Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Much of the force protection equipment has been acquired through the urgent operational requirementthe UORprocess. This provides equipment to meet
new and emerging threats, and for the particular environmental conditions of an operational theatre. Since 2003, we have spent more than £2 billion on UORs. All this money from the reserve is additional to the defence budget. One of the key strengths of the UOR process is its speed. For example, we were able to get Mastiff into service within 23 weeks of the decision to proceed.
Other UORs include the new mobility weapons mounted installation kitor M-WMIKvehicles, being provided by Devonport Management Ltd, which will enter service early next year. The existing WMIK Land Rover has been a big success. The new vehicles, based on a new SUPACAT chassis, will be better still. They will have a longer range, more firepower, greater mobility and higher speed.
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson).
Dr. Gibson: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. Although I have expressed support for the capital investment and for paying the troops fighting the causes in Iraq and Afghanistan, with reference to the estimates published in spring and winter, does he consider that there is proper parliamentary scrutiny of and debate about that investment? Such debate could mean that more, rather than less, goes in, so one should not be frightened of an open debate about the matter. That would be welcome. Select Committees have been frustrated in the past about getting into the details of equipment such as he is describing. Welcome as what he says is, an overall picture would be much more gratifying.
Mr. Ainsworth: I am not aware of a problem with the Defence Committee. I am new in the job and so far I have spoken to the Committee only about operations in Iraq. Procurement is not my direct responsibility, but that of my noble Friend the Minister for Defence Equipment and Support. The Defence Committee appears to do a thorough job. I hope members of the Committee will have the input and the opportunities that my hon. Friend expects them to have, in order to help us to get things right in the way that he describes.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): I belatedly congratulate the Minister on his appointment and on this debut. He made it clear that all the UOR funding is coming from the reserve, but when he talked about the protective equipment he said that more than £1 billion had been spent, much of it through the UOR scheme. The implication is that that which has not been acquired through the UOR scheme is coming out of the defence budget. Will he give us the figures? If he does not have them to hand, will he write to me?
Mr. Ainsworth:
I have given the hon. Gentleman the figures on UORs. He understands the process, because he is well versed in it and he follows defence issues. Of course, some force protection equipment has been provided on an ongoing basis through the defence budget. We are fighting in two theatres that are difficult not only because of the enemy and the tactics that need to be deployed to deal with it, but because of the
weather. That obviously throws up issues that have not been anticipated, not because of any weakness in the defence procurement methodology but because the threat changes and the tactics change. On such occasions, the UOR process is ideal and essential so that we can manoeuvre and get more money into the system to meet the changing threat. That is where the two streams of money come together. Of course, some force protection is paid for through the core budget and a lot of it is provided, as and when it is needed, through the UOR process.
Before I move off the issue of vehicles, I shall reply to the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton). We have set aside £100 million for the 140 extra Mastiffs announced by the Prime Minister. I anticipate that they will be deployed on operations within the next 18 months, but I cannot provide more concrete detail than that. We are still in the process of providing the vehicles that we are procuring. These vehicles will add to the end of the production line, and we obviously want to try to get them into theatre as quickly as possible.
Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring) (Con): Just for clarification, the Minister says that money has been set aside, but has that been done as a UOR or as part of the core budget?
Mr. Ainsworth: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is clear that this is money that we have set aside within the defence budget. [Hon. Members: Ah.] Well, if hon. Members had listened, they would have heard the Prime Minister say that clearly. The original Mastiff requirement was a UOR in response to the need for a new protective vehicle. We have decided to provide this ongoing, additional tranche and we are able to provide it out of the defence budget.
We are improving our surveillance capability through, for example, our acquisition of the Desert Hawk unmanned air vehicle, which is now operational. Such vehicles weigh less than 7 lb and provide imagery from high above the battlefield, which is making them popular with those who operate them. One individual from 57 Battery, Royal Artillery has said:
This is a unique piece of equipment which gives commanders the ability to see what is going on behind hills and buildings. That can change the course of a battle.
Desert Hawk is complementing the larger Hermes 450 tactical unmanned aerial vehicle, which has recently begun operational flying, and the Reaper long-range, long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicle. The first UK Reaper arrived in theatre in Afghanistan a few days ago and its first operational mission will take place very soon. Despite the complexities, this capability has been achieved in only 15 months, thanks in no small part to co-operation from the US air force.
These unmanned aerial vehicles join our existing assets such as Nimrod in sending real-time images routinely to commanders on the ground and will be used for a variety of tasks, including force protection, route clearance, base security and target tracking.
Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde) (Con): Will the Minister confirm that the initial deployment of BAE Systems high-endurance rapid technology insertion systemHERTIhas proved effective in demonstrating a UK-produced unmanned air vehicle capability?
Mr. Ainsworth: That is true, but we need a range of vehicles to meet the requirements, and the demand from the front line must always come first. Obviously, where there is British-provided equipment with the right capability at the right price, we ought to take that approach, and that is what the defence industrial strategy seeks to achieve.
Current operations are our priority, but we must also be alive to emerging and future threats and plan to meet them. Tomorrows conflicts may be very different to those we face today. Looking back 10 years, our prime focus was on enforcing a fragile peace in the Balkans. Today we are committed in the dust and heat of Iraq and Afghanistan10 years from now, who knows? However, taking new equipment from the drawing board into service can take many years, so we need to be thinking now about challenges we may face in 10 years or more and the equipment our forces will need to tackle those challenges.
In July, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the spending settlement for defence. At the same time, we announced our intention to proceed with the purchase of two new large65,000-tonneaircraft carriers for the Royal Navy. Those ships have three times the displacement of our current carriers. They will bring a step change in our maritime capability and contribute to the biggest naval shipbuilding programme for over 20 years. The new carriers, to be named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales, will be the largest vessels ever operated by the Royal Navy. They are expected to enter service in 2014 and 2016, and will be the most capable carrier force outside the USA, enabling us to deliver increased strategic power and influence around the world at a time and place of our choosing.
The two biggest companies involved in the projectVT and BAE Systemsare to form a joint venture for future shipbuilding and support, to improve efficiency. The order for the carriers will be placed with an alliance of companies. The construction of the ships in blocks at shipyards in Govan, Barrow, Portsmouth and Rosyth is expected to create in the region of 10,000 jobs.
Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): May I say to the Minister that we warmly welcome the announcement of the carriers? However, I remind him that the carriers were originally posited in the strategic defence review in 1998. The deal done with the Navy was that the total of frigates and destroyers would go down from 35 to 32. Later, as he knows, the number went down to 25, and it is now being suggested that it might go down further to 19 or 20. Will he confirm that the Navy is not being required to pay yet another price in terms of frigates and destroyers for the long-awaited carrier order?
Mr. Ainsworth:
In the years that the party that the hon. Gentleman supports was in power there were massive cuts of 36,000 Army personnel and a huge reduction in defence spending. If he is saying that the shipbuilding programme for the new carriers is not big enough, and that is to be taken seriously, he needs to tell us what his own partys programme is and what his partys spending would be. How much more would he spend on the Navy and the Army? I look forward to
hearing him give those commitments. He sits on the Front Bench, not the Back Benches, and he cannot go around making such comments without saying what the alternative would be.
Dr. Lewis: I shall tell the Minister very clearly what our policy is. Either we will fund new commitments that we enter into, such as going into wars, or we will not enter into those commitments. It is his Government who in 1998 set out the combination of 32 frigates and destroyers and two aircraft carriers. They then reduced that to 25 frigates and destroyers and two aircraft carriers. All I am asking is whether the Minister plans to reduce the figure further to 19 or 20 frigates and destroyers and two aircraft carriers. It is a simple yes or no question.
Mr. Ainsworth: We have set a course for the biggest shipbuilding programme in history, providing the Navy with world capability for the future, and I note that the hon. Gentleman did not specify whether his party would spend more or less money.
Mr. Davidson: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the work would not come to east and west Scotland if that country was not still part of the United Kingdom? An independent Scotland would not build aircraft carriers.
What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that not only the main blocks are built here but that, as far as possible, the sub-contract work and the supply chain is focused on the United Kingdom? Will we use the opportunities that the enormous order presents to maximise the training of local people? In my constituency, we would greatly regret it if the work, while going to British companies, had to be done by imported labour because we could not train our local labour. Will he ensure that the appropriate steps are taken?
Mr. Ainsworth: I do not know what more I can say to my hon. Friend about our strategy and what we are trying to achieve to maintain the industrial and skills base in the country. That remains our desire and intention and we want to do everything possible to achieve it.
I do not know who provoked my hon. Friend into making the point about Scotland, because there are no Scottish National party Members of Parliament present at the moment. However, he is right that such provision of equipment for the British Navy would not happen if the SNP got its way and managed to split the United Kingdom into its constituent parts.
The carriers that we have ordered will be escorted by the new Type 45 destroyer. I visited the first of thoseHMS Daringduring its sea trials off the west coast of Scotland and was immensely impressed by the power of the ship. The second of classDauntlesswas launched in January this year and the third, Diamond, is due to be launched in November.
The Type 45 will be one of the most capable air defence destroyers in the world, with the Samson radar enabling it to provide far more effective air defence for expeditionary task group operations. Higher engineering
standards will reduce maintenance time and improve availability, so that fewer ships are required to perform the same number of tasks.
The first of our new class of Astute nuclear attack submarines was launched in June. Armed with tactical Tomahawk cruise missiles and Spearfish torpedoes, it will be by far the most potent British attack submarine ever built. HMS Astute will enter service in 2009. Ambush and Artful, which are under construction at Barrow, will follow in 2010 and 2012. In May, we also signed an initial contract for the fourth boat, Audacious.
Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD): Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ainsworth: Let me make a little progress. I have given way a lot and I do not want to hog the debate.
Our largest future programme for the Army is the future rapid effect systemFRES. It will consist of a family of vehicles that have high levels of protection but which are capable of being transported by air, thus allowing troops to deploy rapidly across the globe. The first variant will be the utility vehicle, and we announced the acquisition strategy at the end of last year. Since then, we have conducted trials of potential vehicle designs and we will announce the results next month. Last week, my noble Friend Lord Drayson announced that a team from Thales UK and Boeing had been selected almost two months ahead of schedule as the system of systems integratorSOSI. That represents excellent progress.
Mr. Blunt: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ainsworth: I shall allow the hon. Gentleman to come in soon, but I want to make a little more progress.
The delivery of Typhoon to the RAF continues. Forty-six are now in service and, with the Tornado F3, the aircraft shares responsibility for the UK quick reaction alert task. It can respond in minutes to any unauthorised entry into UK airspace or assist aircraft in distress. The recent decision of the Saudi Government to buy 72 Typhoons is good news. It is a great boost for British industry and for British jobs.
In July, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that the Defence Export Services Organisation would be transferring responsibility for defence trade promotion to UK Trade and Investment. A cross-government study is looking into how best to implement that and will be complete by the end of the year. We will of course keep the House informed. That change of responsibility is to ensure that we can provide more effective and coherent support across all our exports. There will be no lessening of our commitment to support the defence industry. When I visited the defence systems and equipment international exhibition at Docklands last month I was enormously impressed by the depth and breadth of our export effort, particularly from our less well known small and medium-sized companies. There will be no lessening of our support for our defence industry export effort.
Dr. Fox: What on earth is the logic of abolishing DESO and then having a cross-departmental inquiry into how we might best support defence exports? Why not do things the other way round? Surely it makes sense to have the debate about how best to proceed before a decision is taken. What has been done sounds like madness to the rest of the House.
Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman needs to recognise that we need to join up our export effort in Great Britain plc and ensure that it is strong not just in defence but across the piece. That is our intention. As I have said, it is not our intention to pull away from, or lessen our support for, our defence industries and their export efforts.
Mr. Ainsworth: I have given way on the point and will not give way again.
Our armed forces are among the most capable in the world. Improvements in technology, innovation, sustained growth in defence spending, and regular adjustments to our doctrine, structures and training mean that they are well able to meet the tasks that face them. There have been difficulties with some aspects of our procurement. Developing and producing high-quality, battle-winning equipment at the forefront of technology for use in demanding but unspecified operational conditions many years into the future is never going to be easy. When things go wrong, we must acknowledge that and strive to put them right.
Fundamentally, however, the equipment that our forces now have and the way that it is supported is a success story. We can perform far more tasks at greater range and with greater precision than before. That is not just my view; it is the opinion that I have heard from commanders in theatre and the opinion of the joint chiefs of staff. As I said at the outset, we owe the men and women of our armed forces a great debt. The Government are committed to ensuring that they continue to receive the equipment and the support that they need for operational success. We will do that now and in the future.
Dr. Liam Fox (Woodspring) (Con): I begin by associating myself with the Ministers comments about our armed forces, especially those who have fallen in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The sacrifices that they made should focus our minds on the issues before us. It is worth reminding ourselves, at the beginning of this debate on equipment, that without the professionalism, bravery and commitment of our armed forces, the whole debate would be pointless. Indeed, there are many who make a false distinction between procurement and welfare issues. Procurement is a welfare issue. For our servicemen and women and their families, there are few issues as important as whether they have the equipment to maximise their safety and ensure the success of the tasks that they undertake in our name.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |