Surface Fleet (Hansard, 3 November 2003)

§ 7. Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)
If he will make a statement on the future of the surface fleet. [135549]

§ The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram)
The Royal Navy surface fleet of the future will continue to make an effective contribution towards the United Kingdom's defence mission. We continue to modernise our armed forces in response to the changing strategic environment. The Royal Navy is receiving significant investment to enhance capabilities.

§ Mr. Heath
Part of that significant investment is the two carriers that form a key part not only of the fleet's future, but of the Government's expeditionary strategy, yet we are told that they are under threat. Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to make it absolutely clear that budgetary insufficiencies will not reduce the role, effectiveness or specifications of either, or both, of the new carriers?

§ Mr. Ingram
I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets the idea that the carriers are under threat. We have begun the third stage of the assessment phase, which is excellent news for the Royal Navy and for the USK shipbuilding industry. The programme remains on course, and the maturity of design and the capability that the carriers will deliver form part of the overall evaluation. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman awaits the next phase, reads what we have said about the current one and sees how matters develop. In terms of the naval programme, a little mature thinking on his part and that of his party would not go amiss.

§ David Cairns (Greenock and Inverclyde)
I welcome that answer from my right hon. Friend. The news that this very important contract is going ahead will go a long way towards allaying some of the fears of my constituents who work in shipbuilding on the Clyde. Does he agree that through this contract and the Type 45 orders, this Government have not only established the best possible defence for the country, but given British shipbuilding, which has suffered for many years, the best possible news?

§ Mr. Ingram
My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. In the next decade or so, the Royal Navy will take delivery of two new aircraft carriers and associated aircraft, several new assault ships, a new class of fleet submarines within the Astute class, highly deployable Type 45 destroyers, new survey ships and much 524 improved support shipping and strategic lift capability. That is good news for the Royal Navy and the other armed forces, and for our shipbuilding industry.

§ Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West)
Does the Minister agree that the fact that we go on renewing and replacing our surface fleet should not be news? Can he give us an indication of the costs of the carrier programme, and can he say whether the Anglo-French carriers were built to take French planes as well as British planes when in operation?

§ Mr. Ingram
I pointed out in my earlier answer that the design relative to the capability that is required in the programme evolves, and I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would be only too well aware of that. As to the relationship with the French, if we can deliver a design in which France is also interested, we can join with them to ensure that their capabilities improve to the same extent—and strength—as ours.

§ Rachel Squire (Dunfermline, West)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government have delivered the largest warship-building programme for more than 30 years? Does he also agree that the Rosyth dockyard has delivered, to high standards on cost and on time, the refit and repair of our current surface fleet, and that maintaining such skills is a vital asset to this country? Will he do his utmost to ensure, particularly with respect to the future aircraft carrier, that there is no delay to the commencement of the work that is vital to Rosyth's future?

§ Mr. Ingram
I agree with my hon. Friend about the role of Rosyth, which has provided tremendous service to this country's armed forces, particularly the Royal Navy, over many years. I am sure that that will continue in the years ahead. I understand the concerns about the need to remain on programme in respect of the development of the carriers. All the partners involved in the design, structure and build programme will be all too well aware of the way in which the process works. I cannot give the absolute guarantee that my hon. Friend requests, but I pay tribute to the Rosyth dockyard for all the work that it has done in the past.

§ Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East)
Is it not a fact that the size of the new aircraft carriers is going to be reduced by between a third and a half; that the number of Type 45 destroyers is going to be reduced on the planned programme; that the number of Astute submarines will be reduced; and that in future the number of Royal Fleet Auxiliary replacement vessels that are supposed to support the carriers will also be reduced? Is it not a fact that the Secretary of State told the Royal United Services Institute in June that the number of units and platforms that the armed forces had was no longer significant? That sort of spin might he acceptable in political campaigning, but it is surely unacceptable in military campaigning where our servicemen's lives are on the line.

§ Mr. Ingram
Nice rhetoric, but rather removed from the truth. What my right hon. Friend said in his speech earlier this year was absolutely accurate. It is all about capability and effect. That is where we seek to deliver, 525 and we define those concepts on the basis of the best military advice. Ministers do not deliver it in the way implied by the hon. Gentleman: we have to examine the size of the programme, look where the capability lies and then match the two. No Government operate any differently from that—and previous Conservative Governments, of course, operated in exactly the same way. We have to define capability in the light of the new emerging threats. We debated all that only a few days ago, and the sort of questions that the hon. Gentleman has just asked were all dealt with then.