---

Defence Procurement

Not to mention the icebergs. It is essential that we always keep such considerations in mind. However, were we to find ourselves involved in any hostilities with the likes of Russia or China, it would be quite beyond our capacity to hold them at bay on our own. Although we must be prepared for the possibility of such engagements, we can prepare only in concert with our military allies. It is not necessary or desirable for the United Kingdom to attempt to defend itself across a broad front entirely from our own resources. We must co-operate with our NATO and European allies to make better use of equipment and personnel. That may occasionally mean a greater willingness to buy off the shelf to meet short-term needs, and we must find ways of speeding up procurement in order to limit waste and inefficiency. For that reason, I, like others, have said several times in the Chamber that we clearly need another strategic defence review. I welcome the Government's conduct of various small-scale reviews of certain aspects of defence policy, but it is now 10 years since we had a strategic defence review, and as I have said before, the Americans conduct one every four years. It is high time that we went through that exercise again. To take the point that was just made, it may be necessary for the Treasury to recognise the need for more resources, but frankly that could be done only off the back of another strategic defence review—not one whose aim from the outset was to reduce the defence budget, but one that examined our foreign policy needs and objectives and then began to build a defence capability that was in tune with, and responsive to, them. The Ministry of Defence has set out in its defence plan its strategic objectives for the coming three years:"““Achieve success in the Military Tasks we undertake at home and abroad… Be ready to respond to the tasks that might arise…Build for the future.””" They are all worthy objectives, and they should apply at any stage, but I still believe that something more fundamental by way of a review is necessary. Last year, the Defence Committee raised concerns about the MOD's 20 biggest weapons projects, which are £2.6 billion over budget and a total of 36 years behind schedule. This month we learned that the Prime Minister has instructed defence chiefs to delay replacing old weapons, vehicles and aircraft in order to try to ease the £2 billion black hole, which looks set to be even bigger in a couple of years' time. There is a debate to be had about the merits of salami slicing or deciding that we have to review our commitments and what we are trying to do. The hon. Member for Aldershot quoted from the White Paper, ““Defence Industrial Strategy””, and said that it was necessary for us to have an ““appropriate degree”” of independent British defence industrial capability ““to ensure operational independence””. He was right to identify the phrase and to quote from it. However, the key word is ““appropriate””. There are sometimes points at which we may have gone too far in trying to defend the concept of independence. A great deal more could be done to ensure our capability to respond in the short term, as well as provide better value for money for our taxpayers, by giving a little ground on the concept of independence and being more willing to look around at what our allies are doing, so that what we are doing dovetails with that. The hon. Member for Aldershot shuddered with horror at what President Sarkozy was reported as having said and suggested that the Government might be in a dialogue with him about the possibility of, as the hon. Gentleman put it, a time-share of our aircraft carriers. He took the point a bit far, although I would share his concern if that was really what was proposed. However, whatever we do in future we will do in concert with our allies. If we are going to invest in such enormous things as aircraft carriers, as I believe we should, it is essential that we view them not only as British assets but as NATO assets that we share with our allies. It is entirely right and appropriate to have discussions with others about the exact use to which the aircraft carriers will be put and how we can co-operate on ensuring that maximum value is extracted from such a massive investment. We need to think about how we extract the best long-term value from undertaking a programme on that scale.