§ 2. Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside)What progress has been made in the Government's plans to procure replacements for the current Invincible class of aircraft carriers. [109395]
§ 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 to BAe Land and Sea Systems, now 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 demonstration and manufacture of the vessels. The carriers, which will be built in the United Kingdom at a likely cost of £2 billion, are scheduled to enter service in 2012 and 2015.
§ Mr. JonesWill my right hon. Friend explain the strategic thinking behind the decision to build 40,000 and 50,000-tonners, and set out the consequences for naval planning? What are the employment and industrial consequences for our regional shipyards? Will my right hon. Friend explain the timing and say when the decision will be implemented? On a less serious note, will one of those great aircraft carriers take the A400M? We do not want the C-17; we want the A400M heavy lifter.
§ Mr. HoonI recall congratulating my right hon. Friend on his ingenuity on the last occasion we met for Defence questions. He managed then to introduce a relevant constituency element into his question and he has done so again. I am not likely to delay the specification of any aircraft carrier to take the A400M. My right hon. Friend will probably understand that.
Aircraft carriers will be a key component of a future United Kingdom force structure. It was concluded in the strategic defence review that aircraft carriers could contribute greatly to our commitment to creating modern, highly capable joint forces that are able to fulfil our current commitment and adapt to the evolving requirements of the strategic environment. Carriers have a key role in force projection; they contribute to peace support and, when necessary, to military action.
On employment implications, the construction and fitting out of the carriers will offer good opportunities for United Kingdom shipyards. The identification of build yards will form part of industry's bids for the demonstration and manufacture phase. It is clearly too early to speculate about the exact number of jobs that might be created or sustained.
§ Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey)I, too, should like to know what sort of aircraft will be flown from the carriers. If they are to succeed the successful Harrier, with vertical or short take-off and landing—VSTOL—or short take-off and vertical landing—STOVL—capabilities, and perhaps be a variation on the joint strike fighter, surely a long vessel is not required. It might be more economic to refit our existing three aircraft carriers than to build two Goliaths.
§ Mr. HoonI was following the hon. Gentleman's thoughtful contribution until he made his last observation. We have committed ourselves to two new carriers, 1221 which will have more capability than the existing vessels. It would be unfortunate if any Government went back on such an undertaking.
On the nature of the aircraft, some matters have to be carefully investigated when selecting the type of aircraft to fly from such vessels. They have implications for the size and specification of the carriers. Those matters remain under active consideration. No decision has yet been made on those precise matters.
§ Mr. Syd Rapson (Portsmouth, North)As you and I know, Madam Speaker, the people of Portsmouth are interested in the berthing of those two magnificent ships and their future victualling. They must be prepared for in advance and a lot of studies on quays and support facilities are usually carried out. As no research at all has been done in Portsmouth, may I take it that it has been written off as a home port for the two ships?
§ Mr. HoonAbsolutely not. Portsmouth is a vital port for the Royal Navy and will continue to be so, but as my hon. Friend will have heard in my answer to the substantive question, those vessels do not come into service until 2012 and 2015. I assure him and the House that the investigation of berthing facilities at Portsmouth will continue as a matter of urgency in order to meet those two dates.
§ Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford)Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to deny clearly and unambiguously the serious report in Warship World—which he knows is generally a well-informed magazine—to the effect that the Government are considering withdrawing HMS Invincible from service rather than giving it the refit that it will need? Contrary to all their public assurances, they have a covert plan to reduce our carrier fleet to two—long before the new large carriers are even contracted for. I shall give him a copy of the report, and hope that today the House can be told authoritatively exactly what the Government's plans are.
§ Mr. HoonI begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his new post on the Opposition Front Bench. I am sure that he will bring to the defence team a welcome enthusiasm for European matters. I only wish that it were possible to participate in the team meetings when he and his colleagues discuss them.
On the substantive matter, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the House will be the first to hear about any change in the Government's plans and, as no decision has been taken along the lines of the speculation that he described, he probably ought to remain cool, calm and collected, as he usually does.