Ukraine Update

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

It is not for us to discuss how the Abrams tanks should be maintained, but the hon. Lady makes an important point: heavy armour can be a liability if we do not ensure it is properly resourced and maintained. That is why we are working at the fastest possible pace to balance the urgent operational requirement of getting this equipment into the field with ensuring that it is an asset, not a liability. We have ensured that not only will the tank crews—who, incidentally, will be already experienced on tanks, albeit of a different type—be selected to be trained, but separate maintenance crews will have the skills and supplies to sustain Challenger 2 tanks in the field and take the fight to the enemy.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Will the Minister pay tribute to the workers at BAE Systems in Telford and elsewhere in the country who are working hard to deliver the new turret for Challenger 2, and who will have to pull out all the stops to supply support for those tanks? Has he considered whether, if we need to cannibalise some of our tanks temporarily and take them out of commission to provide spares to Ukraine, we are prepared to do that?

[Alex Chalk]

We have already identified the spares that are to be required as part of this package. Right hon. and hon. Members can have in their minds that not only is the physical tank being provided, but a container or something similar of supplies is coming with it. That has been identified as well. We have looked into our inventories to make sure we are in a position to properly support the Ukrainians, and there is a helpful and constructive dialogue with them about the number of munitions they require and the level of maintenance supplies needed to sustain them—informed, by the way, by the experience they already have in the field.

I pay tribute to those at BAE Systems and Rheinmetall BAE Systems Land in Telford, who will do an important job. I have been to see them myself. I want to emphasise one further point: yes, we will provide munitions and technical know-how, but we also want to pivot to a position where those operating the systems can independently maintain them and supply the spares required. That is what the Ukrainians want, and that is the know-how we are going to assist them with.

Draft Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2022

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2022 General Committees

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is good to see you in the Chair again, Mr Dowd. On what could be the Minister’s last appearance in a statutory instrument debate I feel somewhat cheated on behalf of the Committee that his remarks were so brief. We wanted to hear more from him, but fear not, I have plenty of words to share.

We are considering an important piece of legislation, because it is an opportunity to demonstrate on behalf of all political parties in the House that we back our armed forces. Labour backs our armed forces. They embody the very best of Britain from deployments abroad in response to the invasion of Ukraine to deployments at home, especially during the covid pandemic. Our armed forces are therefore an essential part of our national defence, our national resilience and our NATO obligations to our allies. We are all proud of how our servicemen and women demonstrate the finest of British values, at home and abroad, and it is right that we give them another year to do so, with the continuation of the Armed Forces Act 2006.

We have a real responsibility to reflect on the service of our armed forces, the men and women who put themselves in harm’s way to guarantee our safety and that of our friends and allies. We should be incredibly grateful for their continued service. That is why military personnel must continue to be at the heart of our defence plans. It is not just about the equipment; it is about the people who serve, both those in uniform and the civilians who support our armed forces.

Labour’s support for our armed forces is unshakeable. Indeed, we are here because the last Labour Government passed the Armed Forces Act 2006, and we will of course support this draft order so that the provisions of that Act can remain in force. However, while expressing Labour’s pride in our armed forces, I must draw the Committee’s attention to some issues and ask the Minister to provide an update. It is the moral imperative of any Government to keep our country safe from hostile threats and to protect our citizens. If we have learned anything from the past year, it is that the increasing threat posed by Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine means that we need to solidify our nation’s defences. The withdrawal from Afghanistan also shows that our commitments to the people we support around the world must be long-lasting.

Regrettably, after the past 12 years of government, some of our armed forces are in a much weakened state than we would all like them to be. At a time of increased tension and threats to our country, now is not the time to cut our armed forces. Indeed, were the Minister to ask each Conservative Member present whether now is the time to make such cuts, I suspect that they would agree with what I am about to say, so I encourage him to look at their nodding faces every now and then.

