---

Defence in the United Kingdom

I do not know whether my hon. Friend is asking me specifically about the warship programme. I am conscious of that point. Given the fact that there is only so much that we can put into the yards throughout the UK, we must be very clear about what we want. We must find out whether they can deliver at the right price. We must then ensure that we have a shipbuilding industry for many years ahead. I suggest that our record to date shows how we protect and preserve those keys skills and capabilities. I would want to be judged on what we have done and I do not anticipate a major change in policy in that regard. The defence industrial strategy will also recognise that, for defence to remain attractive to industry, there will need to be a focus on assured revenue streams and continued engagement, rather than a series of big ““must win”” procurements. The platforms of tomorrow, such as the future carriers and the future rapid effects system, will need to be underpinned by an emphasis on through-life capability. The same is true of the joint combat aircraft, the basing decisions for which I announced in detail earlier. It is not just in respect of equipment that we must spend the taxpayer’s money to best effect. Every penny that we spend in the head office and supporting agencies is a penny less for the front line. We are committed to achieving £2.8 billion of efficiencies—money that will be ploughed back into the front line. That is why we are collocating armed forces’ headquarters—for example, the collocation of the RAF’s Strike Command and Personnel and Training Command at High Wycombe. It is why we have embarked on a programme of transformation in logistics. Again, that is no small task. The Defence Logistics Organisation alone has a budget of some £5.5 billion and employs more than 28,000 people. For that to deliver the efficiencies that we must make, difficult decisions will have to be taken, such as the changes to the Defence Aviation Repair Agency and the Army Base Repair Organisation that I announced last week. I will continue to take those difficult decisions with the best interests of defence at heart—not, as some have suggested, with the best interests of the private sector at heart. The success of the in-house future defence supply chain initiative bid should be evidence enough of that. The in-house solution was chosen to manage and operate the defence supply chain because it will provide the best balance between improved logistic support to operations and better value for money for taxpayers. Support to the front line will be significantly improved. We expect to make savings of more than £400 million over the next 10 years on that initiative alone. I have said much about the programme of activity that we are embarked on to support our armed forces. I conclude by saying something of the work of our armed forces themselves in the UK. The days of defending our shores from military invasion are long gone. We had an exchange during the earlier statement on that. Home security, rather than home defence, is the order of the day, and that is not primarily a matter for the armed forces. Indeed, right hon. and hon. Members will recall that the last defence debate took place on 7 July, in the immediate aftermath of the appalling and tragic attacks in London that day. I pay tribute to the emergency services who responded so professionally. Their performance was a testament to the emergence of modern, highly capable emergency services. Indeed, the fact that it has not been necessary to mobilise a civil contingency reaction force serves to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Government’s efforts to ensure that our civil authorities are resilient. None the less, across the UK, defence plays a vital role in our community and, when called upon, in our security. The armed forces are not a conventional emergency service, but they are, for example, providing emergency fire cover in the west midlands as a result of strike action by the Fire Brigades Union. Resolving that dispute is a matter for the West Midlands fire service and the FBU, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment. I will say, however, that our armed forces are not permitted the luxury of strike action, yet we ask them to undertake those difficult jobs without comment, and they do it exceptionally well. I said that the armed forces are not a conventional emergency service, but they regularly provide support to the police and other civil authorities. Most of those tasks are small-scale, drawing on specialist military skills. Invariably, they are unseen and unheralded, but they are the force that we call upon when all else fails. For example, right hon. and hon. Members will recall seeing a military Chinook helicopter deliver a police support unit to the scene of a disturbance during the G8 summit at Gleneagles. They will also recall the crucial role that the armed forces played in Carlisle during the flooding in January and in Boscastle last year. As we know, whether they are operating in Carlisle or Kabul, Boscastle or Basra, our armed forces perform with great distinction. They have a professionalism, commitment and dedication to duty second to none—I know that they have the full support of the House—and that is why the Government are determined to deliver the best practical support they deserve. They should expect nothing less.