| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
16 Mar 2010 : Column 206WH—continued
The technology and engineering side of things is important in Lancashire. I visited a technology competition on Friday. It was run by the local Rotary clubs and sponsored by BAE Systems. It was fascinating to see the
involvement of groups from a host of schools in my constituency, including groups of girls-it is good that more women engineers are coming forward. We need to take the Lancashire tradition of work in defence and aerospace into the future. I worry that when the existing programmes come to an end there will be nothing afterwards. If UAVs are what will be needed at that time, their development needs to be thought through.
Moving on, perhaps I may make my remarks a little more political. I am conscious of the importance of the F-35 joint strike fighter, but I have been concerned about the fact that although the Government have been positive in supporting it-they have been active in the negotiations to ensure that intellectual property can be transferred, and have made the decision to go ahead with the carriers from which many of the aircraft will fly-that is not necessarily true of all parties in the House. I was interested to read the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) in a debate on 1 March.
My hon. Friend talked about shipyard conveners visiting Opposition parties. They came away reasonably happy from a meeting with the Liberal Democrats:
"However, the convenors were greatly depressed when they went to meet the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who, speaking on behalf of the official Opposition, made it clear that the action that a Conservative Government would take on day one would be to examine the break clauses in the contract. Had he said to them, 'I'm afraid I can't tell you anything because it will take us six months to set up a review, and then a year to have the review, and then maybe a couple of weeks at the end of that to decide on it, so it will be 18 months or so before we can come a decision', they would not have been happy with that, but they could have understood it, because that had been a relatively consistent position; indeed, it was the Liberals' position until they accepted the strength of the convenors' arguments. But no, the Conservatives said that on day one they would examine the break clauses-no one examines the break clauses on day one unless the intention might be to apply them on day two."
That set alarm bells ringing for my constituents, who wonder what a Conservative Government would mean. If there is no commitment to the two aircraft carriers, there is no commitment to go ahead with the order for the F-35 joint strike fighter. In that same debate, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) quoted from a leaflet distributed by the Labour party in my constituency, and referred to it as "scurrilous". The part he quoted said that
"it is a bit worrying that the Conservatives, should they get elected, are looking to scrap a number of Defence Projects."-[Official Report, 1 March 2010; Vol. 506, c. 703-09.]
He did not quote the editorial in the Lancashire Evening Post of 17 September 2009 that said:
"David Cameron has fuelled fears that a Conservative government will ditch crucial defence contracts at the cost of thousands of Lancashire jobs.
The Tory leader threw his support behind Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, who sparked outcry from the defence industry when he pinpointed the £20bn Eurofighter Typhoon project as a potential scheme to cut."
Mr. Howarth:
The hon. Gentleman is clearly anticipating much of what I shall say, but I want to put him out of his misery-or rather to disrupt his joy at spreading false rumours. He has picked up a quotation from the Lancashire Evening Post. I have a copy of his leaflet. As
I made clear in a letter that I sent to the leaders of the defence industry, there was no such imputation to be made in relation to the remarks of the shadow Chancellor. He did not list any programmes that were scheduled to be axed. He was asked a question in another context. In my letter I made it clear that we shall have a defence review and I shall set those things out later. I hope the hon. Gentleman will address the headline in his leaflet, of which I have a copy. It says, "Vote Conservative and destroy the defence industry". Will he explain, and apologise for that?
Mr. Gary Streeter (in the Chair): Order. Interventions should be short.
Mr. Borrow: I was somewhat puzzled that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the leaflet, because Aldershot is obviously a long way from South Ribble. However, when he cited the fulsome praise of the Conservative candidate who is to be my opponent in the general election, I twigged that she comes from the same part of the world as him and that the leaflet was probably passed to him on a weekend trip to the south.
Mr. Howarth: The leaflet was not passed on in that fashion. It was posted to me. Lorraine Fullbrook, who is the hon. Gentleman's doughty and feisty opponent-she has every prospect of succeeding him in this place-has, as he well knows, been resident in the area for five years. As the hon. Gentleman said, when he went to Lancashire in 1975 he did not know that it had an important aerospace industry. Lorraine Fullbrook knew even before she clapped eyes on Lancashire.
Mr. Borrow: I have some sympathy for the hon. Gentleman, because I know that he is a strong supporter of the aerospace and defence industries. However, having read his speech of 1 March and having seen various Conservative party statements, I see that the party has a formula should it come to office; it will carry out a strategic defence review. However, until that is done, it is unable to make any commitments. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to be able to reassure my constituents that, should there be a change of Government, the programmes for the Typhoon and the F-35 would be safe, but he is unable to do so.
It was significant that the hon. Gentleman should comment on a leaflet circulated by the Labour party in my constituency, as I have seen a leaflet circulated by the Conservative party that makes the identical point-that the Conservatives would carry out a strategic defence review and then decide which programmes were to go ahead. That is the Conservative position. I am sure the hon. Gentleman wishes he could do more.
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that our position is precisely the same as the Labour party's.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Quentin Davies): Not at all.
Mr. Howarth:
The Minister, who is shortly to leave Parliament, says not at all. It is a fact, and I can confirm it. Both parties will undertake a defence review. That
review will consider all the options and force structures. That is what the nation requires. That is what the armed forces require.
Mr. Gary Streeter (in the Chair): Order. Interventions are far too long.
Mr. Borrow: I shall move on. It has been interesting to watch the debate about procurement and other such matters over the last few months. The Government have signed contracts for the carriers and work is going ahead with them. The shadow Defence Minister made it clear to conveners from the defence industry that the break clause would be considered on day one, which questions the Tory commitment to the carriers. If the Conservatives have no commitment to the carriers, it is difficult to see how they can be committed to the F-35.
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman continues to make such observations. In a written answer, the Secretary of State for Defence said:
"We have been very clear since the publication of the Defence Green Paper that everything other than Trident is included in the Strategic Defence Review."-[Official Report, 8 March 2010; Vol. 507, c. 20W.]
If there were to be another Labour Government, they would review all programmes except the Trident successor, just as the Conservatives would do. Our positions are identical. I hope the hon. Gentleman will explain that fact to his constituents.
Mr. Borrow: I recall that just before Christmas, at a meeting of the Select Committee on Defence, I asked my hon. Friend the Minister about the Government's commitment to the F-35 joint strike fighter. My hon. Friend told the Committee that the Government would purchase 140 aircraft.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Everything else that my hon. Friend has said is absolutely correct, but I did not say that there would be 140. I said there would be up to 150. In practice, 140 is pretty close but the formulation is important.
Mr. Borrow: Indeed, and we have already signed a contract for three aircraft in order to do evaluation trials.
I asked a similar question of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He made it clear that he saw the Typhoon and the F-35 as the two fast jets at the core of our military capability, and that he was not looking to get rid of them or to buy anyone else's aircraft. I am disappointed that the Opposition have not been more specific in their commitment. Their lack of commitment to the aircraft carriers undermines their commitment to fast jets.
If I was an employee of BAE Systems in Lancashire, I would be concerned about my job. I would be inclined to stick with a party that has shown a commitment to the industry by signing contracts for the Typhoon before Christmas, by starting work on the carriers and working hard to ensure that the F-35 programme goes ahead, rather than turning to a party that can give no such commitment.
11.26 pm
Mark Hunter (Cheadle) (LD): May I say what a pleasure it is to have the opportunity to contribute to this timely debate under your chairmanship, Mr. Streeter? I congratulate the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) on securing the debate. I pass on the apologies of my hon. Friends the Members for North Devon (Nick Harvey) and for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie), both of whom are unable to be here today.
As will become obvious, I do not share the analysis proposed by the hon. Member for South Ribble. However, both of us hold firm on the importance of Lancashire and the north-west of England as a prime region for defence. Many thousands of families across the region have given unstintingly of their efforts, being involved in iconic defence industry products such as aircraft, which are of particular interest to him and me, and others. It will a sad day if the historic importance of Lancashire and the wider north-west is forgotten. I hope that that never happens under any Government.
I shall not indulge in internecine warfare about who said what in which leaflet. I am at a disadvantage in that I do not have copies of the said periodicals with me. That may be some relief to you, Mr. Streeter. However, I shall speak on the subject of the debate and put a number of questions to the Minister.
I was asked to speak for my party today as a Member whose constituency is in Cheshire-it is just over the border from Lancashire-and who represents the many hundreds of highly trained skilled engineers and technicians who work at the BAE Systems Woodford site and who live in my constituency. As the hon. Member for South Ribble said, like many other sites, Woodford has a proud history, involving the RAF and the very best of British engineering skills.
Those skills go back for many generations, to the Lancaster bomber of the second world war, the Vulcan from the cold war, the first Nimrod, the MR2 and the MRA4 programme. I have been fortunate enough to visit that site on many occasions and am well aware of the fantastic job done by the whole team, both management and unions. The expertise of our defence sectors workers is world-renowned, and it is on their behalf, as well as on behalf of my party, that I speak today.
Today's debate is of interest to not just those fortunate enough to live in Lancashire, but the general public as a whole. The Defence Analytical Services Agency puts total nationwide employment in the industry at around 300,000. Direct employment stands at 155,000, with a further 145,000 jobs in the supply chain. In total, the defence industry accounts for 10 per cent. of manufacturing jobs in the UK. For every job created in the defence industry, about 1.6 jobs are created elsewhere in the economy. It is estimated that £100 million investment in the defence industry would create 1,885 jobs throughout the UK economy, 726 of which would be in the defence industry. For that very reason, there are more small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK defence industry than in the French, German, Italian and Spanish industries combined. As things stand, more than 65,000 jobs in the UK are currently supported by defence exports.
