§ 1. Mr. Gordon Prentice (Pendle)What his policy is on the decommissioning of warships and submarines that were built less than 20 years ago. [122639]
§ The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar)The life of each vessel is planned carefully at the design and procurement stage, but requirements change over the course of a ship's life and we must maintain an affordable front-line capability to meet the current and predicted strategic requirements.
§ Mr. PrenticeJane's Fighting Ships is not my usual reading, but I found it worrying that the editor of that august manual fired a broadside at the Government, saying that we were flogging off at a knock-down price ships that were perfectly serviceable and were commissioned only 12 or 13 years ago. More worryingly—I cannot believe that this is true—he said that, in the lifetime of the Government, 2 we have failed to order a single warship for construction. I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about that.
§ Mr. SpellarDuring the strategic defence review, it was clear that the requirement for major surface vessels had altered. As a result, six older and, more importantly, less capable vessels were to be replaced by three type 23 frigates. One of the reasons for the delay is that, under the previous Administration—as we and others pointed out at considerable length—the Horizon project was in considerable difficulty. We had to terminate that project and move to the capable type 45, for which we have already awarded the design contract and look forward to awarding the manufacturing contract later this year.
§ Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green)In 1997, the previous Government left one of the youngest naval fleets that had been available to the Navy since the war; frigates and destroyers at 35 and submarines at 15. Now, we have 27 frigates and destroyers and 10 submarines available to the Navy. The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) referred to the early sell-off of certain ships—"early sell-off" being the key phrase. What new orders for warships have the Government placed since they have been in power?
§ Mr. SpellarIt is interesting that the hon. Gentleman has not responded to the point that I made. I will happily quote from the editorial of Jane's Fighting Ships, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) referred. It stated that the UK
has finally withdrawn from the always ill-conceived air defence destroyer project with France and Italy, and a new national design has a prime contractor ߪ The hidden cost of a decade—I wonder who was in power during that decade—of the wrong sort of collaboration lies in the prolonged delays of introducing a modern capability in this most vital of all warfare disciplines.That is why the projects are delayed and why we are awarding the design contract. That is why, later this year, we will award the first-of-class contract for the type 45 3 and why we have already awarded the design contracts for the two new aircraft carriers which the hon. Gentleman and his Government did not think to order either.
§ Mr. Duncan SmithWe have now had the usual from the Government, which is no answer. I asked a simple question: how many new orders have they placed? As Captain Richard Sharpe, the editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, has said, this represents
the biggest gap since the days of Henry VIII.That is the condemnation of the Government. Given that we are to have fewer ships with less capability—in addition to seamen saying "Bang!" instead of firing real bullets—will the Minister tell us why, at the height of the Kosovo war and with all their cuts planned for the Navy, the Government reduced the budget for the fuel allocation to the fleet by one third?
§ Mr. SpellarThe hon. Gentleman may not have noticed that fuel prices were moving at that time. I am surprised that he describes the fleet as less capable, particularly following the fitting of Tomahawk cruise missiles to all British nuclear-powered fleet submarines, which demonstrated their extreme capability during the Kosovo war. I am surprised also that he describes the type 45 as less capable. The previous Government left us with a considerable mess with a project that had been hanging on and which they refused to terminate. This Government had the courage to terminate that agreement with the hon. Gentleman's European allies. As a result, we have now ordered the type 45. The Conservatives left us with a mess, and it is extraordinary that they come here and pontificate in this way.