a “cat and trap” system, aircraft will not be able to fly off it, and it will therefore just be a big scrap of metal?

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Luff]

Quite reasonably, my hon. Friend teases me to make the same sort of commitments as does the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. I am afraid, however, that I just cannot make those commitments at this stage, much as I would like to.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister accept that if one aircraft carrier is on extended readiness and a second, which is being used for operational duties, has to go into dry dock, there will be no aircraft carrier available for use, and would he therefore consider building a third?

[Peter Luff]

Now, that is a commitment I would be delighted to make at the Dispatch Box if I possibly could. I think the hon. Gentleman will be unsurprised to learn, however, that, sadly, I am unable to give him that assurance.

I recognise that there are many positive reasons for undertaking Queen Elizabeth support work at Rosyth, but we are still some way from taking the main investment decision on support arrangements, and I hope the House will understand why no decisions have yet been—or could be—taken on this issue. That is why the reports in the Scottish media to which the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife referred must, by definition, be untrue. I suspect they may be guilty of over-interpreting certain remarks, but I can assure him that no decisions have been taken at this stage. I think I would know about them if they had. [Interruption.] I think I would; I am fairly confident I would.

I know that the hon. Gentleman is anxious to hear how Babcock Marine’s Rosyth dockyard will fare in all of this. I am sure that the Government’s announcement in the SDSR that both carriers will be built will reassure the hon. Gentleman that Babcock Marine will have sufficient construction work until late into this decade. There are not many organisations that have that kind of assurance over a 10-year period.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that newspaper point. Will he therefore give a guarantee that when decisions are made, they will be made to the House before they are made in media briefings, such as the one given the night before the SDSR was published, as happened last time?

[Peter Luff]

I did take a self-denying vow at the beginning of these remarks not to say some of the things on my mind. All I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that I will do my best to comply with his reasonable request, although it was not one that the previous Government respected that often. [Interruption.] I just like to get these things on the record from time to time.

In terms of wider surface ship maintenance work, we continue to work with Babcock Marine and BAE Systems Surface Ships to develop the surface ship support alliance. Babcock Marine is in the final stages of a substantial six-month maintenance and upgrade period for HMS Blyth, a minesweeper. I am pleased to confirm that this work is on track to complete on time and to budget, and I wish to thank all who have contributed to the success of this project—this is a tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. Additionally, Babcock Marine is undertaking a docking period for HMS Illustrious and I am also pleased to be able to confirm that HMS Kent, a Type 23 frigate, is expected to arrive at Rosyth later this week in preparation for her refit period, which is planned to last until next autumn.

Recently, the hon. Gentlemen wrote to me seeking assurances about the future upkeep programme at Rosyth—he sought that assurance again tonight—and I would like to take this opportunity to explain again the Department’s current position. As has been the practice since the start of the alliance programme, discussions have been continuous between members of the alliance about the best allocation of the forward programme of upkeep periods. It is, however, too early to say what changes might be required of the programme at Rosyth and elsewhere in the alliance following the hard decisions made to reduce the size of the Royal Navy as part of the SDSR. I can, however, confirm that decisions will continue to be made on what we describe as a “best for enterprise” basis, and I will be delighted to meet him and his constituents to discuss these issues further. I look forward to making the arrangements for that meeting at the earliest possible date.

Turning to future shipbuild work, we now expect up to three years of additional design and modification work on the Queen Elizabeth class carriers to address the changes needed to install catapults and arrester gear. That may, in part, at least answer the question put by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. In addition, design work is already under way on the Type 26 global combat ship, which is expected to enter service early in the next decade; this is the next generation of frigate.

As the House is aware, the SDSR announced the Government’s intentions for the current and future equipment and capabilities we need to defend this country. It made some tough but necessary choices, removing some projects while keeping others. We are now working hard to provide the level of detail needed to decide exactly how these intentions are turned into reality. With the decision to decommission some of the Royal Navy’s ships—these are decisions that I personally regret, but they were inevitable—we need to continue working with industry to decide how best to support the Royal Navy surface fleet to ensure that we achieve the best value for money. We also know that maintenance work on the Queen Elizabeth class is still some way—some years—from being decided. A key factor in that decision will be achieving a more detailed understanding of what changing the aircraft launch system means for not only the build programme, but through-life support. I said at the start of my speech that I would not be able to provide the House with all the answers today that I know it would like, but we do know that two extremely capable Queen Elizabeth class carriers will be built.

[Mr Gordon Brown]

Why can the Minister not assure us that the aircraft carriers will be refitted within the United Kingdom?

[Peter Luff]

I think that it is extremely likely that they will be, but I cannot rule out the possibility that they will not; the assumption is that they will be refitted in the UK, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, but I am not going to give him that categorical assurance at this stage, for reasons that I am sure he, as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer and Prime Minister, will understand.

[Mr Brown]

indicated dissent.

[Peter Luff]

Well, the right hon. Gentleman shakes his head and I am surprised at that. As a constituency MP I am sure he would not understand, but as a former Chancellor and Prime Minister I suspect that he probably does.

With one carrier to be operated, there will be long-term requirements for maintenance, potentially for up to 50 years. In times of austerity across the country, the UK shipbuilding industry and ship repair industry should take great comfort from that, as well as the other naval activity, both surface and submarine, that the SDSR confirmed. Once again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife on securing this debate and look forward to seeing him at my office at an early date

Question put and agreed to.

Staff Reductions

Peter Luff Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Written Statements

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

I am announcing today that the Ministry of Defence is beginning formal consultation with the various representative trade unions of the Defence Support Group (DSG) on a proposed programme of staff reductions designed to maintain the organisation’s profitable trading position and the valuable support it provides to defence.

Despite major cost savings and efficiencies delivered by DSG since its formation on 1 April 2008, the business is faced with declining order books. It must therefore begin a major structural reform to realign its capacity and capability with defence customers’ reducing demand. Based on current workload plans, this will result in a reduction in staff levels by up to 600 by April 2013, around 17.5% of the DSG workforce. However, it is not envisaged that these reductions will result in site closures.

Implementation of the staff reductions must start as soon as possible to remove overcapacity and ensure the trading fund remains profitable and viable. The MOD does not expect the recent strategic defence and security review (SDSR) announcement to negate the need for staff reductions or the imperative for commencing consultation now. Should SDSR lead to a requirement for further staff reductions at DSG then this will be subject to a separate consultation process in due course.

Both MOD and DSG will do all that they can to minimise the effect to employees by delivering these staff reductions through voluntary means but naturally we cannot rule out potential release by compulsory means.

In parallel, the trade unions, MOD and DSG will work with other Government Departments and agencies to explore future job opportunities for DSG employees affected by these manpower reductions. Working closely with external training providers and agencies such as Jobcentre Plus and other advisory organisations, DSG will explore alternative training and job opportunities for any employees wanting to retrain for an alternative career.

In conclusion, I pay tribute to the outstanding service DSG personnel provide and the pivotal role they play in supporting the UK armed forces with the vital equipment they need on critical operations both at home and overseas.

Light Protected Patrol Vehicle (Preferred Bidder)

Peter Luff Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce the successful outcome of the light protected patrol vehicle (LPPV) competition for a new vehicle to replace the existing Snatch Land Rovers and Weapons Mount Installation Kit (WMIK) vehicles on operations in Afghanistan. Following a rigorous trial and assessment phase, preferred bidder status has been awarded to Force Protection Europe for an initial tranche of 200 vehicles, subject to successful completion of contract negotiations. This initial tranche will be procured through the urgent operational requirements process, and we expect the first vehicles to be delivered for training in 2011. Further buys of LPPV will be subject to the confirmation of our wider requirement, which will be confirmed by the strategic defence and security review and defence planning round. Force Protection Europe’s vehicle represents leading edge technology and will provide an unprecedented balance of protection, weight and agility for a vehicle of its class. The vehicle is a new design developed specifically to meet the requirements of UK armed forces, and is only now possible due to the considerable investment by the Ministry of Defence and UK Industry in this technology. LPPV is a UK design, and will be manufactured in the UK, creating or sustaining over 750 UK jobs. LPPV is also ideally placed to take advantage of the export market, which the Government are fully committed to supporting.

AWE Aldermaston: Fires

Peter Luff Excerpts

Monday 11th October 2010 Ministerial Corrections

[Caroline Lucas]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many incidents at the Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston have resulted in attendance of the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service in each year from 2006 to 2010; and on what dates each such incident occurred.

[Official Report, 9 September 2010, Vol. 515, c. 624W.]

Letter of correction from Peter Luff:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on 9 September 2010. The date for the false alarm event in March 2006 should have been the 12th, not the 19th.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Peter Luff]

Since 2006, there have been four events at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Aldermaston site where the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service (RBFRS) has been requested to attend. In addition, there have been three events where RBFRS acted as a stand-by resource while the AWE Fire and Rescue Service attended the event. These are summarised in the following table:

[Peter Luff]

Since 2006, there have been four events at the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Aldermaston site where the Royal Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service (RBFRS) has been requested to attend. In addition, there have been three events where RBFRS acted as a stand-by resource while the AWE Fire and Rescue Service attended the event. These are summarised in the following table:

AWE: Manpower

Peter Luff Excerpts

Monday 11th October 2010 Ministerial Corrections

[John Woodcock]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff are employed at the Atomic Weapons Establishment sites in (a) Aldermaston and (b) Burghfield.

[Official Report, 9 September 2010, Vol. 515, c. 621W.]

Letter of correction from Peter Luff:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) on 9 September 2010.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Peter Luff]

Atomic Weapons Establishment plc employs 4,230 staff at the Aldermaston site and 340 staff at the Burghfield site. These numbers are full-time equivalent staff employed on 27 August 2010 and are rounded to the nearest 10.

In addition some 2,000 staff are employed by contractors at these sites.

The correct answer should have been:

[Peter Luff]

AWE plc employs 4,230 staff at the Aldermaston site and 340 staff at the Burghfield site. These numbers are full-time equivalent staff employed on 27 August 2010 and are rounded to the nearest 10.

In addition some 2,000 staff are employed by contractors at these sites.