---

Defence in the UK

I fear that I am not in a position to be able to answer that. If I could change places with the Minister after the general election, doubtless I would find many Chinooks flying operationally. I saw, however, that real progress has been made on that programme, and there is a huge determination on the part of the work force at Boscombe Down to ensure the highest standards of workmanship. People do not realise the complexity of those helicopters. Stripping down and replacing the wiring means replacing 20,000 wires per helicopter. It is an extraordinary undertaking. I mentioned the Nimrods. Then there are the unmanned aerial vehicles, which will increasingly be seen in the skies over south Wiltshire as we introduce the training regime led by the Royal Artillery in order to deploy UAVs operationally and in infantry tactics. The science and technology apprenticeship schemes at Boscombe Down are a splendid innovation. When I was first elected to the House, every year I had to present the prizes to the apprentices at Boscombe Down—RAF Boscombe Down, as it was then called. There would be 50 or 60 apprentices a year. Then there were years with none. Now, I am glad to say, they are coming back. There will be more than 20 apprentices this year. That is a great compliment to QinetiQ and to the work force at Boscombe Down. Only an hour or so ago there was an announcement from an important defence procurement manufacturer in my constituency. Chemring Countermeasures has announced that there is to be a new £18.5 million investment in two new flare decoy manufacturing facilities. Every time any of us travel on a military helicopter, particularly if it is in theatre, we are used to the noise of the flares going off and of the chaff going out behind the helicopter, or any other kind of aeroplane. They have to be made somewhere. They happen to be made at High Post outside Salisbury. That company has an ancient and interesting history. The sadness is that there will be a loss of jobs over the next year or two because higher safety requirements mean that fewer people and more machinery have to be used. It is safer, better and even more reliable, but the downside concerns the people. I am glad to say that the company is working hard to ensure that the skills of those people can continue to be usefully deployed—locally, I hope. There is great family loyalty in the defence industry. In that factory I know, because I have met them, that three generations of several families are still working there. The story of Chemring Countermeasures goes back a very long time and is typical of defence procurement companies all over the country. It started back in 1941 with Chemring developing processes for metallising fabrics, which sounds an unlikely link, but it went back longer than that. In 1933 the Wessex Aircraft Engineering Company was set up. It was taken over by Bryant and May. Eventually that became Schermuly, which in turn became the British Match Corporation, incorporated with Wilkinson Sword. It is an extraordinary story of the interlinking of defence industries within the manufacturing base of our country. Eventually the business all came together in 1997 as Chemring Ltd. On this important day for that company in my constituency, I pay tribute to the company and to the work force that has made it so important as part of the everyday life of our servicemen and women at the sharp end, not just on land, but in the air and at sea, because that remarkable company provides countermeasures and flares for all three services, and sells substantially into our NATO allies as well. I finish by making another point about defence spending in this country. Sometimes senior figures in the shadow Cabinet groan when they see me coming because they know that I will say we should double defence spending. I know that that wish is unlikely to come to fruition in current economic circumstances. We all have to be hard-nosed about that, but we should seriously consider why we have the lowest defence spending as a proportion of our gross national product since the 1930s. It would have an electrifying effect on the country's economy and much else for which this nation stands if we were to rebuild confidence in our nationhood, as well as in our defence industries and the armed forces, by increasing substantially the defence budget. This, I believe, would not be resisted by the electorate because of the paradox with which I started. We know that Her Majesty's forces have never been held in higher regard except during the second world war and the years immediately afterwards. Why can we not match that former regard, and remind people that their quality of life, standard of living and ability to buy white goods in the sheds on the edges of our towns and cities depend on the defence budget and the dedication of all three forces? We should start arguing from that point of view. Defence is very much in our national interest in respect of consumer spending, energy, water supply and climate change, because it changes all our economic and political perceptions. If we harness that fund of support for Her Majesty's forces, we will do the nation a service, and—above all—say to those forces, "Well done and thank you."