| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
20 May 2009 : Column 462WH—continued
4.39 pm
Mr. Bradshaw: The proposed improvements will include 65 per cent. of beds in new accommodation, with the existing site being modernised to improve patient comfort and satisfaction, and half of all in-patients will be given the privacy of single rooms, which will help to tackle health care-associated infections. By 2013, three local care centres will be built, with a fourth at the St. Helier development, bringing traditional hospital services and primary care closer to people’s homes. Ten per cent. of all intermediate and post-acute care will take place in people’s homes and in a new intermediate care centre. That service, with the Wilson local care centre, will serve my hon. Friend’s constituency at a capital cost of £22 million.
The local NHS believes that the changes will prevent 1,000 unnecessary hospital admissions every year; enable 1,500 patients a year to recover 20 per cent. faster, with more post-hospital care in people’s homes; ensure that 65 per cent. of local people in Sutton and Merton are no more than 10 minutes’ travel time from their nearest out-patient appointment; and reduce travel times by 30 per cent. for people with long-term conditions. Additionally, about £185 million is being invested in the disadvantaged areas covered by the strategy. The lower average travel times will help to reduce inequalities in access to care.
The projects submitted to NHS London have a total capital value of £208 million, and are considerably more complex than most projects on that scale. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the assessment of all the projects must be thorough and the analysis robust. It is therefore taking a little longer than perhaps she and others would wish.
Tom Brake: The Minister is doing a good job of setting out the long-term benefits of Better Healthcare Closer to Home. I should like to encourage him, however, to comment on the short term, and perhaps I can obtain an assurance from him that when the business case for the proposals is complete, which is expected to be by the end of this month, he will take personal responsibility for ensuring that the matter is expedited through his Department.
Mr. Bradshaw: I was coming on to discuss the short-term process, which I think will help to reassure the hon. Gentleman.
NHS London, the PCT and the trust are doing everything in their power to make the soundest case for the success of the Better Healthcare Closer to Home strategy. To that end, the finance director at NHS London is working closely with the PCT to ensure
affordability. The PCT and the trust have been asked to provide clarification on a number of issues to ensure that the business cases stand up to the strongest possible scrutiny. Bearing that in mind, the PCT will resubmit the outline business case for Better Healthcare Closer to Home to NHS London before the end of this month. NHS London’s capital management group and capital investment committee will consider the case, and a decision should be made by 7 July. The Department of Health will then be free to report its decision. However, to speed up the whole process, my Department will consider the business case in parallel with NHS London, before the capital investment committee meets in July.
The proposed changes in the strategy are a key service development for the NHS in London and, alongside the changes already being implemented at Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust and North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust, they represent the top funding priorities for NHS London. Indeed, a number of improvements have already been made through the strategy. For example, on the Wilson site, a GP-led health centre is due to open later this year. It is being procured through an open tender process. It will be open from 8 am to 8 pm, seven days a week, 365 days a year, and will be open to everyone, whether they are registered with a local GP or not.
I have had a conversation, as I understand my hon. Friend has too, with the chief executive of the London strategic health authority in the past 24 hours, and she has assured me that everything is being done locally to reach a decision in July and that the redevelopment of St. Helier hospital alongside the development of four local care centres for the residents of Sutton and Merton will be given the go-ahead. I urge my hon. Friend and other hon. Members to continue to work constructively and keep up the pressure on the local NHS and NHS London to ensure that progress is expedited and that the residents of my hon. Friend’s constituency and others in the area are provided with the best NHS services now and in the future.
Nimrod Project
4.43 pm
Mark Hunter (Cheadle) (LD): May I say what a pleasure it is to take part in this debate under your chairmanship, Mrs. Dean? I should also like to acknowledge the fact that a number of other Members of Parliament, who admittedly are not in the Room but will be soon, want to make a contribution.
The BAE Systems site at Woodford in my constituency has a long and proud history. It first came into use back in the 1920s and has since been in constant use. Companies such as A. V. Roe, Hawker Siddeley and BAE Systems have built and developed many aircraft there, including the world-famous Lancaster bomber, which saw extensive service in world war two. I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring this subject to the attention of the House, not only because it needs to be illuminated among MPs who do not know about the insecure future of the Nimrod project, but because I want to set out to the Minister, whom I am pleased to see in his place, the reasons why the Government should continue to use the BAE Systems Nimrod MRA4 option over the United States Rivet Joint aircraft.
Hon. Members should be aware that I am speaking as a constituency MP who represents not only the BAE Woodford site, but many hundreds of highly trained workers—skilled engineers and technicians who work at the plant and live locally in my constituency or those of my constituency neighbours in the surrounding area. Those BAE employees are relying on three further Nimrod aircraft being commissioned and the site continuing in use as long as possible. As the local MP, I visit the site often, and am well aware of the fantastic job that the whole team of employees does. The expertise of the defence sector workers in this country is world renowned, and it is also on their behalf that I am speaking today.
My contention is simple: to lose valuable contracts to the US markets, as we may well do if the decision goes against Woodford, will not only affect the current workers at the Woodford plant, but will be a death knell for the future of the defence aviation industry in the United Kingdom. Sadly, I do not have time to give all the background and history of the BAE site at Woodford and the Nimrod project, but it would be wrong not to pay my respects and pause to offer my sympathies to the families and friends of the 14 airmen who were tragically killed in the Nimrod incident over Afghanistan in 2006. I understand, however, that the problem that caused the fuel leak that resulted in the accident has long since been corrected and the Nimrods are now on course to have the fewest fuel leaks since the RAF began keeping a tally.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP): I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so mindful of the 14 servicemen who died aboard Nimrod XV230, based at RAF Kinloss in my constituency. Does he agree that it is imperative that the Nimrod replacement process continues as speedily as possible, not least because it would assuage any remaining concerns about what is a very aged Nimrod fleet? That is one among many reasons why the replacement programme should continue as speedily as possible.
Mark Hunter: The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point and I am happy to agree with him on that matter.
As I have said, the history of the Woodford site is very important, but I want to look forwards, rather than backwards. I shall start with the productionisation issue. I understand from BAE that the Minister visited the plant recently and made it clear that the option to convert the three development aircraft to production standard would almost certainly not be taken forward, yet the RAF has stated that it needs a minimum of 12 MRA4 aircraft to fulfil its operational tasks. I therefore invite the Minister to explain to the House how, without those three planes, the operational shortfall will be met and what the replacement measures will cost.
However, the key issue that I want to focus on today is the Helix programme. For those hon. Members who are not aware of it, it is a brand-new electronic surveillance mission system and it requires a further three aircraft. The Government have accepted that the RAF needs those planes and the capacity that they will provide, but the decision that the Minister faces is where the aircraft will come from. We are talking about either the brand-new, state-of-the-art Nimrods from the UK or—this appears to be the only alternative—the 40-year-old US Rivet Joint plane made by Boeing.
In late 2007, BAE submitted an outline proposal that the aircraft should be Nimrods, but the Ministry of Defence decided that the costs were too high and too much risk was involved. Since 2007, the situation has changed dramatically. I am pleased to acknowledge that the Minister agreed that a further bid by BAE Systems could and should be submitted.
Over that time, the MRA4 programme has matured; the development programme is almost complete and through-life costs are now well understood. Most important, perhaps, is that the decision not to productionise the three Nimrod airframes already in existence leaves them ready and available for conversion for the Helix programme. Given those developments, does the Minister agree that no decision should be made before a thorough examination of the BAE bid is made and carefully compared with the American option? I hope that he will at least give us a guarantee that that will happen today.
The MOD will doubtless wish to examine closely the question of cost. Does the Minister agree that there will be cost advantages, as well as advantages such as operational synergy, in operating Helix with a fleet of Nimrods, especially as the RAF already uses them and is familiar with them? I understand that the MRA4 plane has a longer shelf life than the Rivet Joint alternative— 25 years rather than 12. Is that the Minister’s understanding, and will those aspects will be taken into account in the appraisal?
I want to be sure that the cost-benefit analysis of the options takes account of all the effects of the decision, including those that might be unintended. For example, local employment, and therefore the local economy, will be directly affected, with up to 1,000 dedicated employees at Woodford having to face their jobs ending more quickly if Nimrod is not chosen for the Helix project. The UK would also lose the expertise developed in Woodford—expertise that would help possible future productivity—and support and service for the current
Nimrod fleet, thus leaving the UK no option but to return to the US again and again for upgrades and maintenance.
In my view, the decision would also damage the UK defence industry’s ability to modify and improve electronic surveillance systems which, in turn, would severely cripple the UK defence industry’s future capabilities. The unintended consequences of a decision to buy American and the advantages of using the Nimrod must be factored into the cost-benefit analysis of the two options. Intelligence considerations are arguably even more important. If the American aircraft were used, all intelligence gathered would come to the United Kingdom via the US military, not directly to GCHQ, as it would if the Nimrod option were chosen.
Will the Minister tell hon. Members how the capabilities of the two aircraft compare? I understand that the new Nimrod is a world-class, state-of-the-art aircraft that offers exceptional capabilities. Does the Minister believe that the same can be said of the 40-year-old Rivet Joint American alternative? In an article that appeared in The Times last year, an RAF insider was reported as saying:
“I am incandescent with rage that we are even considering ditching what is a world-class, ‘gold standard’, war-winning capability in the name of economy and the dubious claimed benefits of greater interoperability with the USAF”.
Again, I would be grateful for any response that the Minister can give me.
On the question of maintaining national security, what level of control would the US have over the Rivet Joint contract? For example, could the contract be cancelled, or not renewed, if the UK used Helix for actions that the US Government did not support? Surely we should not hand over a vital part of the UK’s defence capability to the US in that way. Does not the Minister agree that there is a question of sovereignty and independence?
Finally—I am aware that other Members wish to contribute to the debate—the argument is not about protectionism. It is a question of short-term savings overriding long-term financial sense and stability. It will be more economic in the long term, and for the economy as a whole, to stay with the Nimrod programme. It is also right for the country. In the current economic climate, we would be better investing in UK jobs and developing the UK defence industry instead of subsidising US jobs and the US defence industry.
4.55 pm
Tony Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) on securing the debate. I emphasise that the matter unites all political parties represented in the north-west. I can tell the Minister that everybody is conscious of his willingness to engage in proper debate on the matter and to make himself open to argument. For example, when he visited Woodford recently, he listened to the concerns expressed not only by BAE Systems, but by its work force.
Although I shall not speak for long, I want to make a few central points and reiterate some of the points made by the hon. Member for Cheadle. We in the north-west of England are concerned that the nation should recognise the importance of the defence industry
not only as an employer, but as a repository of the high skills that our nation needs for advanced manufacturing in future. Maintaining that skills base is not an arbitrary factor, but an important consideration; it has not only monetary value but something beyond that.
I realise that the Minister might not want to answer every detailed question raised this afternoon. The growing belief is that comparisons that might originally have been disadvantageous to the Nimrod have been evened up considerably in recent times. That is partly because BAE Systems recognised the need to make significant progress in order to satisfy the concerns of the RAF and the Ministry of Defence. Those were legitimate concerns, given the history of delays in such projects, but things have moved along.
I therefore ask my hon. Friend whether he is satisfied that at least part of the commercial risk has been removed as a result of the offer from BAE Systems to consider a leasing system and the cost equation involved in providing the Nimrod. If not, I would counter with serious doubts about the comparison with the Rivet Joint system. For example, we know that some of the costs involved in operating the Rivet Joint system will be disadvantageous. It will need bigger crews, and it will have certain other disadvantages that will lead to longer ongoing costs than the Nimrod system. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that BAE Systems arguments on the costs equation are going in the right direction?
Cost is an important part of the equation, but the sustainability of Nimrod as a military system is fundamental. There is no point in buying it if it does not do what it should. There is no doubt that the newer Nimrod system is better than Rivet Joint, but with the proviso that I conceded in conversations with the Minister and others. The key question is: can BAE Systems deliver the system when the RAF needs it?
In the end, we need to hear from the Minister whether delivery is still a fundamental problem. We local MPs need to say to the company that it has to close that gap and give the necessary guarantees. If the Minister believes that such things are already built into the equation, can we move forward, recognising that on jobs, costs and in terms of defence capability, Nimrod is the superior system?
4.59 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Quentin Davies): It is a pleasure, Mrs. Dean, to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) on securing this debate. It is on a matter of general public interest, particularly in the north-west of England, and I am struck by the number of Members from all parties who are here this afternoon to take part.
I totally agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said about the history of BAE Woodford. It has a proud history involving the RAF and the use of the very best of British engineering skills over many generations. As he has rightly said, it goes back to the Lancaster bomber in the second world war and the Vulcan just after the war, and it includes the first Nimrod, the MR2 and the current MRA4 programme. I also agree totally with what he said—I am so glad that he mentioned it—about the appalling tragedy of the loss of those 14 men in Afghanistan in 2006. That remains a very live memory.
Those men died serving their country in a harsh and difficult environment, and we pay tribute to them. We bitterly regret their loss.
I shall deal in turn with three distinct issues: the current progress of the MRA4 project, the prospects for productionising the additional three aircraft in the MRA4 maritime surveillance role and the possible use of an MRA4 airframe to contain a new version of the Helix system to replace the R1 Nimrod. As all colleagues from all parties in the Chamber who have followed this history over the years know all too well, the MRA4 project has been very much less than a happy one, ever since the original contract was signed by the Conservative Government in 1996. One has almost lost count of the number of renegotiations of the contract since then. The story contains lessons for all of us on the procurement side and for those on the industrial side as well. Those lessons are being learned on both sides.
I am happy to say that the latest indications are reasonably favourable—in some respects, they are very favourable. The latest bad news is that there have been delays to flight trials, but the good news is that we hope that delivery of the first aircraft will be slightly ahead of the latest schedule later this year, which is very good news. The 2011 in-service date will be met, and we look forward to that. The Defence Committee asked me why we did not cancel the MRA4, but I assure hon. Members that, unless something completely unpredictable—indeed, almost inconceivable today—happens, I shall not consider that option at all. We look forward to taking delivery of those aircraft.
The question was asked whether we can do the job with nine rather than 12 aircraft. The answer is, “Yes, we can.” I do not want to go into too much detail, because these are delicate security issues, but the essential national defence task to which those aircraft will be put can certainly be done with nine aircraft. That will leave us with a great deal of capacity to do a wider job in the maritime surveillance role. I am confident that the essential task that we want the MRA4 to accomplish can be carried out. If we had 12 or 15 aircraft, no doubt we could put them to good uses. With current technology, however, there is no need for anything like the 21 aircraft that were originally specified in the totally different circumstances of the early 1990s.
I want to repeat what I said very clearly in Woodford on 27 April, because it is neither responsible nor kind—in fact, it is cruel—to encourage false hope. Although no formal statement has been made or formal decision taken—there are various formal procedures in the MOD to go through first—in all honesty, I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which it would feel right to spend additional taxpayers’ money on further MRA4 aircraft in the maritime surveillance role. I want to put that even more firmly on the record than I did in Woodford. I am afraid that it is a fact that everybody should take on board. I do not want people to spend money unnecessarily. In particular, I am concerned about people planning for their futures and facing up to the realities of the situation earlier rather than later. It is in that spirit that I make that point.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |