Royal Navy Ships

Jim Hood Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I commend him for his work in supporting what goes on in Devonport. He is absolutely right that ships can and often do work individually, but they might be required to be part of a larger flotilla or part of a taskforce, which might include defending an aircraft carrier. Clearly, with a limited number of platforms, that would be harder to do, so an increased number of ships would make the job easier.

The types of role that the Type 26s could be engaged in—upstream engagement, stabilisation and humanitarian tasks—are the very things the SDSR is saying that we should be doing more of, to promote Britain’s interests. I believe that such a design might even allow the provision for an Army company strength to be based on board. Essentially, the ship could be a small moving location—a sea-based platform for operations to be conducted on land. In essence, it could act as a safe lily pad from which land and sea-based assets could be safely deployed without the need for any boots to be permanently on the ground. Such a ship would then free the high-end ships for NATO, middle east, south Atlantic and nuclear deterrent duties. Indeed, as my hon. Friend has just said, they would be free to form part of a flotilla to protect our aircraft carriers.

The Minister will be aware that the surface fleet is coping—but only just—with meeting its maritime obligations with 19 destroyers and frigates, when 23 ships is the defence strategic direction mandated standard. We are therefore taking an operational risk, and that is managed, but option 2 would mitigate that risk. I urge the Minister to gain some inspiration by looking at the United States littoral combat ship, or the USS Freedom, a catamaran-style ship. The US is exploring exactly the same more modular-based approach. The MOD wrote a joint concept report colourfully entitled “Future ‘Black Swan’ Class Sloop-of-War”, published in May last year, which talks exactly about the concept of a far cheaper ship, with the money invested instead in the systems that go on it.

As we slowly approach the next SDSR, will the Minister look at one further system that I believe would be game changing in the maritime environment? The V-22 Osprey is a US multi-mission military tiltrotor aircraft. It is an example of the large utility helicopters of the future. It already operates on the US Wasp-class carrier and can fly higher, faster and further, and it can of course land on the deck of any frigate or destroyer. It would be able refuel our F-35s. Such a system would have an enormous impact in the maritime environment. I believe that leasing six from the United States, similar to what we did with the C-17s, would make logical sense.

In conclusion, it has been said time and again that, no matter how advanced, ships can only be in one place at a time. We have impressive naval ships, but they remain very specific in their remit and too siloed in harnessing systems from all services—and, of course, there are only 19 of them. Our ships are conducting a number of international duties that they were not built to achieve. Looking ahead, Britain must excel at influencing activities in the littoral environment. I believe that that aim is best served by simpler and cheaper platforms, where the sophistication and investment is focused on the modular systems on board, rather than on the ship. I hope that I speak for both sides of the House in paying tribute to all those who serve in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. I offer my thoughts today in the spirit of ensuring that the House considers how we can best equip the Royal Navy in future in the lead-up to the next SDSR.

Several hon. Members rose—

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. I have four speakers on my list, plus the Front-Bench representatives, whom I intend to call at 10.40 am at the very latest.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

I am grateful to have been given fractionally less than 10 minutes to wind up the debate. As a result, I will unfortunately not be able to address all the points that hon. Members have raised, because to do so would consume my entire time. I will endeavour to write to hon. Members whose questions I do not address in my response.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) on securing the debate. As has been mentioned, he has become an expert not only in land matters but increasingly in maritime affairs. Other hon. Members have already referred to his paper for RUSI, which is a masterclass on how to pursue Ministers for answers to parliamentary questions and turn them into an authoritative document. I am pleased to have been able to contribute in some way to that process.

A number of colleagues have referred to the second aircraft carrier, and I would like to start by pointing out that our surface fleet is in the process of regeneration and renewal. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) indicated, this is an exciting time for the Royal Navy, as we transition from a legacy fleet into a new high-tech, latest-capability fleet. Aircraft carriers will be the next vessels to form part of that fleet. It is not appropriate to indicate at this point what will happen to the second carrier, so I am unable to give an answer to that question. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has indicated in the House, however, a decision is expected to be made as part of the strategic defence and security review in 2015.

It is important to emphasise that we see the carrier strike capability as offering a step change in power projection, giving the UK the ability to project decisive political intent and military will at reach. The carrier has been designed as a multi-role platform in addition to carrier strike. In its littoral manoeuvre role, it will be able to land Royal Marines or special forces, evacuate non-combatants and deliver humanitarian aid, disaster relief or international defence diplomacy and engagement. The programme is on track to deliver an operational capability for carrier strike in 2020.

On the next platform upgrade—the Type 26 global combat ship—I have to be a little cautious in what I say, because the main gate investment decision will not be taken until the end of next year. I have been pressed by colleagues to advance investment decisions before the design is fully mature, but the Government have been clear that that was one of the reasons why we believe the previous Government got into some difficulty in major platform procurements. I was grateful to hear the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View acknowledge for, I believe, the first time in the Chamber that the previous Administration encountered some problems with procurement. I do not intend to place us in a similar situation by pre-announcing decisions before the designs are mature. We are making good progress with the design. Some 70% of the equipment systems have been selected or are being selected by the design authority, BAE Systems, and we have increasing confidence in the maturity of the design. It is being designed with modularity in mind, and I hope to cover that point before I conclude.

I would like to tackle head-on the claim that we heard yet again today about the impact on shipyards in Scotland of a yes vote in the Scottish referendum. Last week, the Scottish Government claimed in their White Paper that they would support the procurement of defence equipment and services in an independent Scotland, as we heard again today, claiming that to do so would protect the future of Scotland’s shipyards. However, the White Paper completely failed to acknowledge that, as part of the UK, companies in Scotland already benefit greatly from the billions of pounds of work that is placed with them to equip and support the UK armed forces. Thousands of people are employed in the defence sector in Scotland. The defence industry offers some of the best high-tech engineering jobs and opportunities in Scotland, and it contributes substantially to local economies across Scotland.

Orders for complex warships such as destroyers and the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, on which some 4,000 people are currently employed in Scottish yards, were won only on the basis that the UK can choose to place or hold competition for such contracts domestically for national security reasons under an exemption from EU law. The UK has not placed an order for a complex warship outside its own borders in modern times. If Scotland were not part of the UK, it would not benefit from that national security exemption. The question of how defence jobs in Scotland would be sustained in an independent Scottish state remains wholly unanswered. The thousands of skilled defence jobs in Scotland are safer and more secure if the country remains part of the UK.

I will try to address the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East, who made a thoughtful speech. He asked about modularity of systems and whether we can construct vessels that are capable of plug and play. A number of weapon systems and command systems that we seek to introduce in our vessels will be portable. Perhaps the most obvious recent example is the Sea Ceptor air defence missile, which we have recently contracted to introduce to the Type 23, with a view to transitioning it to the Type 26. As he mentioned, the system has many features in common with a version that is capable of being launched on land. That is the approach that we are taking to a number of defence assets. We are rationalising our helicopter fleets to allow greater interoperability between services. The Wildcat, which will be capable of being carried on our frigates and destroyers, will also be used by the Army Air Corps. Modularity and interoperability are features of the systems that we seek to introduce.

The flexibility of the Type 26 is provided by the mission bay, which is a much larger hangar space than that of the Type 23. It can carry a payload of 10 20-foot containers, a medical centre or a command and control centre. It can contain four landing craft for rapid response by Royal Marines. The vessel has been designed to have a smaller crew than that of the Type 23, but it can accommodate some 100 Royal Marines or other personnel for protracted engagements, or a much larger number of individuals for a short time, when the vessel performs an evacuation role. It will be the most flexible vessel of its kind and the most modern frigate design available in the world, so we believe that it will have some export potential—a point made by several hon. Members.

In the less than half a minute remaining to me, I will unfortunately not be able to address many of the questions that have been asked, but I would like to deal with numbers and commissioning. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) gave me due notice of his questions. We intend to place an order towards the end of next year, once the design is mature, which we expect to be for eight vessels initially—

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order.

Death In Service Inheritance Tax

Jim Hood Excerpts

Tuesday 17th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood.

The debate relates to death in service inheritance tax and the case of Nigel Lawrence Thomas. The debate goes to the heart of how we treat our servicemen and women who risk their lives on our behalf and who, like Nigel Thomas, pay the ultimate price.

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. May I ask the people at the back of the Chamber to leave without chattering?

[Mr Hanson]

Thank you, Mr Hood.

I have secured the debate to highlight an unfairness in the existing legislation that prevents some members of the armed forces who die in service from being exempt from inheritance tax, despite receiving conditions while on active service from which they later die.

Before I go into the facts of the case, I want to pay tribute to the family of Nigel Lawrence Thomas. His parents are my constituents, and they are still grieving over the loss of their son. They have asked me to ask the Minister to look again at the law on death in service inheritance tax. I am happy to do so, and I hope the Minister will also be happy to do so. I have been particularly humbled by the way in which Mr and Mrs Davies, who are the parents of Mr Thomas, have gone about raising this issue. They accept that it may be too late to see their situation revised, but they want to ensure that such circumstances do not occur in the future for other grieving families.

The facts are simply these. Nigel Lawrence Thomas served in the Royal Air Force from 1980 to 2004. At the time of the first Gulf war, between 1989 and 1992, he was stationed in Cyprus. For this service, he received the Gulf medal. I remind the Chamber that the Gulf medal was awarded to recognise

“service in the Gulf with special regard to the hardships and dangers which have accompanied duty there.”

While on active service in Cyprus, Nigel was exposed to radiation, following an accident. In March 1992, he was diagnosed with chronic myeloid leukaemia. Following the accident, he suffered from that illness for 18 years. Mr Thomas died on 28 March 2010.

A letter given to me by his family from the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency, dated 12 November 2010 and signed by Mrs E. Milligan, states clearly that, according to his death certificate, he died from

“intracranial bleed, which was secondary to thrombocytopenia; which in turn was secondary to the chronic myeloid leukaemia.”

The letter goes on to state that the chronic myeloid leukaemia is

“accepted as attributable to service”.

According to the letter that the family received from the SPVA, therefore, his death was

“due to or hastened by service”.

As a result, the SPVA agreed to meet the funeral expenses following Nigel’s death in March 2010.

Mr Thomas’s family have also provided me with a letter dated 16 July 2010 from Richard Clark, professor of haematology and consultant haematologist at the Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen university hospitals. These letters have previously been supplied to the Minister and the Ministry of Defence. Professor Clark confirms:

“there is clear and incontrovertible evidence that radiation can cause chronic myeloid leukaemia.”

He also goes on to confirm that the chronic myeloid leukaemia was

“undoubtedly what caused his untimely death”.

Those are the facts. Mr Thomas was a long-serving RAF pilot. He was stationed in Cyprus during the first Gulf war. He was supporting our war effort when he was exposed to radiation as the result of an accident. That exposure to radiation led to his untimely death two years ago, after suffering from cancer for 18 years.

Nigel Thomas’s funeral expenses were granted by the Ministry of Defence and the SPVA. On the basis that his death, as described in the letter, was due to service, the family applied for exemption from inheritance tax under section 154 of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984. The section disapplies the relevant inheritance tax provisions for death on active service of those who have

“died from a wound inflicted, accident occurring or disease contracted at a time when the conditions specified…were satisfied.”

Those conditions, specified in subsection 2, are that the disease was contracted

“(a) on active service against an enemy, or b) on other service of a warlike nature or which in the opinion of the Treasury involved the same risks as service of a warlike nature.”

My constituents looked at those provisions and felt that they should apply for the exemption, given that the death of Mr Thomas was, according the letter from the Ministry itself, due to service.

In a letter dated 13 August 2010 from the SPVA, which had granted funeral expenses, the claim for inheritance tax exemption was turned down. It said:

“we do not consider he was operating in a hostile or warlike environment and irrespective of whether your son’s illness can be linked to his military service, his service does not meet one of the key qualifying criteria for an exemption under section 154 of the Inheritance Tax Act as it is apparent that his condition was not sustained by service of a warlike nature.”

As a result of that decision, the family were liable for an inheritance tax bill of £33,011 on Mr Thomas’s estate. Incidentally, that figure includes £9.22 interest payable for late payment—the state certainly knows how to treat those who died in its service. The sticking point appears to be that the SPVA has determined that

“his condition was not sustained by service of a warlike nature.”

In a letter dated 7 February 2011, the Minister—who was elected on the same day as I was 20 years ago last week—reiterated the position set out by the SPVA:

“his service must be of a warlike nature and regrettably this key qualifying criteria for exemption has not been met.”

I wish to challenge that position today.

First, on the claim that the leukaemia from which my constituents’ son died was not sustained by service of a warlike nature, I remind the Chamber of the facts. My constituent served in the RAF for 24 years. At the time of his exposure to radiation, he was supporting operations in the first Gulf war. I argue that that was active service as set out in the 1984 Act. The Gulf war campaign in which my constituents’ son served was issued a campaign medal by the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals to recognise

“service in the Gulf with special regard to the hardships and dangers which have accompanied duty there.”

My constituent qualified for the Gulf medal for his service, yet he did not qualify for an inheritance tax exemption. He was exposed to radiation in an accident that occurred at that time. There were considerable dangers. In serving his country, Mr Thomas contracted the leukaemia that, as has been agreed, killed him. Medical evidence from those who treated Mr Thomas also says that it killed him. He was exposed to radiation only because he was stationed in Cyprus, serving his country during a war, which leads me to a second point.

If we accept that the circumstances in which Mr Thomas was exposed to radiation could not be constituted as being of a “warlike nature”, or indeed “active service”, surely the legislation needs to be looked at again and amended. It is now 28 years old, and it is right that we review it, so that it is fair to those who die as a result of their service. If the legislation is so tightly defined as to exclude Mr Thomas from the inheritance tax provisions, I truly believe it is not fair to the families of those brave service people who give their lives in the service of their country. I am discussing the matter with the Royal British Legion, which will take an active interest in the debate today and will look carefully at the Minister’s response to what I have said in support of my constituents.

There were considerable dangers for Mr Thomas while supporting operations in Cyprus during the Gulf war, which were recognised through the Gulf medal. It cannot be fair that, although he performed an integral supporting role in the operations, he is not entitled to the exemption, as those who fall on the other side of section 154 of the 1984 Act are. It is beyond doubt that Mr Thomas died of a condition contracted while serving his country during the Gulf war.

I ask the Minister to look again at the legislation, so that other families do not fall foul of its provisions. We should do all that we can to support families who have lost a loved one as a result of active service protecting our shores. I have several questions for him that I hope he will reflect on to look at the matters in detail again, if not in today’s debate, then afterwards. It is important that I ask him again to review the claim made by Nigel’s family, following his death in March 2010. I appreciate that he has reviewed it, as he said to me in a letter at the time, but I ask him to do it once more. He has a duty to look at it once again, because Nigel Thomas died of leukaemia contracted through radiation in service.

Mr Thomas’s death was a tragedy for the family that raises wider issues, so, more importantly for the public and the wider armed forces, will the Minister commit today to reviewing the operation of section 154 of the 1984 Act? I want him to focus particularly on the use of the word “active”, as it remains my view that service can cause death, and if it is proved to have caused death, that should be sufficient for the exemption to apply. At the moment, the focus is on “active service”, and we could debate all day whether service in Cyprus in support of operations in the Gulf was active service. It could be interpreted as active service. If the wording was simply “service” rather than “active service”, I believe that Mr Thomas’s family would have been exempt from inheritance tax and that could have saved them a bill of £33,000 at a time when they were coming to terms with the death of their son.

I humbly suggest that the review focus on the current appropriateness of section 154. There have been a number of conflicts since 1984, and they have become ever more complex, with a range of issues to examine. The legislation is 28 years old and is worthy of review by the Minister. Will he assess the anticipated demand from revising the section? He can look at how many claims like that of Nigel Thomas’s family have been made and how many the SPVA has turned down. I am not aware of that many. I do not believe that there will be a massive flow of cases giving the Government a liability of millions of pounds, but I would welcome a review to examine whether such cases have been brought and how many. I would also welcome the Minister consulting the Royal British Legion and other parties on the provisions of the 1984 Act. Will he report to the House, either by letter or written statement, on the outcome of the review, so that he can at least tell me and those who are interested in the case, but more importantly Nigel Thomas’s family, that he has gone the extra mile to look at whether they were treated fairly in the period following Nigel’s death?

The loss to Nigel’s family is immense and a grievous blow, but they hope, and have asked me to ensure, that raising Nigel’s death in this way, having raised it with the Minister in correspondence, will lead to a change, so that families in future do not have to face the same injustice that Nigel’s family have had to endure. Nigel Thomas gave his life in service to his country. Had he died by bullet, his estate would not have paid inheritance tax; but because he died from cancer caused by radiation, his estate has not been exempted. It is a grave injustice that I hope the Minister will redress today.

Ministry of Defence (Procurement)

Jim Hood Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing this debate and I want to pick up the point about contracts and transparency in Government expenditure. The strategic defence and security review will lead to the renegotiation of many contracts, and that may lead to some savings or perhaps to an increase in costs. So far, the MOD has failed to provide the Public Accounts Committee, the parliamentary body that looks at value for money in defence spending—

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should not be speeches. I ask the hon. Gentleman to be brief.

[Nick Smith]

Thank you, Mr Hood. Does my hon. Friend agree that transparency is vital in cases such as that under discussion, so that Parliament can scrutinise expensive defence procurement issues?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gilbert]

I feel loth to interrupt my hon. Friend as he expands on how a small but effective team can punch above its weight in the coalition, because he is doing a splendid job. Does he not see, however, that the threat facing the United Kingdom has changed hugely over the 20 or 30 years since the end of the cold war? Does he not agree, therefore, that it is right and proper to examine whether we need to change our plans in response to that changing environment?

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. We are now moving from a procurement debate into a pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear debate.

[Dr Lewis]

I shall briefly deal with the point, as it is out there, and then I shall move back to procurement in the narrow sense, if I may.

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. I would much prefer you to carry on with your very interesting speech.

[Dr Lewis]

Thank you very much. I would simply say that punching above one’s weight and getting a result that reverses the mandate of the two large parties are very different things.

The question is what happens in the procurement process for a weapons system that Parliament has already voted in principle to bring into existence. The hon. Member for Islington North says Parliament should debate and vote on the issues again and again at every stage of the procurement process. As the Minister will confirm, however, procurement does not work that way; there are certain set stages in the procurement of a weapons system at which Parliament may have its say and at which contracts must be signed. The fact is that the contract in this case has been put off until after the election, and the result is that the entire procurement project has been put in jeopardy.

The systems we are worried about—whether nuclear systems or aircraft carriers—will be built over a fairly long period, but they will be in service over a very long period. The lifespan of the new super-carriers will be 50 years, and that of the next generation of the nuclear deterrent will be about 30 or 35 years. Therefore—I would not dream of returning to our earlier debate—the circumstances that have changed in the world over the past 15, 20 or 25 years might well change again over the next 15, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years. That is why we have armies, navies and air forces in times of peace, when there is no apparent threat on the horizon, and why we need systems such as the nuclear deterrent—to prevent us from being taken by surprise.

I must draw my remarks to a conclusion, as others will not have time to speak otherwise. However, I would not like today to pass without paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), the former Secretary of State for Defence, and wishing him all the best. I served under him and three previous shadow Secretaries of State, and I know that defence specialists across the parties are bound by a common world view and a common realisation that decisions taken in the defence portfolio, above all others, will determine whether the people of this country remain safe and whether our forces, when they go into action, sustain great casualties or emerge triumphant, bearing few, if any, casualties. The responsibility for those issues is fearsome. My right hon. Friend had a passionate belief in the importance of the Anglo-American alliance and of procuring a future generation of the nuclear deterrent, and I trust that his successor will be equally committed.

Finally, I welcome the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) to her responsibilities. Like many members of Labour defence teams in the past, she takes defence seriously and works on a non-partisan basis when she can.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should say that we may well be comfortable for time. I intend to call the Front-Bench spokesmen at 3.40 at the latest, and I have two hon. Members on my list of speakers.

Mull of Kintyre Review

Jim Hood Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

I reiterate my great thanks to my right hon. Friend for the work that he has done. The conclusions that he has stated are correct. All I would say is that in producing this report we seem to have created a crack team, and I am sure that Governments with inquiries in future will take note of that.

[Mr Jim Hood (Lanark and Hamilton East) (Lab)]

May I equally thank the Secretary of State and compliment him on correcting this wrong?

I have to say that my recollection, having sat on the Select Committee along with my friend the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), is not as kind towards the air marshals as what has been said today. The truth is that they did not have any evidence on which to come up with the decision that they did, and they laid their decision on legal advice. The families of those two pilots were right to expect that two air marshals would know better and not rely on a decision by lawyers. The two pilots have been scapegoated for all these years, and respective Defence Ministers and the officials in the Ministry of Defence have run away from this for all these years. The House is indebted to the Secretary of State for having corrected this wrong, but we cannot correct the wrong without pointing out that the two air marshals were a serious part of the problem.

[Dr Fox]

In fairness, the board of inquiry said that the most likely cause of the crash was pilot error, but it did not attribute blame. The air marshals used their experience and intuition to make a judgment based on the board of inquiry’s findings. Lord Philip and his team found that they were not able to do that based on the level of evidence required to attribute negligence in the way that they did.