I was delighted to read recently that the Minister, who is in his usual place today, lavished praise on the defence industry in Lancashire, and he was right to do
so. I am sure that every Member present today will testify that Lancashire has a world-scale, world-class defence industry. The combined turnover of the north-west aerospace companies is some £7 billion a year, one third of the UK's total aerospace sector, which itself is the second largest in the world. The MOD's own statistics puts defence spending-dependent employment in the north-west at 14,000 people, which seems a little on the conservative side. An article in the Financial Times last year reported that some 1,000 companies employ 60,000 people in the north-west. Perhaps in his response, the Minister might like to address that particular issue and clear up the confusion regarding the figures.
Mr. Borrow: It is my understanding that BAE Systems employs 12,000 people in the north-west and has a supply chain of 1,000 companies in the region, which supply it with services and products.
Mark Hunter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but what I said was that the Financial Times had reported that some 1,000 companies are employing 60,000 people in the north-west, so there is no dispute between what he and I believe to be the case.
The Northwest Regional Development Agency has consistently talked about boosting the aerospace industry. However, despite its excellence and expertise, there is no doubt-the hon. Gentleman has made the case very eloquently-that Lancashire is suffering from a downturn in fortunes. Last November, BAE announced plans to cut a further 640 jobs, citing a reduction in military spending on both sides of the Atlantic. Such cuts will take the total number of redundancies at the defence contractor this year to about 2,300. In Lancashire alone, 205 jobs will be lost at Samlesbury, 170 jobs at Warton and a further 57 jobs will be lost in the Military Air Solutions operations based in Chadderton. Not even the Government's misguided investment in the multi-billion pound nuclear submarine programme has been enough to save cuts of 5 per cent. in the 4,500-strong work force at BAE Systems' naval base in neighbouring Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria.
Let me reinforce the point of difference that we have heard expressed from the two Front Benches today. It is certainly our contention that it is quite erroneous for the Government not to have included the future of the Trident nuclear submarine programme in their strategic defence review. It seems wholly ridiculous that such a review, which is looking at all aspects of defence spending-it is doing that because of the state of the economy and because no party can afford to do everything that it would like to do-is not considering that single biggest issue.
Let me say a few words about the Woodford plan, because not only is it a region that I represent, but its problems epitomise the very issues that the hon. Gentleman referred to from his constituency's perspective. Last September, BAE confirmed that it would close the site in Woodford in 2012 with the loss of the remaining jobs-well under 1,000-as a result of the conclusion of the Nimrod project. To be fair to the Minister, he visited the plant just before the announcement. He had a look around and talked to the people directly involved. He made it clear that the option to convert three further
development aircraft to production standard would not be taken forward. Whichever way one tries to wrap up that decision, it was a body blow to the hundreds of workers still employed at Woodford. The decision was all the more remarkable given the fact that the RAF had stated that it had an operational requirement for a further three aircraft. Given that the Government have now effectively chosen to buy three American Rivet Joint aircraft instead of Nimrods, will the Minister use this opportunity to explain how such a decision sits with the Prime Minister's declaration of British jobs for British workers, which now sounds rather hollow in Woodford?
Any decision to contract the planes out to the US results in not only skilled workers losing their jobs earlier than necessary, but the UK defence industry losing the military aviation expertise that has been built up over many years and that is such a vital part of the north-west economy. There are many questions about exporting jobs and military aviation expertise, not least of which is that-I have put this point directly to the Minister before-if we are going to use American aircraft for intelligence and reconnaissance jobs, which is what such planes are for, who has first claim on the intelligence? I understand that we have a close working relationship with our American allies, but surely only one party has first claim on that intelligence. The Government will also lose the expertise developed in Woodford and various other locations that would help future possible productivity, leaving the UK with no option but to return to the US time and again for upgrades and maintenance.
Let me make one thing clear, and this echoes points that were made earlier. The argument is not one of protectionism. Our priorities must be to give our armed forces the best equipment, to get value for the taxpayer and to support a strong defence industry-in that order. However, the decision is about short-term savings overriding long-term defence interests and financial common sense, which is why it would be economically advantageous in the long term to have stayed with the Nimrod programme.
Let me turn now to the Eurofighter, which is where I differ from the hon. Gentleman and possibly the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). It is our contention that the project represents very little financial sense. I realise that such a remark will cause a great deal of consternation, not least to the hon. Member for South Ribble. It is accurate and fair to say that the programme has been beset by cost overruns, delays, technical problems and it is now an expensive and, as some might say, an unnecessary and inappropriate capability. The Eurofighter is considered by many people to be a damning indictment of this and previous Governments' military priorities, and is viewed as an anachronistic piece of cold war kit that serves no purpose in the modern world. Instead of fighting the wars of the past, the Government should be looking to utilise the skills base of those employed in the Eurofighter project to invest in technology such as UAVs, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that could help save lives in Afghanistan, where we have troops on the front line, putting their lives at risk every day of the week right now.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |