Proceeding contribution from Mike Hancock (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Commons on Monday, 26 February 2007. It occurred during Opposition day on Royal Navy.
Royal Navy
I am fortunate to follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry) and, for that matter, the hon. Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers), because they both spelled out clearly the importance of the naval base review. I am encouraged by the fact that the Minister, in answer to my intervention, gave the commitment that the options would be inspected thoroughly and in detail. I welcome in particular the opportunity that Portsmouth has been given and share the sentiments expressed by the hon. Lady about the fact that Portsmouth has tried to defend the Royal Navy and Portsmouth’s part in it. We have not tried to paint the picture that it has to be Portsmouth at any price. We understand the importance to the Royal Navy of its having the flexibility provided by those three ports. That is why the argument has always rested on three bases being available for the Royal Navy. No one can deny that there will be changes. There is ready acceptance among the work force, the community and everyone that in a changing world there will undoubtedly be changes. Those of us who have lived with this issue since childhood and under successive Governments know of such changes only too well. When I was a child, there were 48,000 people working in the dockyard. Substantial reductions over the past 40 years have reduced that figure considerably, but the effectiveness of the Royal Navy is what is important. I share the admiration and pride with which the Minister spoke of the global commitments of the Royal Navy, whether it be in tsunami rescues, combating the drug trade or supporting ground forces. It plays a vital role. I also share the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson) about the importance of the debate: it is a shame that it is so short, because the Navy has traditionally played a crucial role in the defence of this country. We must recognise the fact that, if we are to ask the men and women of the Navy and the Royal Marines who serve this country to carry out increasingly more difficult tasks, we must ensure that the right support is there for them and their families when we send them off on our behalf. It is right to ensure that our service personnel have the right equipment, and Members of the House are correct to question the Government about timing in relation to the aircraft carriers. Is there a question of money? Is the gap between what industry is demanding and what the Ministry of Defence will pay so wide? Is it right to dismiss the question posed by the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who asked why it is not possible to have Tomahawk missiles on Type 45s? Why was that decision taken when, manifestly, they were something that the Navy wanted? Why are we not getting an answer? In an intervention, I asked the Minister of State whether he would, today, recommit the MOD to the point that the Secretary of State made in Portsmouth. He was asked a simple question: is it true that there are MOD plans to take six more ships out of service? He gave a categorical answer, just to that one question. He said no. He also said, ““I’ve just come hotfoot from the commander-in-chief and the commander-in-chief is saying no.”” We are entitled to know, as this thing moves on, whether that is still the position. That is the simple question that I asked and it is the simple question that was posed to the Secretary of State. The House is entitled to know that number. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North talked about the importance of jobs in the naval base and the effect on the community in south Hampshire. No one can undermine that importance. Any threat will obviously be extraordinarily worrying to the community that we represent, but the case is well made why we need and should have the support of the MOD in retaining the naval bases at Portsmouth and at Devonport. There is an obvious connection with Faslane. I am sure that, as far as the whole House is concerned, there is no alternative to Faslane as long as Scotland stays in the United Kingdom, which will be for ever. I see no one seriously threatening the existence of the Faslane base.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 457 c673-4
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Armed forces Deployment Defence equipment Finance Staff Navy Warships Aircraft carriers Submarines
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 11:19:46 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_379787
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_379787
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_379787