Type 45 Destroyer

HC Deb 10 July 2001 vol 371 cc675-85 4.18 pm

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the procurement strategy for the type 45 destroyer.

It is almost a year to the day since I announced to the House the decision to procure the first batch of three type 45 destroyers, as part of a planned class of up to 12 ships. The type 45s will be the largest and most powerful air defence destroyers ever ordered for the Royal Navy.

Since that announcement, we have made good progress. The contract to complete the design and build of the first three ships was placed with BAE Systems on 20 December last year. Design work is also progressing well. An integrated design team—whose members come from the prime contractor, BAE Systems, and the two shipbuilding companies BAE Systems Marine and Vosper Thornycroft—has been established at Scotstoun for the last six months. In addition, a number of key subcontracts, such as those for the Rolls-Royce WR21 engine and much of the combat system, have now been placed. There have been a number of successful test firings of the Aster missile, the ship's main armament, which is being developed with France and Italy.

However, progress towards the shipbuilding subcontracts has been more difficult. The procurement strategy for the type 45 was based on the allocation of shipbuilding work for the first three ships between the BAE Systems Marine yards at Barrow-in-Furness and on the Clyde, and Vosper Thornycroft. Thereafter, it was assumed that both companies would compete for the assembly of batches of the succeeding ships.

At the end of last year, however, BAE Systems Marine put forward an unsolicited proposal for the construction of all 12 of the type 45 destroyers. We have been examining this proposal carefully to establish whether it offered better value for money for the taxpayer. We have also called on the services of RAND—a highly respected independent consultancy, experienced in this type of issue—to take a fresh look at possible procurement strategies for this programme in the context of the future warship programme as a whole.

For the original procurement strategy to work, the shipbuilding companies need to work closely together during the development and manufacture of the first batch of ships already on order. Such co-operation has not been encouraged by the existence of the unsolicited proposal, nor by the prospect that the companies would have to compete against each other for the second batch of ships.

We have been keen to resolve these problems, as has industry. Working with the companies, we have developed a revised strategy, which allocates work on the ships between the two shipbuilders for the whole class of type 45 destroyers. The first-of-class ship will be assembled and launched at Scotstoun. The focus of design support to the whole class will remain there, with continuing participation by both shipbuilders. The remaining ships will be assembled and launched at Barrow-in-Furness.

Vosper Thornycroft at Portsmouth, and BAE Systems Marine—on the Clyde and at Barrow-in-Furness—will both build and outfit substantial sections of each ship. The yards will continue to build the same sections throughout the programme, to increase efficiency and produce better value for money for the taxpayer.

Under the strategy, a commitment has now been made to six ships in a planned class of up to 12 ships. That commitment has therefore doubled the number on order. This larger volume of guaranteed work, and a stable foundation to the project, will allow industry to make long-term investment decisions.

Subject to negotiations being completed satisfactorily, I propose to adopt this revised approach, through which we are confident that we can secure demonstrable value for money. We are seeking demanding efficiency improvements from industry. The initial findings of the RAND study support this new approach. It reflects the best features of the BAE Systems Marine bid in terms of learning from experience from one ship to the next, but it also preserves the possibility of competition for a number of subsequent defence programmes. The new strategy gives a welcome level of stability to our warship building industry. Above all, it offers the best prospect of achieving the in-service date for the type 45 destroyer, with deliveries to the Royal Navy starting in 2007. Any significant delay in that date would have significant operational and cost penalties.

The new approach gives Vosper Thornycroft a defined and significant role in the type 45 programme. The company will be able to move its operation, as planned, into the Portsmouth naval base, and to invest in new shipbuilding facilities there. The new approach also provides a solid foundation from which the company can sustain its export business and enter competitions for future naval programmes. The company estimates that the substantial level of high-quality type 45 work should sustain a steady level of some 650 jobs well into the current decade.

Type 45 work, together with the first three Astute class submarines and the order for two alternative landing ships (logistic) announced last year, should support BAE Systems Marine shipbuilding for the rest of the decade. The company's own estimates show that, once the total construction programme is up and running, work on type 45 vessels can sustain a steady level of some 1,200 jobs on the Clyde and about a further 900 jobs at Barrow-in-Furness. I understand that, in the light of this package of work, the company has no plans to close any of its yards.

