| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
16 Mar 2010 : Column 212WH—continued
Air Vice-Marshal Martin Routledge, the outgoing chief of staff for strategy, policy and plans at RAF HQ Air Command, has been vocal in his belief that the MOD and the RAF have not invested enough in this
so-called agile technology. UAVS, such as the Reaper, can be used to monitor routes commonly used by troops to see if improvised explosive devices or mines are being planted by insurgents. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that some drones are already being used for that purpose, but the simple fact remains that there are not enough UAVs to handle all the operational demands. It is our view that the Government should embrace that technology, and when they finally do so, I am convinced that Lancashire and the wider north-west region have the workers with the necessary expertise and determination to get it to the front line.
Members will be all too well aware today that the defence industry faces a great deal of pain as the economic downturn makes its inevitable impact on defence spending. However, Members should also remember that the MOD had saddled itself with massive debt even before the current downturn had begun to take shape. Bernard Grey's report last October described the MOD's procurement policies as "incompetent" and revealed a disparity of about £35 billion between our commitments and the resources that are available to fulfil them.
We know that about £2.5 billion is wasted every year on equipment projects. That is Labour's legacy-a budget that is out of control and a programme that is years late. It is also a legacy that has caused a great deal of uncertainty among the thousands of people working in the defence industry in Lancashire and elsewhere.
Given the tight financial shackles that the MOD will inevitably be operating under in the foreseeable future, it is vital that the Government learn the lessons from past procurement blunders. We have a situation now where some aircraft, such as the Eurofighter, are built with parts that are made all over Europe and then shipped somewhere else to be put together, purely as a result of political deals. A company such as BAE Systems, which still employs thousands of people in the north-west region, would do better in a more commercial atmosphere that had less political horse-trading. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will at least agree with my final point, which is that British industry has nothing to fear from a more business-led approach to military procurement.
11.41 am
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): It is customary on these occasions to congratulate the hon. Member who secured the debate, and I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) on having done so. It is somewhat disappointing that so few Members from the north-west were able to join us on this occasion to celebrate a British success story, because there is no doubt that Lancashire and the aerospace industry are a continuing success story of which the whole nation should be proud.
However, I fear that the hon. Gentleman had another motive in securing this debate. Indeed, he alluded to it, and I intervened on him to ensure that those who read reports of these proceedings understand precisely where he is coming from. It was unfortunate that he was not able to take part in the debate on defence in the main Chamber on 1 March, although I see that he has assiduously studied the remarks made in that debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), the shadow Secretary of State for Defence, and by me. I
gather that the hon. Member for South Ribble was also unable to take part in the debate on defence in the main Chamber yesterday, so I suspect that the principal purpose of this debate is to allow him to put something on the record, which he can then distribute around his constituency, as something of a panic measure, before the general election, in which, according to the opinion polls, he is likely to lose his seat.
I will perhaps return to the polemics of the issue in a moment, but I think that there are a number of things on which the hon. Gentleman and I agree. He was right to mention that we are both officers of the all-party aerospace group, which is promoted by the Air League, an excellent organisation promoting air-mindedness throughout the kingdom; it has just celebrated its centenary. Britain has excelled in probably the most important industry of the 20th century-an industry in which we continue to be world leaders.
I share with the hon. Gentleman a concern about the implications of the joint strike fighter in respect of the exchange of intellectual property with the United States. It is absolutely imperative that the United States understands that if we do not have operational sovereignty over that aircraft, the project clearly must be reviewed. We, as a sovereign state, cannot find ourselves in a situation where we cannot operate that aircraft in a sovereign fashion. So I make wholly common cause with him on that issue.
The hon. Gentleman may remember that a few years ago, in about 2006, I addressed a conference in Washington, where I spelled out in words of one syllable how we in the United Kingdom, having contributed so much in support of the United States, expect some reciprocity from the US. Before I went to that conference, I had a briefing with Lord Drayson, a man for whom the industry has a high regard, as do I. Lord Drayson and I discussed the matter, and again we were completely ad idem-that means "of the same mind", for those who have perhaps forgotten their Latin-on it. So I am happy to make common cause with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Borrow: On that point, does the hon. Gentleman agree that a lot of progress has been made on the transfer of intellectual property, and that it is important that the UK continues to deliver its side of the bargain and does nothing that could allow members of Congress to seek to reopen the deal and start putting obstructions in the way of the transfer of intellectual property in the future? I say that because the project is going ahead in stages. Until now, agreement has been reached stage by stage; the intellectual property that has been needed has been transferred, and things have gone smoothly. The hon. Gentleman will recall that we had a number of arguments, and discussions with various politicians, in Washington to get the process started. A large number of British MPs have visited Washington over a long period and have engaged in discussions, which were successful. If we are not careful, however, there is a risk that the process could unravel.
Mr. Howarth:
I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but the United Kingdom needs to take a very robust stand with the United States. The relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom is in need of a bit of tender loving care. There have been a number of issues on both sides of the Atlantic that have been
unhelpful to our relationship, not least the recent withdrawal by EADS of its tanker proposal for the United States air force, in the light of its belief that the entire programme has been re-jigged to fit the Boeing tender.
I do not believe that the United States understands anything other than the most robust language. Our constituents across this realm believe that we in Parliament have done our bit in supporting the United States; indeed, some of our constituents believe that we have gone too far in supporting the United States, particularly over the Iraq war. The United States must understand that if our relationship with it means anything, it has to ensure that we are able to reassure ourselves, and those whom we represent, that we remain a sovereign nation, capable of operating equipment made jointly by ourselves and the United States in a sovereign fashion.
One should not go into the negotiations with the United States in a frame of mind that is anything other than robust. If anybody is in any doubt of the merit of our having that frame of mind, I remind them of the exchange between our former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, and the then US President, Ronald Reagan, when he invaded Grenada, a member of the Commonwealth, without first consulting the United Kingdom. She unleashed a salvo of weaponry, the like of which had not been heard in the Oval Office for many a long year. The result was not that we impaired our position with the United States; instead, we deservedly won its respect for that approach. Such an approach may be required again. So I make common cause with the hon. Member for South Ribble on the issue of relations with the United States.
Obviously, I also praise the role of BAE Systems, which is one of the principal employers in Lancashire, as the hon. Gentleman said, with 12,000 employees there-7,000 at Warton and 5,000 at Samlesbury. Those employees have some of the most high-tech jobs in the land, involving the highest modern skills, in an area where Britain leads the world.
When I visited one BAE Systems site recently, it was interesting to see the degree to which industry has become much more agile in responding to the needs of the defence world, including, obviously, the needs of Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Gentleman singled out the unmanned aerial vehicles that are being developed by BAE. There is no doubt that the Mantis is an example of the agility of which I have spoken. From inception to first flight, the project took less than 18 months. That is the way that the industry needs to go. One aim of the defence review will be to ensure that we create systems to allow within Government the same agility that the industry is beginning to show.
I share an anxiety with the hon. Gentleman: I am nervous about the extent to which we in this country accept that we will not again build a manned aircraft. The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) was critical of the Typhoon, as I prefer to call it; it seems a better name than the one that he used. The Typhoon is a state-of-the-art air superiority fighter. Anyone who thinks that this country can do without an air superiority fighter has no understanding of modern warfare. It just so happens that we have not faced an air threat in recent conflicts. I remind those who do not think that air power is important of Simon Weston. The entire nation
has in its mind the visage of that heroic Welsh Guardsman, who survived an attack on the Sir Galahad in Bluff Cove during the Falklands campaign. That attack was perpetrated by an insignificant, but on this occasion highly effective, Argentine aeroplane. Those who do not have command of the skies put their land forces at risk of annihilation. That is why air power is vital.
