Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Luke (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 19 May 2005. It occurred during Queen's speech debate on Address in Reply to Her Majesty’s Most Gracious Speech.


Address in Reply to Her Majesty’s Most   Gracious Speech

My Lords, I, too, take this opportunity to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Drayson, and to wish him luck in what he will find to be not only an extremely important but, I am afraid, a most onerous portfolio. I also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Triesman. At the same time, I also wanted to say how much I appreciated the courteous and gracious way that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, several times, ““No I will not be answering any of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Luke””. No doubt at the moment he is turning his sword into a ploughshare or should it be his spear into a pruning hook and I wish him well in that. I was delighted to hear the Minister reiterate the Government’s unflinching support for the projected two new aircraft carriers. I therefore do not apologise for confining my speech to that subject as their importance in the defence scheme of things is really overwhelming. Not for the first time, I shall ask a series of questions and I start with one about the Written Statement by the then Secretary of State Mr Hoon on 8 February, which was repeated in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. The main content of that Statement concerned the appointment of Kellogg Brown and Root as the preferred physical integrator of the CVF project. The Written Statement stated that,"““we will develop the precise role and responsibility of the PI  . . . over the coming months””," and,"““the preferred PI will be involved in developing the build strategy for the carriers””.—[Official Report, 8/2/05; Col. WS 25.]" What has happened in the ensuing three months? Has the precise role of the PI even been decided? Will their contracts cease in July this year, as I have read? Is it not unlikely that KBR’s part in this important project will indeed be concluded by then? Are the in-service dates for the carriers still 2012 and 2015 respectively? Despite reports in the press that the Maingate is slipping into 2006, I understand that it is still officially timetabled for autumn this year. Will it be early or late autumn? Will the Minister tell the House how the component costing and consequent business case for the project is proceeding? One of my most important questions is whether the Joint Combat Aircraft in-service date will coincide in any way with the arrival of the first of the carriers. I understand that the weight problem has either been   solved or circumvented. Is that correct? What contingency plans do Her Majesty’s Government have if the JCAs are late or not forthcoming at all? Will the by then rather elderly Harrier GR7/9 be deployable on the new ships if the JCAs are really late? If not, it is beginning to look as though the long-range foreign operations capability of the Royal Navy, which is so important, will be severely limited during the period from 2010 to 2015. What are the contingency plans for that possibility? Indeed, what are the plans for the disposal of the old carriers, which really will be old by then? Is there any plan to turn one of them into a floating refit maintenance shop for the new carriers, or will that be covered by the MARS project? Most recent press comment about these carriers has centred on the budget for their construction. I realise that it will not be possible to be definitive about this for a long time. However, can the Minister give any indication about the current thinking on this matter and assure us that the suggested size of the carriers is still 65,000 tonnes each—bearing in mind the importance of having more than enough space for future developments on the technical side and the undoubted fact that steel and air are relatively cheap compared with the possible task of trying to incorporate the ““clever bits”” on a platform that might be inherently too small? It has been suggested that considerable cost savings in this project might be achieved by co-operating with   our French allies with regard to the design of their projected new carrier. Has that suggestion any weight and has it progressed at all? What steps are Her Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that the skills and training needed for individuals who will make, maintain, manage and operate the carriers and the Joint Combat Aircraft will be at the required level to coincide with the building programmes and in-service dates? A report in the Daily Telegraph on 16 May concerned a proposed hospital ship build project for two of the shipyards where the carriers will be built to fill the work gap caused by delays to the aircraft carrier programme and a slow down in refit contracts for Navy warships. Will the Minister comment on whether that is authentic? As has already been stated on many occasions in your Lordships’ House, we on these Benches believe that the ““Queen Elizabeth”” and ““Prince of Wales”” will be ships of which we will be enormously proud. They are absolutely essential if the Royal Navy is to continue to carry out its remit and will be the nucleus of a very formidable fighting force. It is somewhat disappointing that at present there seem to be endless problems and delays and I hope that this frustrating stage of the project will soon come to an end.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
672 c171-2 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Armed forces Defence Army Developing countries Development aid Arms trade Defence equipment China Africa Iraq European Constitution Treaty EU common foreign and security policy Foreign policy Nuclear weapons Peacekeeping operations Procurement Navy Military law Terrorism Security United Nations USA Afghanistan NATO Israel Sudan Palestine Iran Middle East Aircraft carriers Darfur EU external relations Asia Conflict prevention Conflict resolution
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk