Frigates: Building Plans (Hansard, 30 October 1989)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (The Earl of Arran)
My Lords, the Royal Navy's requirement for anti-submarine warfare frigates will be met by the Type 23 frigate of which the first of class will enter service in a few weeks' time. The requirement remains for an anti-air warfare frigate to enter service around the turn of the century to replace the Type 42 destroyer, but following our withdrawal from the NFR 90 project we have not yet reached any firm views on the way ahead.

§ Lord Ironside
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. My concern is for the future as there is likely to be more slippage in frigate ordering and also because the NFR 90 project definition phase has fallen apart. Therefore, can my noble friend say what will happen to Supermarine Consortium Limited which is the UK shareholder in the NFR 90 project definition phase? Is there not a case for keeping the project in being as we now have to look for a RN frigate for the 1990s to replace the Type 42, especially bearing in mind the fact that the Government are now looking at whole ship procurement and are placing much greater reliance upon industry to provide the solutions?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, I can tell my noble friend that following the UK's decision to withdraw from the NFR 90 project the company has been advised of the termination of its appointment as the UK nominee in the international joint venture. It will now be for Supermarine Consortium Limited and the International NFR 90 project office in Hamburg to decide whether SCL should take any further part in the NFR 90 programme.

§ Lord Irving of Dartford
My Lords, can the noble Earl explain why Her Majesty's Government found it necessary to withdraw from the NFR 90 project—a co-operative scheme with seven other nations, including the United States—which was to build the first NATO common warship? Further, will he advise the House as to whether the other participants will continue and whether, in view of the importance of establishing and maintaining collaborative projects within NATO, the Government will reconsider their withdrawal? Will the Minister also assure the House that it is not just a cost-cutting exercise?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, perhaps I may answer just a few of the noble Lord's questions. We made it clear at the outset of project definition that continued participation beyond the first base line review depended upon agreement of a realistic timetable properly aligned with timetables for the ships' major weapon system. Following the base line review, we considered the programme very carefully 3 but decided that insufficient progress had been made towards meeting our concerns. In the interests of good procurement practice, this country decided to withdraw.
I can also advise the noble Lord that both France and Italy have withdrawn from the project and that the expenditure so far has been £4.5 million. But, of course, we can use results from investment in any future work.

§ Lord Mayhew
My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that we were the first to start the withdrawal process? Further, will he say exactly why this was decided? What was wrong with the specification?
Is the noble Earl also aware that before this happened we altered the basic requirement for the European fighter and that before that there was a shambles for which we were responsible over the tank gun? Is he further aware that this decision, following many criticisms of the defence procurement department, further strengthens our reputation abroad as being thoroughly unco-operative and unreliable?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, I am aware that all that the noble Lord says is incorrect. This country's defence policy has never been regarded as a shambles. I cannot say more than I have already said in answer to my noble friend's supplementary question about our reasons for withdrawing from the project.

§ Lord Mottistone
My Lords, while I accept my noble friend's arguments about type, is he happy that there are enough frigates and destroyers? The Government have said that they will have around 50. We now find that that means operationally fewer than 40. Can my noble friend reassure us that the Government are bothered about having enough frigates and destroyers to do the job that they have in hand at any one time?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, my noble friend is not right in one respect. He is correct when he says that the total number has always been around 50. There are currently 47 frigates and destroyers of which 42 are immediately, or shortly will be, operational. The five remaining are up for refit or repair or are undergoing sea trials.

§ Lord Mottistone
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that last week I was told by someone who knew, and who obviously must not be mentioned, that there were 39 operational ships? Is he also aware that the constant harping on what is on paper will not do?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, it is not a question of harping on what is on paper. I am telling your Lordships the current state of play as regards operational ships available at the moment.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, does that in any way damage the principle of twin pillars upon which the Government were at one time considering 4 embarking; that is to say, that all NATO countries would combine their research to develop weapons which could be shared among all NATO countries, as is done with the Warsaw Pact countries?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, as I said originally, the way forward is not totally clear. The point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, as regards a collaborative effort by all NATO countries is very much a possibility.

§ Lord Ironside
My Lords, I understand what my noble friend has said about the Supermarine Consortium, but will he give further consideration to the idea of keeping it in being?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, I hear clearly what my noble friend is saying, but it is up to the Supermarine Consortium to decide for itself the way ahead.

§ Lord Moore of Wolvercote
My Lords, as frigates proved to be so vulnerable to air attack during the Falklands campaign, will the Minister give us an assurance that an adequate carrier force will always be maintained to give effective air cover to the fleet?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, I am sure that that is very much a high priority for the Royal Navy, and that an effective carrier force will always exist and will meet its NATO requirements.

Viscount St. Davids
My Lords, does the figure for frigates and destroyers include those valuable vessels, corvettes, which we seem to be sending all over the world on most important duties and which are in fact smaller and cheaper than those other vessels?

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, I am afraid that I did not quite catch the noble Viscount's question. I can once again reassure him that the figure is 47, of which 42 are currently operational.

Viscount St. Davids
My Lords, I wanted to find out about the figure for corvettes and whether they are included.

§ The Earl of Arran
My Lords, that is probably another Question, but I shall write to the noble Viscount and tell him whether the figure of 47 includes corvettes.