§ 3. Ms Linda Perham (Ilford, North)What progress has been made with plans to procure replacements for the current Invincible class of aircraft carriers. [117881]
§ 11. Mrs. Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton)What progress has been made in the Government's plans to procure replacements for the Invincible class of aircraft carriers. [117889]
§ The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)Competitive contracts, each worth about £30 million, for the future aircraft carrier assessment phase were awarded, on 23 November 1999, to BAE Systems and Thomson-CSF Naval Combat Systems. The assessment phase will investigate options for carrier design and, by 2003, will deliver proposals for the manufacture of the two vessels. The carriers, which will be built in the United Kingdom at a likely cost of some £2 billion, are scheduled to enter service in 2012 and 2015 respectively.
§ Ms PerhamI thank the Secretary of State for that answer and welcome his assurance that the aircraft carriers will be built in the United Kingdom. Does he agree that that is excellent news not only for the shipbuilding industry, but for the Royal Navy, with which I am very proud to be on secondment this year under the armed forces parliamentary scheme? Does he agree that the two design contracts give the lie to Opposition Front Benchers who continue to insist that the carriers will never be built?
§ Mr. HoonI am grateful to my hon. Friend for her observations, and I can certainly confirm that the carriers 679 will be built in the United Kingdom, at a cost currently estimated at £2 billion. That should demonstrate to Opposition Members that the Government have a consistent and determined approach to ensuring that the Royal Navy has the equipment that it requires not only for today, but for the long-term future.
§ Mrs. GilroyI, too, thank my right hon. Friend for that response, which will be very welcome news for my constituents in Plymouth, Sutton. When does he expect the Royal Navy to start considering basing options for the new carriers?
§ Mr. HoonI would be delighted to help my hon. Friend in her determined efforts to secure re-election at the general election, whenever that may come, but, unfortunately, I am not in a position to do that. However, in response to her specific question, as soon as the carriers are built, we shall be in a position to determine where they should be based.
§ Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury)Will the Secretary of State confirm that the aircraft of choice to be the carriers' main armament is the American joint strike fighter, into which millions of pounds of British money have already gone? Would he like to tell the House how the prospects for developing the joint strike fighter for the carrier programme will be affected by the likely privatisation of Boscombe Down as part of DERA?
§ Mr. HoonThe joint strike fighter is certainly a strong candidate for the future airborne carrier system, but the Government will also consider various other options. It is important in this procurement that we consider at the same time both the type of aircraft carrier that the country will require and the nature of the aircraft that will fly from it. Too often, we have considered those two issues separately. That has not been a sensible way of resolving our requirements for aircraft carriers or aircraft.
§ Mr. Menzies Campbell (North-East Fife)Does the Secretary of State agree that if we are to be confident about building the new carriers, we must be satisfied that there will be adequate shipbuilding capacity in the United Kingdom? In view of the unholy mess that has been caused on the Clyde with the roll on/roll off ferries, what confidence can the House and the country have that there will still be adequate shipbuilding capacity to allow us to build the carriers, which are fundamental to the expeditionary strategy embraced in the strategic defence review?
§ Mr. HoonA number of yards throughout the country have the potential to participate in the construction of the carriers, although which yard is awarded the eventual contracts will depend in large part on the nature of the final design that is selected. When I first arrived in the House, I was always impressed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's determination to approach issues fairly and reasonably. I regret that he appears to have become a victim of the press release tendency. If he had given a few moments' thought to some of his recent comments on the legal implications of the order in 680 Glasgow and applied his fine legal intellect to the problem, he would not have produced such half-baked material lately.
§ Mr. Frank Field (Birkenhead)I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Does he accept that, while there has recently been an increase of 2.5 million jobs in the economy as a whole, some regions, particularly those dependent on older manufacturing industries, have a huge jobs deficit? Does he agree that it would be in the best long-term interests of taxpayers for the Government, when they think about placing the orders, to pay some attention to reviving the economy in certain areas?
§ Mr. HoonI agree with my right hon. Friend to the extent that, under World Trade Organisation and European Union rules, we can direct where the work on our warship programme should be completed. However, as he will know, for purely commercial contracts, we are not free to direct where work should be undertaken.
§ Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)I appreciate the difficulties of British shipbuilding. It will be some time before the ships are ordered. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that we will have the capacity? Will Harland and Wolff be involved? Has the shipyard responded to possible orders from the Ministry of Defence?
§ Mr. HoonI said earlier that there were a number of shipyards in the United Kingdom capable of constructing the carriers. Harland and Wolff in Belfast is certainly one of them.
§ Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford)The Secretary of State keeps saying that there are a number of shipyards in the country capable of building major naval vessels. How many shipyards are there going to be in this country once he has let all six roll on/roll off ferry contracts to foreign yards? Does he believe that metal bashing is no longer a national asset and simply not care?
§ Mr. HoonBefore the hon. Gentleman bursts a blood vessel, he should bear in mind the fact that in January 1997, the then Conservative Government specified a requirement for two ships in an advertisement in the Official Journal of the European Community, stating that those ships were of a commercial character and would be subject to the European Union rules on public procurement. They also told potential contractors that they would decide the matter according to value for money, having regard to price, quality and delivery. Rather like the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), the hon. Gentleman should check his facts before issuing tendentious press releases.