We must not continue the cuts to our armed forces. Reductions over the past 12 years have meant that our Army is now the smallest it has been in 300 years. The Minister and his colleagues do a good job, and Labour acknowledges the defence leadership over the past six months. I hope that the new Prime Minister keeps the Defence Secretary and his team in place so that that work can continue. However, I want Ministers to reflect on some of the changes that are necessary to ensure that our armed forces are as capable as possible.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

I join in with the hon. Gentleman’s admiration for our armed forces. Indeed, the Minister himself served with distinction before coming to this place. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should not fall into the trap of just looking at the armed forces headcount? For example, a new tank with a three-man crew can be just as effective despite having fewer people in it. We should look at capability rather than just at the straightforward headcount, which may fall at the same time as we increase our ability to hit the enemy where they fear it most.

[Luke Pollard]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, because it allows me to talk about Government cuts to our tanks. I recognise what he is saying: this is not just about the size of our armed forces, but the capability as well. However, when cuts are made to both capability and size, we must challenge whether decisions about the size, strength and structure of our armed forces are the right ones. I am deliberately trying to make my points as non-partisan as possible, because I want the Minister to reflect on the legitimate concerns about the structure and size of our armed forces that are shared by both sides of the House.

General Sir Patrick Sanders, the head of the Army, said the UK must

“forge an Army capable of fighting alongside our allies and defeating Russia in battle”,

but the Government continue to push ahead with a planned cut of 10,000 troops by 2025. It is a significant worry that, during this period of elevated threat against our country and our friends, Ministry of Defence statistics published this month reveal that the strength of our armed forces has fallen by 2,631 personnel in the past year alone. I want the Minister to look again at the figures and to check that our military has the necessary size and strength. The best way of doing that is to halt the cuts now.

It is right that our regular forces get much of the attention in this debate, but the Government also plan to cut our reserves by 10%. These are the civilians who undertake another job, but have the ability to be called up. Indeed, the armed forces are using reserves much more as part of regular operations. The interoperability between reserve and regular forces is welcome, and it is good that those who sign up to the reserves have experience and can seamlessly integrate into regular units when required. However, if we are to continue with cuts to regular forces, cutting our reserves at the same time does not seem the best of plans. Will the Minister set out whether it is still his Government’s plan to cut reserve forces by 10%, and what impact that will have on operations?

As a Devonport MP, let me say that cuts are not confined to the Army. The Royal Navy has seen cuts too. I fought against the sale of HMS Ocean to Brazil without replacement, and I led efforts to see off plans to scrap the Albion class amphibious assault ships. HMS Albion and HMS Bulwark will now remain in service until the early 2030s, and that is a good thing, but as yet we have no plans set out for how they will be replaced. Will they be replaced on a like-for-like basis with large, amphibious ships with command and control centres as part of them? Or, with the development and evolution of the new royal marine strategy—which is good and welcome—will they be replaced by greater use of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service Bay class in its amphibious capability? Could it be new, multi-role smaller ships or souped-up Point class ships, for instance? I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the direction of travel.

As the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby set out, it is not only a question of the shape, but the capabilities. We have one of the finest navies in the world but it is very small, and orders for many of the high-end ships that were originally planned— the 13 Type 26 frigates for instance—have now been slimmed down. We are seeing fewer high-end ships and they are less capable in a military sense, but there are more hulls in the water. There is a balance between more hulls and high-end capability that needs to be achieved, and with the increasing development of autonomy in the maritime space there is an opportunity to look afresh at some of those areas. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what he expects to happen with our amphibious capabilities.

Turning to Ukraine, the ongoing aggression inflicted by Vladimir Putin’s regime on the world stage is surely paramount among the threats facing our country. It is vital that we, as politicians but also as people in the public eye, do not become normalised to the situation in Ukraine. The war is entering a critical new phase, where the direct threat posed by Putin’s Russia does not stop at Ukraine’s borders. International support cannot falter at a time when we know Russia’s aggression against Ukraine is expected to continue in the long run. We must be strong in our unwavering support for Ukraine and in doing so, we must better protect ourselves and our NATO allies. Labour’s commitment to NATO is unshakeable, and I place that firmly on the record again today.

That turns me to the integrated review because our armed forces operate under the strategy set out in it. Labour has long argued that we need to reboot our defence plans and review our defence spending. Until recently, Ministers have opposed those plans. That was until the new Prime Minister said that it was time to reboot defence plans and review defence spending. I am glad that we have seen a change in approach from Main Building, but it would be useful if the Minister could set out what he expects that to mean.

Until a new defence review is published, the current defence review continues, and that sees a reduction in the headcount of our Army and cuts to our reserve forces. If the new defence review is to say that now is not the time to cut our forces—as I suspect it will—does it not seem prudent to pause further reductions in our armed forces so we do not lose expertise, headcount and experience, before we seek to re-establish that at greater cost of training and recruitment?

A debate on our armed forces so quickly after the summer recess also allows Members a chance to ask the Minister for updates on some live defence issues that affect those forces. I would be grateful if the Committee bears with me as I ask a few questions. I like to think we are all friends in this room, so as the Minister is among friends, will he give us an update on the status of HMS Prince of Wales? We were all concerned when she broke down, and we would like to know how long she is likely to be out of action, the plans for her recovery and repair, and whether there is a cost and a timeline available at this point.

Having two carriers operate around the world is a real show of strength and ambition for our country. One breaking down is embarrassing, but I want to give credit, especially to the senior Royal Navy officers, who were so clear and transparent through social media about what had happened and what they were doing about it. I think we can agree that has not always been the military way, but it is welcome that we are seeing that transparency, especially in a ship as important as the HMS Prince of Wales. Secondly, there were a number of disturbing reports over the summer from the Royal Air Force, which highlighted unfair and what could be seen as unprofessional practices in some of our most decorated and important squadrons. It was good to see the RAF move swiftly to address those reports, but can the Minister offer an update about what happened, what the rot is that needs rooting out and when Parliament will be updated about the full changes?

Thirdly, I would be grateful if the Minister could set out what the changes in the basing strategy that were announced just before the summer recess mean for our armed forces. For those who were not following it closely, a number of bases throughout the UK had their closure dates delayed quite considerably, including two bases in Plymouth. In nearly all cases, those changes were welcome, not only by the units involved, but by the communities in which those bases are located. However, now that there is a large delay in the closure, could the Minister set out whether it is now the Government’s intention to invest in those bases, especially in the accommodation, to make sure that our armed forces enjoy suitable and safe accommodation when stationed at home? We all need confidence in that, and I would be grateful if the Minister could look at that.

Finally, I come to the Ministry of Defence’s energy bills. We all know that bills are going up, and there has rarely been a military building I have been in that is not really warm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Leo Docherty]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. It is not just about broad institutional change; it is about ensuring that it is instilled in the leadership training, and that is now being done. For example, all leadership training at Sandhurst instils the absolute necessity of ensuring women can thrive in the workplace into the leadership style. Those who lead have a duty to set the example. This is a cultural shift, and it is encouraging that once the culture changes at the top of the armed forces it can have a rapid multiplier effect. I have been amazed at how fast change does take place. For example, if someone visits an infantry battalion, they will meet young female platoon commanders, which would have been completely unthinkable 20 years ago when I commissioned. More than 50% of those serving in the King’s Troop, Royal Horse Artillery are young women, including the commanding officer, so change can happen very quickly, and that is absolutely right. It is a leadership function, and we are addressing that by ensuring that it is part of the training at the very top.

I will cover off the other points raised by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. As the Member of Parliament for the home of the British Army in Aldershot, I take the basing strategy personally. Delays in closures and attendant accommodation issues are extremely important for our service personnel. I am pleased to commit the MDP to writing with an update because that is his bailiwick and it is also extremely important.

[Sir Robert Goodwill]

We have sidestepped the issue of Ajax, which was raised by the Opposition. Have other countries that use the same platform—it was built in Spain before it was assembled in Merthyr Tydfil—had the same problems, and what have their solutions been?

[Leo Docherty]

I was going to come to Ajax, but I will cover the points off in sequence. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport made a good point about energy bills. We are striving to be lethal yet green. I know that the permanent secretary is leading a huge amount of work on ways that we can better utilise our estates to capture solar energy and so on. We take that seriously because our energy bill is very significant.

Ajax is, again, an MDP lead, but I will say simply that further updates will come, as we have said all along. However, we will not accept a vehicle that is not fit for purpose. The resolve and integrity of the Defence Secretary and the MDP on that is unquestionable.

The hon. Gentleman made some good points about a multi-year settlement. Of course, we are grateful to have had a multi-year settlement up until 2024, and the £24 billion uplift under the previous Prime Minister.

I will cover off the last few remaining points. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West commended my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham, for whose work I am grateful. We are doing a whole range of work to get after some of those issues, and we will provide updates to colleagues in due course as we move through the autumn.

Lord Etherton’s review of the experience of LGBT veterans is underway. He is a highly credible Member of the other place and a former Master of the Rolls, and he has started the independent review in good order, so the Member for Glasgow North West should look forward to further updates from it.

Ukraine

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

Over the last three months, we have seen a war of choice in Europe. Putin and his close allies have revealed their callous and barbaric nature, plumbing new depths of human depravity and reaching new peaks of human wickedness. Putin has shown a casual and contemptible disregard for human life and a vile disinterest in the suffering of men, women and children as a result of the choice he made, suffering and death that we hoped we would never see on the European continent again. Putin has shown a casual and contemptible disregard for human life and a vile disinterest in the suffering of men, women and children as a result of the choice he made, suffering and death that we hoped we would never see on the European continent again.

A few weeks ago, I was speaking to young people at a university in Poland. There were Polish, Ukrainian and Russian students in the audience. They were bewildered, afraid and angry about what they had seen. It struck me that those young people had no memory of the Berlin wall, the cold war or the Soviet Union—all the more reason for us to repeat to them the lessons we have learnt from history—but what we have seen comes, or should come, as no real surprise to us. Putin told us who he was and what he believed at the Munich security conference in 2007. He told us primarily that he was in denial about the end of the cold war. He believed it had come to an end, rather than that the Soviet Union had been defeated. He said:

“we should not forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was possible thanks to a historic choice—one that was also made by our people, the people of Russia—a choice in favour of democracy, freedom, openness and a sincere partnership with all the members of the big European family.”

If that was not utterly out of line with the reality of what was happening, I do not know what is.

Putin also made it very clear in that speech that he viewed NATO as an aggressor from the outset, when he said:

“I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernisation of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended?”

No expansion was intended; it was there as a defensive alliance. If there has been an expansion now, it is because of the threat posed to other European states. Putin has shown that he has been more than willing to carry out that threat in Ukraine.

There is something else in that speech that we should remember, which says something about Putin’s values. He was talking about the unipolar moment. He said:

“I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but impossible in today’s world…What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilisation.”

We knew from that what Putin was like. How did we get it so wrong? We did it because we in the west substituted wishful thinking for critical analysis. We wanted there to be a peace dividend, understandably, but we wanted it so much that we did not look at the evidence, in rapid succession, in front of our eyes. We had Chechnya, with Grozny razed to the ground in the way we see today in Donbas. The pattern of behaviour is clear. We then saw, in 2008, the invasion of Georgia and we did very little. We saw the annexation of Crimea. When I wrote in February 2015 in an article in The Sunday Telegraph that we should be arming the Ukrainians to stop Putin because they would be next, I was actually described by a senior member of the coalition Government as a warmonger. I am still waiting for the apology, but I guess it will not be coming. Now, in a bizarre and horrible echo of history, we see Putin willing to use the grain supplies that sit in Ukraine as a weapon of war well beyond the European theatre, willing to cut off the supply to the developing world who will starve if they do not get it, in an awful echo of what Stalin did in using famine as a weapon against the Ukrainian people.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Is it not the case that even on the verge of the invasion, when our intelligence sources made it clear an invasion was going to take place, many of our allies in Europe refused to believe it would actually happen?

[Dr Fox]

That is right. I will not dwell on that point, because I do not think it takes us much further forward, but there was again the substitution of wishful thinking for critical analysis. The evidence was there that the troops were being massed on the Ukrainian border. We knew there was an intent to use them and yet in a number of European capitals there was still the triumph of hope over experience. That lack of preparedness among some of the western nations put the Ukrainians at a disadvantage at the beginning of the conflict.

A number of Members have said that the sanctions on Russia cannot be lifted until all Russian troops leave Ukraine. I would go further: the sanctions on Putin and Lavrov and the architects of this war can never be lifted. That is a different question from what happens to the rest of Russia. Of course, there must be a potential new course in a post-Putin era, but our aim must be to increase the tensions within the Russian regime by making it clear that those who stick with Putin and those who are the architects of the war in Ukraine cannot escape from the sanctions—they crossed the Rubicon; they are war criminals. On the other hand, those who choose a different path for the future can have an alternative future. It is very important that our messaging is consistent and utterly clear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I briefly interrupt the debate to announce the result of the ballot held today for the election of a new Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. There were 474 votes cast with no invalid ballot papers—it is a relief that Members of Parliament know how to cast a vote. The counting went to four rounds. In the fourth round, 420 valid votes were cast, excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 211 votes, and the candidate who has been elected Chair, with 243 votes, is Sir Robert Goodwill, who will take up his post immediately. I congratulate him on his election. The results of the count under the alternative vote system will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and published on the internet.

[Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the officers of the House and the Clerks who carried out this election so efficiently and all those involved. I also thank my fellow candidates for the very good-natured way in which it was carried out. I thank all the people who voted for me, and I hope that I can carry forward the Committee and follow on from the excellent work done by my predecessor, Neil Parish.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I do not need to answer that point of order, but it was a perfectly reasonable one. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to thank the House. I also offer the commiserations of the whole House to all the other excellent candidates who took part in the fiercely contested election.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Although the order for the CVRT replacement, the Ajax tank, was placed with General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Rheinmetall—American and European companies—the hulls are being kitted out in Merthyr Tydfil and the turrets are being built in Bedford. How important is it that, if we place orders for the best equipment available in the free world, we should have as much UK content as possible?

[Mr Wallace]

Where possible, we should do all we can to ensure a huge proportion of UK content in all the contracts we deliver so that our forces get the kit they need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

I have regularly met the unions from Brough over the years, and not only because I represent a site in Lancashire that also employs BAE workers. The key is for us to support BAE to get more export bids and, at the same time, to prepare for the next generation of fighter. With that, we will make sure that with our money and with taxpayers’ money comes a commitment from BAE that the jobs are as much based here, throughout the country, as they have always been.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

T8. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) mentioned cadets in the community, but the cadet expansion programme is about establishing 500 new cadet units in state schools. What assessment has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made of the value of cadet units to some of our most disadvantaged children in some of our most challenging schools?

[Mark Lancaster]

The University of Northampton’s research into the social impact of cadet forces, including those in state schools, suggests that membership can increase social mobility and help children reach their potential because of the activities they undertake. That is precisely why this has been such a successful process.

Draft Defence and Security Public Contracts (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Robert Goodwill Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2019 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Defence and Security Public Contracts (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. A responsible Government plan for all eventualities. As part of the preparations to leave the European Union, it is essential that we ensure that our legislation governing defence and security procurement functions properly beyond exit day in a no-deal scenario. It is the first duty of a Government to keep their citizens safe and the country secure. As part of that, the Government need to be able to procure the critical equipment and capabilities they need smoothly and with confidence.

In the event of no deal, these amending regulations will provide procurers and suppliers with legal continuity and certainty, giving them the stability they need to conduct business after 29 March. Clearly, the amendments reflect the UK’s new status outside the EU in a no-deal scenario, but the framework and principles underlying the defence and security procurement regime remain otherwise unchanged. That is in accordance with the powers given to amend retained EU law in the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Act does not allow major policy changes or the introduction of new legal frameworks beyond those changes to fix deficiencies to ensure that the law continues to function properly and changes to remove any reciprocal obligations that are no longer appropriate from exit day.

Brexit will offer us real opportunities, including reform of our defence and security procurement regulations. In the near term, however, the regulations ensure that the UK’s defence and security procurements continue to function smoothly in a no-deal scenario, but with that all-important autonomy from the European Union.

To protect the UK’s essential security interests, the regulations will maintain the effect of article 346 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union by writing its substance into the existing regulations. The regulations already make clear that they can be trumped by article 346. Article 346 enables us to disapply the defence and security procurement rules where necessary to protect essential national security interests.

Through the amendments, control over our procurement is returned to the United Kingdom. For example, the Secretary of State for Defence will take the power previously held by the European Commission to modernise, although not broaden, the 1958 list of warlike stores that falls under article 346(1)(b). All notices for defence and security procurement opportunities will in the future be published on a new UK e-notification system. Business continuity meanwhile is assured through the transitional provisions. There will be no defence procurement cliff edge.

Competition remains the cornerstone of defence procurement policy, ensuring that we equip our armed forces with the right capability at the right price. Currently, we allow bids from suppliers outside the EU, although the existing regulations provide the legal right of market access required by EU law only for suppliers based in the EU. Any restrictions on, for example, bidding on national security grounds are made clear from the outset of any procurement. The regulations provide a legal right of market access for suppliers based in the UK and Gibraltar that currently enjoy rights under the EU defence and security directive. After exit day, suppliers in the EU will lose their legal right of market access, but we will still allow them to bid on the same basis as suppliers outside the EU. That reflects the UK’s new status as a third country outside the EU.

[Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)]

Much EU environmental legislation, such as for vehicle emissions, has an exemption for military use. After we Brexit, will that situation change under any of the provisions in the regulations?

[Stuart Andrew]

Nothing in this order, which purely transfers our procurement regulations, does that. We can look at a whole raft of matters once we have properly left. We will obviously consider the point that my right hon. Friend raises, but that would be under further consultation, and legislation would then have to come through the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. This is a very worrying amendment to the regulations, because it deals with the doomsday scenario of a no-deal Brexit. We have 46 days left before we leave the European Union, and the Government are coming forward at this late stage with quite a significant piece of legislation that requires far more detailed scrutiny and far greater preparation. If the Government were serious about considering this, why on earth did they not do so months and months earlier? I am concerned about the regulations, which are indicative of the Government’s irresponsible approach to Brexit as we near the end of the process.

The explanatory memorandum explains that the central purpose of these regulations is to ensure that there is

“little or no distinction between the treatment of economic operators from the EU and other places outside the UK.”

In other words, this mechanism—as far as defence procurement regulations are concerned—provides the brick wall between Britain and the EU and the rest of the world. However, it is important to bear in mind that this issue works both ways. It would not apply simply to companies from abroad—whether outside or inside the EU—that wish to engage in commercial activities here, but would have an impact on British companies’ work in other European countries, which is an important point. The Government correctly argue that the export capacity of British industry in the military sector is significant—not just to the rest of the world, but to our partners in Europe. I am concerned that companies with long-term strategies increasingly oriented towards an export capacity will find trade more difficult if this measure is introduced.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this uncertainty is damaging, but should he not take the advice of 57.6% of people in Caerphilly who voted to leave the European Union, and back the deal?

[Wayne David]

It is important at this stage in the process that we do not engage in such cheap debating points. We need to look at the nature of our economy and the impact that a no-deal Brexit would have. This is too important for simple political digs or empty rhetoric. We need cool heads and a sharp analysis of what is before us. That is what I am seeking to do, and I hope, in the national interest, that the Government will do so too. We are getting perilously close to the point of no return. We have 46 days. We must take a deep breath, stand back and put the interests of our country and our constituents first.

Why have the Government adopted this approach? The impact assessment says that there are no policy changes, and therefore they do not require a detailed business impact assessment. However, I suggest that it is a policy change because it cuts across what we have been doing and saying for many years in this country. There should therefore be a fully-fledged business assessment so that we can understand the economic consequences of what we are doing. Incredibly, that is lacking. I come back to the point that I made at the start. If we had any sense, and if we were seriously considering a no-deal Brexit, this issue should have been considered in detail months ago—indeed, two years ago. Europe is a vital export market for us, and this will have a big impact.

The Government talk a great deal about competition, but it is worth bearing in mind that 40% of the Ministry of Defence budget is single-sourced. There is no competition; the MOD simply gives the money to a particular company or amalgam of companies. It is therefore important that we question the Government’s commitment to competition.

[Wayne David]

That is a very good and important example. There was at least one other strong alternative to the Boeing bid for AWACS, but the Government decided not to consider it at all. There was no publicity, openness or transparency; they just came to a cosy little arrangement with an American company, and effectively bought the equipment off the shelf from the United States, with minimal investment in the British economy.

[Mr Goodwill]

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that sometimes there can be great benefits to the UK from that? For example, General Dynamics is building a new light tank for the British Army in Merthyr Tydfil, employing 950 people.

[Wayne David]

Yes, indeed. I commend the work that General Dynamics is doing, but let us not forget that that company lost out because of the lack of competition for the mechanised infantry vehicle. Again, the Government put competition to one side and came to a cosy little deal with a German-led consortium for the Boxer vehicle, and General Dynamics lost out. It quite rightly said, as Saab and others said about the Wedgetail, that it does not mind losing a bid, but it at least should have the chance to bid openly for it. The Government should be giving contracts to the best companies at the best price to have the best impact on this country’s economy. Sadly, that is not what they are doing.

The draft regulations will transpose into British legislation article 346 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union—an important article that allows exceptions to competition rules where national security issues arise. However, fleet solid support ships remain an issue: despite representations from Labour, from other Opposition parties and from trade unions, the Government have decided not to issue the contract to a British company. Instead, they are putting it out to international tender, saying, “It’s these terrible European rules that are making us do this—we’re tied into the straitjacket of European competition rules.” But which EU rule are they referring to? Article 346! If their rhetoric is true, why are the Government taking that article en bloc and transposing it into British legislation? For the life of me, I cannot understand it, if they are sincere in their comments about the invidiousness of article 346.

I would very much like to hear the Minister explain how he can square that circle and face both ways at the same time. If the Government were serious about a no-deal Brexit, surely it would have been sensible to take the opportunity to ditch article 346 and have decisions taken in this country, in the interests of British industry and British jobs, rather than putting contracts out to competition. However, I fear that the Minister’s response will confirm that the Government are not concerned about that. They want to ensure as smooth a rhetorical transition as possible, but they have not gone into the depths of detail that are required.

I come back to the point that this Committee and all such Committees are going through a façade, because the Government are not really contemplating a no-deal Brexit; this is all part of blackmailing Parliament to ensure that the Government get their own way. I have raised a couple of points that I would like the Minister to respond to, but I particularly ask him to do his best to refute my last point about the Government’s strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I will not detain the Committee long. Following on from the point made by the hon. Member for Glenrothes, this is not about getting the cheapest equipment, but about getting the best equipment. Although much of the equipment built in the UK is state of the art, the global market may supply particular specialists, such as drones. In the Nimrod contract more than 20 years ago, a political decision to revamp the old Nimrod airframes ended in disaster. Lockheed Martin had a perfectly good alternative that would have meant jobs in the UK for companies like Hunting Aviation at East Midlands airport.

It was mentioned that the Boxer vehicle had been given to a German company. To be fair, it should be made clear that 60% of the value of that project will go to British companies, including BAE Systems, Thales UK and Pearson Engineering. When we place an order abroad, there is often collaboration. Indeed, the frames for the tank being built in Merthyr Tydfil are being built in Spain. Part of our negotiating strategy is to ensure UK involvement in such projects. I hope that the Committee will understand that the Boxer is not a purely German-built vehicle, but a vehicle with a high degree of UK content. Indeed, if further contracts are awarded around the world for Boxer, we could hope and expect to get a share of that.

[Wayne David]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but it is also significant that recently Rheinmetall has taken over a part of BAE Systems. That is an issue of concern.

[Mr Goodwill]

Exactly. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, although, in the spirit of collaboration, the new turret for the Warrior, which I think has gone to Lockheed Martin, will involve a gun from Rheinmetall. Germany has a long record of building very good guns, as we have found out to our cost at times, but it is important that we look at that collaborative approach. Indeed, many UK companies, such as BAE Systems, have interests in other factories around the European Union. That should not change following Brexit.