Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Luff Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to help small businesses secure more contracts with his Department.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

Innovative and efficient smaller businesses make an important contribution to defence, beyond the obvious benefits to the wider economy. That is why the “National Security Through Technology” White Paper sets out a wide range of measures to make defence and security procurement as accessible as possible to even the smallest of enterprises. I attach particular importance to the establishment of a new small and medium-sized enterprises forum, which meets regularly under my chairmanship to discuss and inform subsequent action on issues of concern to small businesses.

[Julian Smith]

What steps are the Minister and his Department taking to engage with Britain’s 3,000 defence SMEs much earlier in the procurement process?

[Peter Luff]

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the part he plays in the Skipton and Ripon Enterprise Group. I know that he takes a close interest in SMEs in general and I am grateful for his interest in defence SMEs. We are taking a wide range of steps to achieve precisely what he asks for, and the SME forum is but one example of that. He is particularly interested in the use of pre-qualification questionnaires. Their use is being minimised for procurements of under £100,000, and we are working to simplify or even eliminate them. We are already adopting the new core questionnaire, which is standardised across government. Many steps have been taken to encourage SMEs to engage earlier and more effectively with the Department, but if he has any ideas I would welcome them.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

A written statement on the White Paper that was recently published indicates that the Government will no longer prioritise UK suppliers when buying defence equipment. For the sake of small companies, and for BAE Systems workers at Brough, 850 of whom face redundancy, ought we not to have a debate on the Floor of the House about that change in Government policy?

[Peter Luff]

I have to say to the hon. Lady that such matters of debate are largely for the Backbench Business Committee to determine. No one would relish more than me an opportunity to explain the defence White Paper and the gross misrepresentation that she has just given. I would welcome such a debate, and I hope that it happens.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

The Minister solicits ideas on this front. The Ministry of Defence necessarily requires strict security credentials from its business contractors, but that sponsorship can act as a barrier to competition. Will the Minister consider giving new businesses wishing to seek contracts with his Department the opportunity to apply in advance for security clearance for their personnel entirely at their own cost to level that playing field?

[Peter Luff]

Actually, I think there is a widely shared misunderstanding in the SME community of the issues that it faces. I refer my hon. Friend to the box on page 61 of the White Paper, which explains in detail the security requirements and how the obstacles that I accept some small and medium enterprises think they have experienced can, in practice, be dealt with.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not think that the House has access to the box in question, but we are immensely grateful to the Minister.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

In view of the important role that SMEs play in some of our bigger programmes, and their need to be confident in the process and to have security of outcome, will the Minister give the House some clarity on the intention for the F-35 programme? In particular, given rumoured reductions in orders from the USA, Australia and Canada, does he expect the price that the MOD pays for each F-35 to rise, and does he have a view on the exact point at which they become unaffordable for the UK?

[Peter Luff]

First, I apologise unreservedly to you for my earlier answer, Mr Speaker, but you have encouraged me to be pithy in the past, and it would have been quite a long answer to give the details in full.

Addressing the concern of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), the honest answer is that we do not know. The Americans are not reducing the total numbers for the purchase of the joint strike fighter, but they have changed the profile of those purchases. Other partner nations have indicated that they will reduce their offtake. That is likely to have implications for JSF prices, particularly those acquired in the early stages of the process, which is when this country intends to acquires its JSFs. We are watching those implications carefully, and I am happy to talk to the hon. Lady separately about the implications for the UK.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

3. How many times the medical emergency response team has been called out in Helmand province in the last year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

7. What plans he has for the future of Defence Munitions Beith; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

There are no current plans to change the status of Defence Munitions Beith. The weapons end-to-end initiative is working on the best through-life support solution for the MOD and industry, taking into account the strategic requirement, value for money and the linkage with associated industries. This is a wide and complex piece of work. There is a need to maintain Beith at least until the Spearfish torpedo has been converted to a single-fuel system, when the need for specialist facilities may lapse. The conversion programme is expected to be completed around 2018.

[Katy Clark]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Is he willing to meet me and trade union representatives of the work force at DM Beith to discuss what future contracts might be available to the depot?

[Peter Luff]

I am delighted to repeat the invitation that I made in a letter early last year, to which the hon. Lady has not so far replied, and to extend it once again on the Floor of the House. Of course I should be delighted to meet her to have the precise discussion that she seeks.

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister provide some more details on how cutting the MOD policing budget in half will impact on the policing and guarding of defence munitions sites such as Beith, and the armaments depot at Coulport, in which my constituents are particularly interested? Specifically, will he respond to concerns that the policing of those sites will have to be downgraded and that those sites will no longer be protected by armed guards or, indeed, with dogs?

[Peter Luff]

I understand and respect the hon. Lady’s concern, but she is simply wrong. We will maintain effective and proportionate levels of security on all our sites, including Coulport and Beith.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

8. What plans he has for defence deployments to the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

At the beginning of this month, I was pleased to see published our White Paper “National Security Through Technology”, which emphasised the contribution that using, sustaining and developing technology makes to our national security. The Government are therefore prioritising investment in defence science and technology. The White Paper makes clear our intention to end a long period of declining budgets and maintain the Ministry of Defence’s investment in science and technology at a minimum of 1.2% of the defence budget as protection for our future.

[Henry Smith]

Before asking my supplementary question, I would like to pay tribute to my constituent Corporal Jay Baldwin, who was recently seriously injured while serving in Afghanistan and who is now being treated in the Queen Elizabeth hospital at Edgbaston. I am sure the whole House will join me in sending him and his family our best wishes.

How does the Minister believe that investment in science and technology supports not only our defence industry but our economy and companies such as Thales UK in my constituency?

[Peter Luff]

I obviously join my hon. Friend in his tribute to his constituent and hope that he makes a rapid and full recovery.

Of course, investment in science and technology is about not just industry but protecting and securing our troops, and I am glad to say that we are having phenomenal success in that regard in Afghanistan. I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that Thales is one of the many companies and trade organisations that welcomed the White Paper when it was published earlier this month. They recognise that investment in science and technology is crucial for their future as successful, enterprising and competitive companies operating here in the UK. Perhaps one of the most exciting recent examples of the importance of that investment was the four-year £40 million future combat air systems focused research contract, which we announced in December. It will generate capability for the future and provide important work for the high-tech advanced manufacturing businesses of the UK.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

What emphasis is the Department placing on the development of unmanned air reconnaissance and attack vehicles? Surely that has to be the future for all three of our armed services.

[Peter Luff]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and that was a major feature in the UK/French summit that occurred last Friday, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier. The future of the unmanned combat air sector is very important, which was exactly why I highlighted in my earlier answer the contract with BAE Systems. That contract will take forward technology in a number of crucial areas and ensure that our skill base is sustained, maintained and can take advantage of the opportunities that the sector will provide in the future.

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

17. What discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts on Pakistan’s involvement in Afghanistan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

19. What recent assessment he has made of the cost of the UK carrier programme.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

The overall cost of the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier programme is continually informed by the conversion development phase, which is developing a much greater understanding of the costs and risks involved. We will publish the findings as soon as we can and will keep the House informed in the usual manner.

[Nick Smith]

May I press the Minister to say what will be the total project cost after converting the carriers for the carrier variant aircraft? If he cannot tell us—and it does not look as though he can—does he recognise that that is a worrying, unfunded liability?

[Peter Luff]

I am afraid that I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, because we simply do not know the answer. In answer to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), I talked about the possible price implications for the joint strike fighter as a result of the Americans’ decisions in rescheduling their profile. Similarly, we are still doing the work on the precise cost of the conversion. We will report to the House in the usual way. That will be part of the major projects report, so all the normal processes will be followed. I understand the importance of the hon. Gentleman’s question.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Whatever the cost of the carriers, is not a key argument in their favour that if—God forbid—the Falklands were, despite all our preparations, taken in a surprise attack, it would be essential to have a carrier to regain them? Does not that prompt the question of why we do not have one at the moment?

[Peter Luff]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern, and I am aware of the arguments about, for example, the use of carriers off Libya. However, I think that the correct decisions were taken in the strategic defence and security review regarding the Tornado aircraft, which enabled us to fight that war very effectively. I repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said: the Falklands are well protected; we live in a different world; and the suggestion that aircraft carriers play an important part in the Falkland Islands in the near future is unhelpful at this stage.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)]

T6. What is the current position concerning the aircraft carrier project? Has there been any change in strategy as far as the design and build are concerned?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

I think I can give a very short answer to that question: no.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

T5. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision to purchase the new C-17 aircraft for the Royal Air Force. Is that not evidence of the benefits of tackling the Ministry of Defence budget, which is vital to securing the future effectiveness of our armed forces?

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

RAF Fylingdales and RAF Staxton perform key duties as listening and radar stations. There is concern locally about the impact of wind farms on them. May we have a rejection of any wind farm applications on the grounds that they will interfere with the RAF’s work?

[Peter Luff]

I am not sure whether this will be good news or bad news for my hon. Friend, but we are making increasing strides towards finding radar systems that do not interfere with RAF operations, so this particular obstacle to wind farm applications is diminishing. That is probably not the news that she wanted, but it happens to be the truth.