This revised procurement strategy for the type 45 destroyer is a further example of the benefits of smart acquisition, which involves an integrated team approach by the key industrial partners. The companies involved have welcomed this new strategy, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green)

I start by thanking the Secretary of State for his courtesy in allowing me to see a copy of the statement.

I unequivocally welcome today's announcement. Whatever else I have to say about it, the Royal Navy has been waiting a great deal of time—through two Governments—for these ships. I hope that the Government will also be able to guarantee that the in-service dates will be met and that they will stay strict and firm on the penalties they have proposed and will not allow the dates to slip any further.

I congratulate Vosper Thornycroft and BAE Systems on finally receiving an order and wish them well as they set about building those important ships. On that note, however, will the Secretary of State clarify Vosper's role? Will he confirm that it will continue to be fully involved in all stages of design? The company would be grateful to know that, as would Conservative Members.

Despite all the words about competition and smart procurement, nothing in the statement can disguise the fact that the announcement marks the end of competition policy in warship design and build as we have known it in the past few years. From what I have heard and read, it appears that there has been a U-turn on existing Government policy and the Secretary of State needs to confirm that and explain the reasons.

It is important to cast the matter in context. The chief executive of the Defence Procurement Agency, Sir Robert Wormsley, said: if we do not compete the follow-on production order there will be very little incentive for shipyards to improve their performance". I agree, and the Prime Minister went on to say: competition remains the basis for our approach to procuring warships". The Secretary of State needs to explain carefully, therefore, why he has broken with that position and that pledge. How can the Government realistically expect competition for the final two batches when only BAE will assemble and launch all six of the ships as ordered? Surely the right hon. Gentleman should admit today that the arrangements will continue into the next two batches as well, regardless of cost, and that there is no real chance of any future competition.

It is important also to remember that competition is not only about pitting one company against another but about deriving savings, not only for the Treasury but in this case for the Navy. For example, in the type 23 order, I understand that about 36 per cent. savings were made over the lifetime of the build programme. Will the right hon. Gentleman be able to indicate what savings he expects over the lifetime of this programme if he is not going to compete it?

I also understand that Vosper Thornycroft is asking much the same question and wants the Secretary of State to clarify that the decision to move away from competition relates to the type 45 programme alone and is not a statement of the Government's intent to leave competition altogether. If the right hon. Gentleman fails to give us that reassurance, we can assume that the Government intend to move away completely from the procurement system that has operated until now.

On the systems to be installed on the ships, what was most remarkable about the statement was that the Secretary of State gave little or no detail about how the ships will be fitted out for their real role. Will he confirm today that the type 45 as now planned and contracted for will in essence have little or no anti-submarine capability, particularly when the Lynx helicopter is not operational, as I understand that the ship will carry no torpedoes?

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the type 45 was originally due to carry the new Merlin helicopter, but that since the Government are not including a platform for the Merlin it will only be able to carry the Lynx, which will not have anything like the capability by 2007 that the Merlin would have had in the anti-submarine role?

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm also that he is not providing any close-in-range weapons system, such as Phallanx, and finally, that the type 45 will have no real anti-surface capability and no land-attack capability?

The Secretary of State said in his statement that the type 45s would be the largest and most powerful air defence destroyers ever ordered for the Royal Navy. The real point is that they were intended for far more—they were meant to be ships that were capable not only of defending themselves but of defending other ships in a fleet operation. However, now it appears that unless those concerns are met the ships will have to put to sea defended by other ships.

Although I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement that the ships will be ordered, too many questions have been left unanswered and too many concerns about future programmes remain to permit us to give an unequivocal welcome across the board.

Mr. Hoon

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening observations. I shall do my best to deal with the important issues that he raises.

As I said in my statement, design co-operation has gone extremely well. I see no reason why that co-operation should not continue with the same success—with both companies fully represented in the design team and with people working successfully together.

It is not right to say that we have ended competition policy, but neither is it right to suggest that competition was the only means whereby successive Governments delivered vital defence equipment. The purpose of our approach is to ensure the best value for taxpayers' money. Competition may be one way of delivering best value, but it is not the only way. In any event, the decision will allow Vosper's and BAE Systems Marine to plan their forward investment programme and to develop appropriate facilities to ensure that both shipyards can compete not only for future Royal Navy orders but for orders from around the world. The key point for our shipbuilding industry is that our shipbuilding companies should be given a platform from which they can properly invest and that—crucially for them—allows them to compete for the many orders that exist throughout the world.

The point about savings is that by allowing each company to build the same sections of each ship, on a progressive learning curve, not only will they build in the ensuing efficiency benefits but they will enable us to make savings as the work progresses. That was a major factor in deciding on our approach.

I think that the hon. Gentleman rather misses the point about equipment for the type 45. At this stage, it is not necessarily the case that we shall design in all the equipment required by those ships. Indeed, one of the problems in the procurement of warships in the past was that the ships were so heavily over-designed that as their role changed to meet new realities, there was not enough flexibility to allow the incorporation of new ideas, new thinking and, crucially, new equipment. That is why we have not yet taken all the decisions about equipment and, more important, why there will be flexibility on the ships in order to be able to adjust to the changing strategic reality.

John Robertson (Glasgow, Anniesland)

I thank my right hon. Friend for the announcement. I am pleased that yet again the Clyde has been given the opportunity to show that it can meet this country's present requirements and its future needs.

Will my right hon. Friend tell us what has happened to the ALSL orders that were supposed to have come on line in June? What will happen to the present work force? How can they be kept in employment during the coming months? It is my understanding that the diagrams and so on for the ALSLs are not due to be received until next year so obviously there is a shortfall of work, especially at the Scotstoun yard in my constituency. At present, members of its work force are having to go down south.

Will my right hon. Friend shed some light on what BAE Systems is saying? I and several colleagues have had great difficulty in getting any information from the company about what it has been doing. Will my right hon. Friend intercede on our behalf to find out exactly what BAE Systems plans to do? As a trade union official said to me, the silence coming from the company is deafening.

Mr. Hoon

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his general welcome for the proposals. I shall deal as best I can with his concerns, especially those relating to the plans of BAE Systems, although I must point out to him and to the House that commercial judgments as to the organisation of particular companies are obviously matters for those companies.

The proposal allows planning to take place over 10 years, to give a guaranteed level of work to BAE Systems and Vosper's. Both companies have welcomed that; it will allow them to go into the market and to compete successfully, I hope, for orders not only from the Royal Navy but from around the world. Notwithstanding that this is a very exciting programme of warship orders, it amounts to about 30 ships—a fraction of the total number of ships procured around the world each year—but it will provide both companies with some stability.

As for the ALSLs, I gave no undertakings about the start of work on those ships. Last year, I said when the work could begin, and that statement was based on the best information then available from the two companies. I share my hon. Friend's disappointment that work has not yet started, but we continue to hope that the two companies involved will reconcile their different approaches to design and build, and that they can eliminate the difficulties that have developed and can proceed to cut steel in due course.

Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford)

I, too, thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in supplying me with details of his statement in advance. I warmly welcome the news that the Royal Navy will get six new warships—it certainly needs them. I congratulate him on embarking on this new concept in warship building. The concept has been tried in other parts of the world—most notably, in the United States—with some success, and we certainly welcome the approach.

The Secretary of State mentioned the RAND recommendations; will he place at least a summary of them in the Library, so that we can know some of the conclusions? Does he agree that the viability of the British shipyards depends not only on their being able to compete now, but on their retaining the capability to compete in the future? Will he therefore be a bit more specific about the breakdown in the overall order to the individual companies and yards involved? That would certainly help the House to assess the order more fully. Is there enough work, for example, in Scotstoun on the Clyde to ensure that the 1,000 or so job losses suggested in the press today do not happen?

The Secretary of State mentioned equipment, and I certainly agree that we need flexibility in our warship design. Will he therefore confirm whether the Sylver launcher, which will be fitted to the type 45s, will be capable of carrying a land-attack missile, such as Tomahawk, in addition to Aster? The vessels would be much more potent if they had that capability. Does he agree that the lessons of the type 82 programme, cancelled in the 1960s after CVA01 was cancelled, show that warship programmes are interdependent? Is it not the case that the order for the final 12 of those ships is dependent on the overall concept of retaining the two carriers, which lies at the heart of the Government's expeditionary proposals?

Mr. Hoon

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. I shall try to deal with as many of the points he raises as I can. If I omit to answer any of his questions, I will certainly write to him.

As for the report, I said that we have now had the early, emerging findings from the study. A good deal of further work is still to be done, but I see no reason why we could not place a copy of the report in the Library, subject only to one exception: obviously, RAND has had available on a confidential basis some commercially sensitive details that I would not consider it appropriate to publish. With that exception, I shall seek to publish the study when it is finally completed.

As for the breakdown between the companies, essentially, each company will be guaranteed a share of the sections. The hon. Gentleman will probably be aware that these days most ships of this size are constructed in sections—whether in a single yard or in a number of yards—and the basis of the allocation is to guarantee Vosper's work on particular sections of the type 45 design and for the Clyde to have the remainder, with the assembly taking place at Barrow-in-Furness, with the exception of the first of class.

As for land-attack missiles, in answer to an earlier question I referred to the importance of preserving some flexibility. Vertically launched missiles could be launched from such platforms if that were judged at the time to be a relevant capability. That is precisely the kind of flexibility necessary to leave in place on those ships without trying to over-design their capabilities at this stage, as we are not entirely clear what the strategic landscape will be when they are in service.

Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Kelvin)

Although the shipyard gate of Scotstoun is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson), the rest of the yard is in mine. I therefore join his welcome for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement, which will guarantee a very healthy future in the medium and long term for shipbuilding on the Clyde. That is as it should be. First of class, world-class Clyde-built is still recognised as an important brand around the world.

Although only one fifth of the Scottish National party's Members are here to stand up for Scotland, the statement further demonstrates the value to the Scottish economy of our being within the United Kingdom. If we were not, we would have no Royal Navy, and no orders would be being placed this afternoon.

The one thing that is stopping tin hats being thrown in the air and the Secretary of State's name being chanted joyously on the Clyde is the fact that, as I understand it, the work force are being informed that this Friday, 1,000 people, rather than breaking up for the Glasgow fair as they had hoped, will be on the slippery slope towards redundancy, through no fault of their own. The ALSL drawings should have been there and the work should have been started. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State promised the House last year that the work would be started in the middle of this year.

Will my right hon. Friend reconsider the four oilers proposal? I accept that he has no particular budget for it this year, but the company tells us that it would be cost-neutral for the Ministry. If it builds them now, it can pay for them later at no extra cost.

Will my right hon. Friend also assure the House that he will work closely with the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Executive to try to ensure that the skills base on the Clyde is not scattered by the announcement of 1,000 redundancies and that, in particular, the jobs of the apprentices are saved? Without apprentices, we will have no shipbuilding industry in the future.

Mr. Hoon

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the measured welcome that he has given to the proposals. Like him, I am delighted that they will secure the future of shipbuilding on the Clyde for the next 10 years. As I said in response to an earlier question, the key to the future of that yard does not lie with orders from the Ministry of Defence. Notwithstanding an order book of some 30 warships, we simply do not have enough work to keep all Britain's shipyards going over a long period.

It is crucial that shipyards can compete effectively for the hundreds, if not thousands, of orders that are placed every year around the world. What the Ministry of Defence and the Government can do is ensure that Britain's shipyards have an appropriate platform and a programme of stability. My hon. Friend has worked assiduously on behalf of his constituents to ensure that they have a future in shipbuilding, and in the conversations that I have had with him over several months, we have recognised the importance of securing the platform and programme of stability that will allow the yard in his constituency and other yards in the United Kingdom to win work from Europe and the rest of the world. I am confident that the arrangement that I have announced will allow that to happen.

On ALSLs, I gave the House the expectation, not a guarantee, that work could begin at about this time of the year. I am sorry that negotiations between the two companies have not allowed that to happen, but we continue to urge them to commence the cutting of steel as soon as possible.

David Burnside (South Antrim)

I, too, thank the Secretary of State for today's statement, and I congratulate one part of the great shipbuilding world—the Clyde—on the securing of jobs for the whole of the United Kingdom.

Will the Secretary of State outline what co-operation and collaboration will take place with the two great parts of the defence industry in Belfast—Harland and Wolff and Shorts—that might lead to joint ventures in relation to these orders or the two future aircraft carrier orders that he might foresee?

Mr. Hoon

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome of the statement. As part of the overall defence programme, there will certainly be opportunities for both companies in Northern Ireland to participate in the very considerable order book that is available. I cannot give him specific details at this stage, but I am confident that work is there for Northern Ireland. It is a question that we have addressed in the past. This occasion, however, is not a matter for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mohammad Sarwar (Glasgow, Govan)

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and warmly welcome the fresh work for Govan shipyard. I am pleased that the Government have awarded the lion's share of the new type 45 orders to the Clyde. It shows that they have confidence in the skilled work force at Govan and Scotstoun. Although the orders secure future shipbuilding on the Clyde, I am disappointed that the current gap in orders could not be filled. Workers in Govan and Scotstoun shipyards have suffered a great deal in the past two years and the threat of redundancy still hangs over their heads.

I understand that the Secretary of State did not guarantee that ALSL work would start in Govan and Scotstoun shipyards in the summer, but that the Ministry of Defence had thought that it would. The delay means that the work force in Govan shipyard and other people in my constituency will suffer. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to put pressure on Swan Hunter to expedite the work so that the number of redundancies in the shipyard is reduced?

Mr. Hoon

I have already made it clear that that is the Government's intention.

Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch)

Will the Secretary of State confirm that Vosper Thornycroft thinks that the arrangement is much better than the original procurement agreement? In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), he said that there would be co-operation on the design. Can he guarantee that Vosper Thornycroft will be involved in all design stages? Does he think that the Government will find themselves trying to get better value from best value, which is what happens in local government?

Mr. Hoon

I shall stick to my responsibilities for Defence, and not stray into local government matters. Although I have not had an opportunity to read Vosper Thornycroft's statement in detail, I am aware that it welcomes the decision. Obviously, it has been negotiating hard on an entirely commercial basis with BAE Systems on the allocation of work. If we did not take commercial decisions, the hon. Gentleman would be the first to criticise. Vosper's has been heavily engaged in design work and I see no reason why that should not continue. However, that will ultimately be a matter for Vosper's. The Government will make no decision either to prevent that or to require the company to participate if it judges it inappropriate. The co-operation of the two companies on the design work has been remarkably successful and I have every expectation that it will continue.

Mr. James Wray (Glasgow, Baillieston)

We welcome the contract for the type 45 destroyer. I am glad that the Secretary of State took that decision, because the shipbuilding industry cannot he left on a tightrope. He has given us time to get the investment necessary for a long-term strategy. I do not speak as a parochialist; unemployment on the shores of the Thames is the same as unemployment on the shores of the Clyde. I thank him for the investment and hope that many more contracts will come our way.

Mr. Hoon

Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend, especially for his appreciation of the opportunities that the announcement affords the Clyde, and of the need for it to respond to challenges from around the world. The platform for stability that we are providing will allow our shipyards to compete effectively with overseas shipyards to win more work for the United Kingdom.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood)

The Secretary of State has confirmed that the first of class is unlikely to be in service with the fleet until 2007. How does he intend to maintain an effective area air defence capability for the Royal Navy in the interim? Was not the modernisation of Sea Dart cancelled because the new vessel was envisaged as being in service much earlier? Will the Secretary of State initiate a programme of Sea Dart enhancement for the type 42s? Why did he give no figures in his statement? Are not the Government supposed to believe in open government? Is the taxpayer not entitled to know what the overall cost of the programme is, and at least, what the unit cost per vessel will be?

Mr. Hoon

If the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied with any of the answers that I am about to give, I will write to him with any greater detail that is allowed in accordance with commercial confidentiality.

The programme of warship building and significant investment in Britain's armed forces was made necessary by years of cuts under the Conservative Government. If there is any gap in area defence, it is entirely the responsibility of the hon. Gentleman and the Government whom he generally supported to try to explain why, over a long period, the defence budget, instead of being increased as it is now, was cut year after year.

Angus Robertson (Moray)

On behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, the party of Wales, may I welcome the references in the statement to the 1,200 jobs that have been secured on the Clyde? How many jobs does the Secretary of State expect to be lost in the short term? Will he guarantee that there will be no compulsory redundancies on the Clyde?

Mr. Hoon

Obviously, jobs are a matter for the companies concerned. This announcement will not cost any jobs, and my responsibility on behalf of the Government is to make the announcement. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's welcome for the Government's defence plans. I hope that it indicates that from now on, instead of running down Britain's defence, the Scottish nationalists will support the Government's efforts.

Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South)

On this occasion, I speak for both Portsmouth MPs when I say that we welcome the proposal, as do the majority of people in Portsmouth.

The Secretary of State talked about flexibility in the defence of the ships and the platforms themselves. Will the Government consider whether, at this late stage in the design, Merlin is still a capability that ought to be put on the type 45? If the ship is to be with us for 20 years from 2007, the use of Merlin will be critical.

If the Secretary of State believes that the future of shipbuilding in this country will be heavily dependent on what we can achieve in bringing contracts from abroad, will he open the doors of Portsmouth naval base as wide as possible to enable and encourage Vosper's to bring contracts to the city and begin shipbuilding there for the first time in 30 years?

Does the Secretary of State agree that the predatory unsolicited bid by BAE Systems, and the way in which it was made, were in no way in keeping with the substantial retention of British shipbuilding that he was trying to achieve, or in the best interests of the defence of this country?

Mr. Hoon

Both Portsmouth MPs worked assiduously on behalf of their constituents and the naval dockyard. As I said, the announcement will give Vosper's the opportunity to move into the naval dockyard and derive significant commercial and practical advantages from being there. I do not think that it is necessary for us to go over that ground. This is a positive announcement for Vosper's, and I understand that the people of Portsmouth will welcome it. It is an opportunity for Vosper's to participate in a competitive shipbuilding programme in the future.

Mr. David Chidgey (Eastleigh)

I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement, particularly for the many of my constituents who work in the Vosper Thornycroft yard. He said that with this programme, Vosper's could now look forward to retaining 650 jobs. I remind him that in the year since he made his earlier announcement, the company's work force has gone down from 1,000 to 650, so this is very much a bottom line for it.

Precisely what proportion of the work on the six type 45 destroyers will be awarded to Vosper's? I am interested to know exactly what sort of player it is. Looking to the future, does the Secretary of State believe that, on completion of the first six vessels in that class, Vosper Thornycroft will be equally well placed to compete for the following six, or will it be brushed away into a corner? May I remind him that Vosper Thornycroft has the best record of any shipbuilding company in this country in winning export orders?

Mr. Hoon

As I said, job numbers are a matter for the companies concerned, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not lose sight of a crucial aspect of the discussion. Only if our shipbuilding companies are capable of competing with the best in Europe and the world will they be able to attract new work to their yards. They will have to make a commercial judgment and decide the best level of employment to maintain a competitive position. It is no good the 30 warship orders available from the Ministry of Defence being spread lightly around Britain's shipyards, if those companies and those shipyards are not capable of competing for and winning orders beyond the United Kingdom. There is a commercial reality in what we are doing that cannot be ignored.

I shall set out the precise breakdown in greater detail in due course, and shall write to the hon. Gentleman so that he can be satisfied with the arrangements—but Vosper Thornycroft is satisfied with the arrangements, and as it negotiated vigorously on a commercial basis, it is not for right hon. and hon. Members to second-guess its commercial judgment of what is in its best interests.

Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon)

Appledore shipbuilders in my constituency competed for what it thought were MOD orders for two ALSLs. As it turned out, four were ordered, but no work has started on any of them. It would give the shipbuilding industry greater confidence if there was more transparency in those MOD orders. Will the Secretary of State confirm that once MOD orders are signed and contracts exchanged, full details of the orders will be put in the public domain?

Mr. Hoon

I have already made clear my determination that the process should be transparent. I am at the Dispatch Box giving details of the arrangements, to allow right hon. and hon. Members the opportunity to question those matters. As for details, subject to questions of commercial confidentiality, I see no reason why the hon. Gentleman cannot use the usual means of asking parliamentary questions or writing to me or to my ministerial colleagues to establish all the information that he requires.