It is important that this nation should understand that the Typhoon is not a cold war relic or, as the hon. Member for Cheadle described it, an anachronistic piece of kit that serves no useful purpose. That is a fundamental misunderstanding. If that is Liberal policy, the nation needs to know about it. The Typhoon is a superb aeroplane, acknowledged by the Americans as a class act, in terms of air superiority. We must have it. It is not one that I would delete from my armoury.
Mr. Borrow: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are legitimate concerns that the strategic defence review might end up listening to those who have learned their lessons from the conflicts of only the past 10 years, which might result in us drawing up a military system based on the needs of those past 10 years, rather than on what could be needed in the next 20 or 30 years? Fast jets, aircraft carriers and other big bits of kit that have not been needed much in the past 10 years may well be needed in the uncertain future that we face.
Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is right. That is the predicament facing whoever forms the next Government; obviously, I hope that it will be the Conservative party. I have no doubt that we will face immense challenges in determining the force structures that are required to meet not only today's immediate threats but the potential threats of the future.
We politicians must not concentrate simply on the here and now. Although we may accept the importance of winning in Afghanistan, it is not the be-all and end-all. It is our duty as politicians to look to the future, to protect the people whom we represent and to protect this nation and its interests around the world. I see no scenario in which air power can be confined simply to unmanned aerial vehicles loitering somewhere in the stratosphere.
Mark Hunter: The hon. Gentleman drew attention to some of my earlier remarks. I was not making a point about defence aviation generally; I was talking specifically about the Eurofighter, as the record will show. However, I certainly stand by my remarks.
The hon. Gentleman says that politicians must look beyond the here and now, but does he not accept that all politicians have a duty to provide leadership in the debate about reductions in public spending? Defence is a major spending area. I understand that he and his colleagues have ruled out Trident from the strategic defence review, as have the Government. What potential savings does he think we ought to be considering? Nobody is suggesting that we need to scrap the whole of military aviation-I was talking specifically about the Eurofighter-but at least I have offered specific suggestions on how money can be saved. He and his party have offered nothing but vagueness on the matter.
Mr. Howarth:
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that he can save money by scrapping the Typhoon, he has failed completely to understand the argument I was deploying
a few minutes ago: we require an air superiority fighter, which is precisely what the Typhoon is. It is also a top-class aircraft. It is not an also-ran in the international stakes of air superiority fighters. I will address the hon. Gentleman's point about the economy later, because it is a good one.
The hon. Member for South Ribble spoke exclusively about his constituency, but the hon. Member for Cheadle widened the debate to Lancashire, albeit from a vantage point in Cheshire. I hope in passing that he will notice my lapel badge. It is a Woodford badge, for it is a Vulcan bomber. I am a trustee of the only flying Vulcan bomber in the world, XH558, and I am pleased to say that we have just raised £1 million to ensure that we can display it on the air show circuit this summer, subject to a modification being made. Woodford has played a noble part in the history of Britain's aerospace industry, not least with the phenomenal Lancaster bomber and the Avro Vulcan, both designed by Roy Chadwick. As Members will know, only 12 years separated the first flights of those two aircraft.
More generally, the hon. Member for Cheadle mentioned some points about employment. Defence Analytical Services and Advice, known in the trade as DASA, estimates UK regional direct employment in the north-west dependent on Ministry of Defence spending to be about 14,000. I suspect that he is right and that it is an underestimate. Virtually all the 12,000 jobs at BAE in Warton are aerospace-related, so I imagine that taking the supply chain into account, there are substantially more than 14,000.
Indeed, I understand that 19,000 people are directly employed in the region. The local industry represents the largest single concentration of aerospace employment and production in the UK and has long been recognised as a global centre of excellence. Aerospace accounts for 89 per cent. of all local high-tech jobs in the north-west sub-region and as the hon. Member for Cheadle said, it contributes no less than £7 billion a year to the local economy. We should not forget Rolls-Royce at Barnoldswick. Rolls-Royce, the world's premier aero-engine company, is at the leading edge of technology and contributes to that important industry in Lancashire.
More than 800 aerospace companies are represented by the North West Aerospace Alliance, the flagship organisation representing companies and others involved in the north-west aerospace cluster. It is one of eight such alliances around the country. As the hon. Member for South Ribble said, my constituency includes Farnborough, where the Farnborough Aerospace Consortium is based. I met the consortium the other day, and we discussed how successful such alliances are proving in promoting some of the most highly skilled technology jobs in the United Kingdom. That is where I hope a large part of our future prosperity will lie now that the bubble of the financial services business has well and truly burst.
[Mr. Robert Key in the Chair]
I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Key. If you will forgive a little aside, I note that you are a keen follower of defence matters. I thank you for all that you have done to promote defence during your time in the House of Commons. It has been appreciated by us all. You have been a stalwart and sometimes outspoken proponent of the defence industry.
The hon. Member for Cheadle mentioned Rivet Joint, which is a technical issue and a classified area of defence activity. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am extremely concerned about the implications of the Government's moving down the route of the Rivet Joint proposal. I understand the concept of taking three existing United States aeroplanes-old though they are-rather than developing the Nimrod, which has been one of the least successful programmes in the BAE stable. My view on that is well known. It has been a terrible chapter of mismanagement over a long period.
The Rivet Joint position is worse than the hon. Member for Cheadle suggests. He asked who gets first call on the intelligence. As the Minister knows, we provide intelligence; we are contributors and exchangers, not takers of US intelligence, because we have something to contribute. Under his proposals, not only will there be a three-year capability gap when we will have no such ability to obtain intelligence for ourselves, but, even more critically, we will have nothing to contribute. That will result in the United States once again being the only supplier and will put us in the position of supplicant. That is a serious matter. For obvious reasons, I do not encourage the Minister to address the fundamentals underlying it, but he must own up and say why the capability gap will exist in such a vital area, where we and the United States enjoy a special relationship in the exchange of intelligence.
I shall conclude my remarks fairly soon, but I make no apology for returning to some of the more partisan points made by the hon. Member for South Ribble. He raised issues that he wants to promote around his constituency during the general election campaign. I understand why Labour and its trade union paymasters want to misrepresent Conservative policy. It is rather sad given the common ground that the hon. Gentleman and I have shared on these issues in the past, but it is predictable.
The headline in the leaflet-"Vote Conservative and destroy the defence industry"-is absolutely outrageous. The hon. Gentleman owes an apology not only to the Conservative party, but to his constituents, whom he seems determined to frighten the life out of. The leaflet states:
"How much of this would be stopped if the Tories had their way?"
As I tried to point out to him, we have made it clear that we will have a defence review. There is no difference between my party and his on that issue. If one programme after another is exempted from the review, there is no point in having a review.
Mark Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howarth: No, because I anticipate that the hon. Gentleman wants to ask why we have excluded Trident. We have excluded it for the very good reason that we believe that decisions have to be taken, unlike his party, which thinks that a Trident successor can be magicked up in a few seconds. It cannot be; it is a long-term programme and a strategic issue. We have made up our minds, as indeed have the Government.
To be fair, the hon. Member for South Ribble pointed out that the Labour and Conservative parties share common ground on the need to replace the independent Trident nuclear deterrent. To exclude other programmes
would be to undermine the whole purpose of the strategic defence review. There has not been such a review since 1998. When I first broached the idea, I thought that senior military commanders would object and say that it would mean more cuts. However, they said that we need a defence review because there is a new world order that requires us to step back and look at the big picture. We need to consider what threats we face, and, therefore, what force structures we require and what equipment we require to support them.
As you were not here earlier, Mr. Key, perhaps I can repeat what the Secretary of State said in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring as recently as 8 March:
"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. But unless the review takes us in a very radical new direction, aircraft carriers are likely to remain critical elements of our force structure."-[Official Report, 8 March 2010; Vol. 507, c. 20W.]
That is Labour's position. The Conservative position was stated on 1 March:
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |