Integrated Review: Defence Command Paper

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I think my right hon. Friend is very right about a lot of these things. A number of activities take place below the threshold of “violence” or “overt”. They are unacceptable. They are carried out by China, Iran and other countries against this country and other countries. People cannot sweep that under the carpet and we must take action against it. Sometimes we take it in an overt space or through the Foreign Office calling out or attributing certain events, such as cyber and other things, but also that is why we are taking the capabilities to hand where we, too, can reject or repel such actions in the grey zone.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

First, can I say to the Secretary of State that he should actually read the National Audit Office report of 2010 on the deficit in 2010, because it said it would be between £6 billion and £36 billion if you had flat cash—we did not have that because in 2010 and onwards the defence budget was cut by 16%? Can I ask about the F-35? The Command Paper commits the Government to the 48 jets we have already purchased but there are no commitments for any further—there is just an aspiration. The Defence Secretary knows that we need four aircraft to provide one operational. At the current rate there will be 12 aircraft available—six on each carrier, or 12 on one and none on the other. I do not think that will be a great threat to the people’s liberation army. But could he say when the numbers are going to be increased and at what cost, or is it the case that we will be able to deploy our carriers only if we do so with the US marine corps?

[Mr Wallace]

I have read the NAO report. In fact, I usually bring it to every parliamentary questions because the good thing about it is that it shows that in the final year of the Labour Government they spent £3 billion without any idea whatsoever where they were going to get it from—it says it quite clearly in the executive summary. This was the same Government who said the carriers would cost £3 billion and they cost £6 billion. That is a record not to be proud of. We do not recognise the 4:1 ratio the right hon. Gentleman talks about in respect of the F-35s. We will deliver the 48 F-35s to our forces by 2025 and, as it says in the paper, we will go beyond that number.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 15th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer]

I am aligned with my right hon. Friend’s views. The Secretary of State has worked tirelessly on this issue to try to correct the historic injustice of war widows’ pensions. We continue to examine all possibilities, including the ex gratia scheme and all the other ideas that my right hon. Friend has come up with in his tireless campaigning. We will arrive at a solution. Like I said, the Secretary of State is committed to resolving it, and we will get there in the end.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The Government maintain that every F-35 built has 15% UK content, but I understand that the MOD’s definition of “content” includes work carried out for UK companies by US subsidiaries. Will the Minister therefore publish how he defines UK content in the programme, so that I can decide what is done in the UK and what is done in the US?

[Jeremy Quin]

I have received a large number of parliamentary questions from the right hon. Gentleman, and I believe that I have answered that question as part of them. If not, I will make certain that it is clear to him. It is 15% by value, and we are proud of the contribution that is being made by UK manufacturing to the F-35. I will make certain that that is covered again.

Covid-19 Response: Defence Support

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 12th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

No, our critical defence tasks are being maintained. At the beginning of December, I visited Estonia to see our forward presence, which is working alongside the Estonians. Our continuous at-sea deterrent is just that—it is continuous, as indeed are our air policing and our Navy deployments. We have not taken our eye off the ball when it comes to defending the nation, but at the same time this shows the importance of concurrent activity and resilience in being able to deliver other tasks that were definitely unforeseen a few years ago.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab) [V]]

May I join the Secretary of State in thanking members of our armed forces for their work during this pandemic? I also thank MOD civil servants and those working at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. The Government are quite rightly prioritising those most at risk in the vaccine roll-out, but what discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Department of Health and Social Care about rolling out the vaccine among our defence personnel who are working on defence-critical missions, such as maintaining our continuous at-sea deterrent?

[Mr Wallace]

As I said in reply to an earlier question, we have discussed this with the NHS. We are working on a list right now of who we can prioritise to make sure that we underpin the very important defence tasks. Core things such as the continuous at-sea deterrent will be included in those discussions. It is vital that it remains continuous. Also, as we go through priorities one to four and further down into the vaccine programme, we will consider key industries and key people who will help keep the country and defence going.

May I just echo what the right hon. Gentleman said? We often focus on the men and women in uniform, but defence is more than that. It is the scientists, the civil servants, the logisticians, the reserves and often the retired community and the veterans as well. I want to pay tribute to them, because they have been just as important in a large part of this process. I feel for the civil servants in the MOD, who can often get slightly forgotten in the narrative, but that does not mean to say that we forget them in the reality. They have been doing an amazing job as well. My civil servants have been working alongside our military personnel throughout this process.

Remembrance, UK Armed Forces and Society

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I begin by declaring an interest as a trustee of the Commonwealth War Graves Foundation and a former Commonwealth war graves commissioner. I also join other hon. and right hon. Members in their recognition of the sacrifice made by those who died in the service of their country, and I pay tribute to the members of our armed forces who serve us today.

I particularly thank the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for his contribution to the debate. Although he sits on the Government Benches, I consider him a good friend. He did the House a service with his recollection, which must have been very difficult for him, so I thank him for that.

The annual act of remembrance is a relatively modern concept. It is only 100 years today that the first Armistice Day, with the interment of the Unknown Warrior and the two-minute silence, began. Next year will see 100 years of the poppy appeal. Prior to that, the involvement of this country in war was mainly recognised by the battles that we fought, and their names litter towns and villages across our nation. It was the first world war that galvanised the country in its remembrance, partly because it was the first war fought as a conscription nation. The public came together to start that act of annual remembrance, which I hope will go on for many centuries to come.

History is often written in terms of great events and the great men of history, but I think it should be about the individual, because—as the hon. Member for Beckenham eloquently said—these events are about individuals. It is important to remember those individuals, whether it is Will Lawson—the brother of one of my predecessors, Jack Lawson—who died at Ypres in 1915; or Sergeant Steven Campbell from Pelton in my constituency who was killed in Afghanistan in March 2010; or Nathan Cuthbertson, a 19-year-old who died in 2008 and whose parents I had the privilege of meeting when I was a Defence Minister. It is important to remember each and every one of them.

Remembrance is not about the glorification of war; it is about recognising the sacrifice and remembering, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) said, the reasons we need peace. There is a challenge for us all—as the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) mentioned—because, as our armed forces have contracted and the second world war generation slowly pass away, our connections with the armed forces become more remote. That is why it is more important that we keep that link, and I pay tribute to the Royal British Legion and the service charities that not only make sure we remember but support those who have been affected by war.

Along with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), I thank the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I was a commissioner for eight years and it was a great privilege to work with those men and women who work tirelessly throughout the world to ensure that people who gave their lives in the service of this country are remembered. The foundation of which I have the privilege of being a trustee is trying to ensure that those memories continue for future generations. As I say, it is not about glorification but about making sure that we remember. As time goes by, we need to ensure that remembrance continues, not just from the first and second world wars but, as has been openly said in this debate, of all those who have lost their lives through conflict.

[Stephen Doughty]

I agree that it is very important to remember more recent conflicts, for example the Falklands. Will my right hon. Friend join me in recognising a very positive moment today? It is nearly 40 years since the Falklands conflict, and while we remember those who lost their lives in that conflict, we recognise the work of those who have been de-mining. Today, the Falkland Islands celebrates the fact that mines have been completely removed. The conflict lives on not only in those who suffered and died, but in its physical impact, and it is great that that has now been removed from the Falkland Islands.

[Mr Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I have had the privilege of visiting the Falkland Islands on several occasions. We could ask anyone who goes to, for example, San Carlos and sits in the cemetery there. There is no more spiritual place in the world that I have been in terms of the honour and dedication given to those individuals for whom it is their last resting place.

Today is about reflection and keeping the memory of those individuals’ lives; it is about making sure we do not forget them. It is also important to remember what our servicemen and women are doing today on our behalf to preserve the way of life which we wake up every morning and take for granted, but we know is incredibly fragile in the very uncertain world of today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

The hon. Gentleman’s claim could have some credibility if his party was not busy trying to scrap the HM submarine base on the Clyde and to push the submarines out of Scotland.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

What recent assessment he has made of trends in the number of non-disclosure agreements used within his Department’s defence programmes.

[The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)]

The Ministry of Defence only uses non-disclosure agreements in its commercial arrangements by exception, when there is a specific need. Although no trend analysis has been undertaken, it remains the case that NDAs are only used where absolutely necessary.

[Mr Jones]

I accept that NDAs are important in terms of financial contractual obligations, but is the Minister aware that his Department is asking industry, at pre-bid stage, to sign NDAs that actually exclude those companies from being able to speak to MPs or Ministers? I understand that some US primes such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin are refusing to sign them—quite rightly—so why is the Department now getting companies to sign these NDAs for contracts such as Skynet?

[Jeremy Quin]

I am not aware of any company complaining about NDAs. If the right hon. Gentleman is aware of some, I would really encourage those companies to get in contact with me directly and I will take it up.

[Mr Jones]

They can’t!

[Jeremy Quin]

There are many means, including through trade associations, whereby companies can put the word to Ministers if they are concerned. NDAs do have a valuable role, including protecting the interests of the commercial entities themselves; they normally work both ways. Many companies are reluctant to share intellectual property, and research and development, with another entity without having their own position protected, so NDAs have a benefit for companies as well.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel And Veterans) Bill

Kevan Jones Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The men and women of our armed forces are some of the most professional and capable people this country has. They risk their lives to keep us safe, uphold our values and support society whenever the call comes. I know the exceptional and often dangerous tasks that we ask them to do, and the war memorials sadly record the price of that sacrifice that they sometimes have to make. Our support for them should not be confined to the occasional act of remembrance, but should be real and should recognise the things that they do in our name.

In 2004, Phil Shiner, a lawyer, went fishing. He fished for stories, he fished for victims and he fished for terrorists. Phil Shiner and his company, Public Interest Lawyers, fished for people from whom he could make money and to accuse British troops of wrongdoing. By the time Phil Shiner and his like had finished, he had dragged before the courts 1,400 judicial reviews and 234 compensation claims against hundreds of troops. Alongside him on some of those occasions was another law firm that will be, I am afraid, all too familiar to some on the Opposition Benches—Leigh Day. From 2008, those types of firms hauled industrial levels of claims before the courts—never mind the fear and worry and the endless investigations triggered into the men and women of our armed forces. What mattered to the ambulance chasers was the money—the legal aid income, the commissions on compensation claims.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I agree with the Secretary of State’s comments about Phil Shiner, but I have asked his Department for the numbers of cases—as, I understand, have representatives from the Scottish National party—but it has not produced them. The explanatory notes say that there were 900 civil claims. When is he going to produce the figures?

[Mr Wallace]

They are in the Library. They were published last week and this is in the impact assessment, but I am very happy to write to the right hon. Member with the clear numbers. I can tell him now that overall, 1,130 compensation claims were brought between 2003 and 2009. One hundred and eighty-eight of the 244 claims put forward by Public Interest Lawyers were struck out by the High Court, and a further 32 lapsed due to inactivity, so we could say that they were found out and justice was eventually done, yet in the meantime, our troops had to endure repeated investigations, interviews and, in some cases, prosecutions.

The system as it stands provides an all-too-easy route for lawyers to spark repeat investigations and multiple claims, too many chances to earn fees and too many chances to drag yet another soldier through a witness box or an interview. If that all fails to produce a result, and most of them do not, there is always the opportunity to use the media to drum up more business, damaging our reputation across the globe with unsubstantiated allegations.

In theory, a veteran who served in Iraq and Afghanistan could have been involved in up to 13 investigations. The list is exhaustive: a coroner’s inquest; a commanding officer’s investigation; a service police investigation; the Iraq Historic Allegations Team, a judicial review, a service inquiry—the list goes on. Remember that in the middle of this are the men and women who risk their lives to ensure that we sleep safely in our beds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

I have been in the House for nearly 20 years, and I have always prided myself on being a strong advocate for defence and the support of our servicemen and women, both from the Back Benches and as a Minister. I am also no friend of unscrupulous lawyers. Older Members of the House will remember my campaign of the early 2000s against unscrupulous lawyers who defrauded my constituents who were claiming miners’ compensation. That led to the instigation of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which took the disciplining of lawyers away from the Law Society. I am also, though, a strong supporter of the legal system and of the military justice system. I have served on the last three armed forces Bills as either a Minister or a Back Bencher, and I think I understand the system well and respect it.

Unfortunately, though, this Bill does not pass the Ronseal test: it does not say what it does on the tin. It excludes completely the arguments, with which I have a lot of sympathy, about prosecutions of those in Northern Ireland. The other issue is the need for the Bill. Its promoters give the impression that there is an army of vexatious lawyers out there who are pursuing veterans. I asked, in a parliamentary question, for numbers. I was told that they were not kept by the Department centrally. The explanatory notes say that there were 900 cases for Afghanistan and Iraq between 2003 and 2009; the impact assessment says the number is 1,000, but what they do not explain is the nature of those cases. How many were brought by vexatious lawyers? How many were compensation cases rightly brought by members of the armed forces or their families?

I accept the issues around the case of Phil Shiner. That individual was disgraceful, but I have to say that the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which was put in place by the last Labour Government, sorted that problem out. On the other main thing that has been raised today, I was a Minister in the Department at the time, and the problem was the way in which cases were investigated. The Bill will not address that.

The other point that I would like to address is my fear that the presumption, as outlined in the Bill at the moment, that prosecutions will not go forward outside a certain timescale will lead to members of our armed forces going before the International Criminal Court. That cannot be acceptable. If we had that presumption against prosecution, the court would perhaps conclude that the UK was either unwilling or unable to initiate a prosecution. I do not want to see that, and I do not think the Minister does either, but it is an unintended consequence of the Bill and it has to be changed.

I also have problems with clause 3, which says that prosecutors should take into account “exceptional demands and stresses” in cases after five years. If it is good enough after five years, why not before? There is no need for the clause, because that is already taken into account. The Judge Advocate General, in his letter to the Defence Secretary, outlined the case of Marine A, where evidence of unique circumstances taken at the first court martial and then at the appeal meant that the sentence was reduced to manslaughter.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

Does the right hon. Member not agree that it diminishes the Government’s standing when they come to the House and cast to one side all these concerns from experts such as those he mentions, when there probably is a reasonable Bill that the House could gather around?

[Mr Jones]

I think there is, but I also say that people should talk to those in the service justice system, because they do this every day of the week. They are an independent judiciary—that is recognised internationally. They do a job in ensuring that people get justice and I think that this Bill will complicate that. One of my fears is that this will undermine the military justice system, of which I am a passionate supporter. I know that some people want to do away with it, but I certainly do not. I also agree with the points that have been raised by the Royal British Legion and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) concerning conditions around the ability of veterans to make compensation claims later.

I will not vote against the Bill tonight, because I think it can be improved. However, I will also not fall into the political trap that has been set, where it will be said that if someone is against the Bill or criticises it in any way, they favour ambulance-chasing lawyers over our armed forces. I am sorry but I take great exception to that, and I am in good company, along with a lot of other people, such as Field Marshal Lord Guthrie, Nick Parker, whom I have huge respect for—I worked with him in the Ministry of Defence—and the Judge Advocate General.

[Stuart Anderson]

I respect the right hon. Member and sit with him on the Defence Committee. We have mentioned a lot of names today, but none of them is below General. I have served on operations with some of those people. None of the riflemen, junior non-commissioned officers and young officers has been mentioned, and their fear of ambulance-chasing lawyers and this lawfare should be brought in as well.

[Mr Jones]

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I am saying that these are people of higher rank, and others, who understand the command of that justice system. You cannot get a higher person than the Judge Advocate General. He was not even consulted on the Bill, which I find remarkable. The most senior lawyer in that system was not actually consulted.

[Mr Wallace]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Jones]

Not really, no, because I am about to conclude.

The Bill is not perfect. It can be improved, but the Minister who is taking it through the House has to change attitude. He has to be open-minded to change. He has to not play politics on the basis that anyone who criticises the Bill is somehow against the armed forces, because we are certainly not, and I include myself in that.

I will finish on this point: in the letter that the Judge Advocate General sent to the Defence Secretary, he said:

“The bill as drafted is not the answer.”

I agree with him on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Sunderland]

I agree very much. The bottom line is that veterans I have spoken to over the years are worried about the next knock at the door. I believe that the Bill will give certainty to the current generation and to who those come afterwards.

To tackle the conjecture, if I may, the Bill does not absolve any member of Her Majesty’s forces from the obligation to operate within the law. It does not impact on criminal investigations and it does not create, or come close to creating, any de facto immunity for service personnel, as the few bad apples will always be brought to justice. As for the downright fabrication, the Bill does not place our troops on a collision course with the Geneva convention or The Hague, and it does not break international law.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

It does! Read the Bill.

[James Sunderland]

I have read the Bill.

In fact, I cannot think of a more robust institution than the MOD for upholding the law, and the UK has a proud record of overseas military service which is to be applauded, not undermined.

As for part 2, I comfortable that the six-year long stop of civil claims for personal injury and death is about right given that 94% of all claims since 2007 have been settled within five years. However, we have Committee stage to unpick that further if we need to. I also understand that the long stop applies to the point at which legacy issues, such as hearing loss, PTSD and physical illness first come to light, therefore providing a safety net.

Most important for me, the Bill requires that, when making legal judgments, the courts must consider the unique circumstances of overseas operations and any adverse effect on our personnel. Those who have served will know that warfighting is dangerous and terrifying, with confusion all around, friends falling beside you, sweat dripping into your eyes, the ground exploding, people moving in every direction, images of family flashing before your eyes and abject terror everywhere. What would you do? Fortunately, the training is good, the loyalty and camaraderie in HM forces are unparalleled and our soldiers do operate within the law of armed conflict. I salute all those who got closer to danger than I did.

Despite what others would have us think, the Bill does not provide blanket immunity for soldiers to commit war crimes. Indeed, the suggestion in some of what I have read that the best trained and best led armed forces in the world are somehow predisposed to inflicting torture or sex crimes on operations is ridiculous. It is deeply offensive to those who serve, and the people who peddle this nonsense just need to stop. [An Hon. Member: “Nobody has said it.”] I have seen it.

To those who seek to judge our veterans after many years of service from the sanctity of their courtroom or the comfort of their armchair, I say, “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, whatever notion you have of idealism, it may be that you just don’t get it.” That is why the Government need to provide the protection in law.

To conclude, I pass on three messages on behalf of many of our 2.2 million veterans who have contacted me to offer support. First, to the esteemed figures who have chosen to unpick the Bill by writing divisive articles for the national media, I regret, you do not speak for me. Secondly, I say to those dishonourable lawyers who have pursued the victims of a witch hunt into their later years, “You need to be struck off.” To my esteemed colleagues on the Opposition Benches, I say, “Please pay heed today, to stay on the right side of this. Unlike the thousands of soldiers I was proud to serve with, your constituents might not be quite so forgiving.” Let us do the right thing for those who have endured so much for so long and put the Bill through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

Absolutely not; I am not giving way.

It is very clear to me that this is the first Government to come to this House and not to say, “What a difficult problem this is, but we will hand all our soldiers off to the human rights lawyers.” This is the first Government who are actually going to do something to protect our servicemen and women. I am proud of that and I make no apology for it at all. [Interruption.] There really is no point in whingeing on at me because I am not going to give way.

I came to this place because I loathed the way it treated cheaply my generation of servicemen and women as we fought for the freedoms and privileges that Members of this House enjoy every day. Summer after summer, I served with what was and is this nation’s finest product—our fighting men and women—in some of the most testing circumstances that this House has deployed for generations. Yet when they came home, this House was not there for them. In those heady days, Members will remember the pain of our veterans’ families as they fought for decent prosthetics or effective mental health care. We are light years away from where we were—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Absolute rubbish.

[Johnny Mercer]

“Absolute rubbish”, the Labour party says—amazing.

I still cannot describe what it was like sitting with the family of a young man who could not cope with the trauma that he suffered as a result of what we asked him to do on our behalf and who took his life. I cannot describe what it is like to visit the parents of a soldier who died in your arms 48 hours earlier, thousands of miles from home, and tell them that it is pointless. This Bill is different. It is fair, it is proportionate and it is balanced. It is good legislation. Members can match words with actions and vote for this Bill tonight.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

First, on the Intelligence and Security Committee, which is the Committee that would publish the report, I gave evidence for that report as Security Minister, and, in fact I have read the report. My right hon. Friend should not hold his breath for the great sensation he thinks it will be. However, as he has said and everyone else has noted, when the ISC is formed, it will be the body that will release the report. I think we are getting to a place where the Committee will come together, and then everyone can read it at leisure.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The RFA Fort Victoria will supply our carrier battle group until 2028. Most commentators say that that ship alone is not sufficient to support the carrier group. When will the Secretary of State bring forward the procurement of the fleet solid support ships? That would not only increase capability for the Royal Navy but be a big boost to UK plc, including the supply chain in the north-east of England, if that procurement were to be placed in UK yards.

[Mr Wallace]

The right hon. Member often campaigns for shipbuilding in the UK and he has heard my answers. First, I am keen that it gets under way as soon as possible; indeed, I have asked officials to bring it forward from the proposed date. The plus side is that such ships are not highly complex, so once the competition happens and it is placed, I do not think it will take long to build them. I therefore do not anticipate a capability gap at all. He is right that British shipbuilding and British yards produce some of the best ships in the world and we should support them as best as we can and ensure our navy gets some great British-made kit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

We have established a space directorate, which is tasked with how to advance opportunities for the UK commercial space sector. I absolutely assure my hon. Friend that space and its potential will form a part of the integrated review.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Over the past decade, £430 million has been spent on the Army’s Warrior programme upgrade. Despite that, it is still only at the demonstration phase. Can the Minister indicate when a contract will be let? And will that contract be let only when the battlefield assessment phase is complete?

[Jeremy Quin]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that there has been a long period—nine years—of assessment and demonstration of the Warrior programme. It is important that it is looked at and that we have the right kit to take the Warrior through to 2040 and perhaps beyond. I confirm that we are at the demonstration phase. Any future steps will be taken at the conclusion of that phase.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevan Jones Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Heappey]

Of course these assets of huge national importance must be properly protected. The Royal Navy will make sure that the required number of ships are available for exactly that purpose.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

The issue is not just about the number of ships that the Royal Navy possesses, but whether they are operationally effective or not. From July 2018 to July 2019, two of the six Type 45 destroyers did not put to sea, and a third spent fewer than 100 days at sea. What will the Minister be doing to ensure that the existing ships are operationally ready?

[James Heappey]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and very much share the sentiment in it. Since being appointed in December, I have been more concerned by the number of ships tied up against walls in Plymouth and Portsmouth than by those at sea. The Secretary of State has made the delivery of more ships for the fleet his priority for the Navy.