---

Defence Industrial Strategy

My Lords, when I say that we on these Benches welcome the Statement, I use these words in more than the usual conventional sense. The subject matter is of the greatest importance to the Armed Forces: how best to provide them with the right equipment at the right price at the right time, a seemingly intractable combination of objectives. It is also of the greatest importance to the management of the defence budget and defence finances generally—issues to which the Opposition, in their role as a prospective government, have also given, and continue to give, considerable thought of their own. I can say at once that we substantially agree with the Minister in his general analysis of the problems. The technology development cycle, however, moves forward considerably faster than do the cycles of design, development and installation which are required to incorporate those technological advances into working operating systems in the hands of the Armed Forces. Thus, we can all too easily find ourselves in a position where a system specified to what is at that stage state of the art is in fact obsolescent by the time it comes into service. Many would argue that the Eurofighter Typhoon is a classic example of that. We may well be confronted with similar problems in the case of Watchkeeper. We welcome the creation of a partnership between Her Majesty’s Government and industry. We hope that they really can work as a team. The Minister must be congratulated on this change of heart and particularly on ending the trench warfare between Her Majesty’s Government and BAE, Britain’s biggest defence contractor. It will be easy to change attitudes in industry. The challenge for the Minister will be to drive these improved relations past his civil servants and the DPA. The Minister is to be congratulated on having set his timetable so that the Statement should be made before we rise for the Recess and on inducing his department to adhere to that timetable. The Statement necessarily includes a number of substantial, complex and possibly controversial points. The Minister will understand that, therefore, I do not want to snap back at it today with detailed questions, careless endorsements or knee-jerk reactions; but rather to take it away, go through it carefully, compare it with our own ideas, discuss it with representatives of industry—who are, I know, standing by to examine the implications for them of these proposals in detail—and then come back for a prepared debate. I therefore ask the Minister if he will arrange for a convenient date, reasonably early next year, for a considered debate in government time on these proposals. I am also grateful to the Minister for the letter I received yesterday on the Future Aircraft Carrier project. Can the Minister say anything about the progress of the talks with the French? Can he confirm that if the French join the project, it will in no way delay the in-service date of our two carriers? The Statement also touched briefly on the Joint Strike Fighter. Can the Minister reassure the House that any weight problems have been ironed out? Finally, we welcome the agreement to jointly explore work on the continuation in service of the ““Invincible”” carriers. In the light of the fact that the two new carriers are likely to be delayed and the   Minister’s Written Answer to me last week that reversing HMS ““Invincible”” from a state of lower readiness would take nine months, has the noble Lord given any serious thought to calling a halt to any further work in removing equipment and eventually putting HMS ““Invincible”” back into service?