---

Defence Industry (Lancashire)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but what I said was that the Financial Times had reported that some 1,000 companies are employing 60,000 people in the north-west, so there is no dispute between what he and I believe to be the case. The Northwest Regional Development Agency has consistently talked about boosting the aerospace industry. However, despite its excellence and expertise, there is no doubt—the hon. Gentleman has made the case very eloquently—that Lancashire is suffering from a downturn in fortunes. Last November, BAE announced plans to cut a further 640 jobs, citing a reduction in military spending on both sides of the Atlantic. Such cuts will take the total number of redundancies at the defence contractor this year to about 2,300. In Lancashire alone, 205 jobs will be lost at Samlesbury, 170 jobs at Warton and a further 57 jobs will be lost in the Military Air Solutions operations based in Chadderton. Not even the Government's misguided investment in the multi-billion pound nuclear submarine programme has been enough to save cuts of 5 per cent. in the 4,500-strong work force at BAE Systems' naval base in neighbouring Barrow-in-Furness in Cumbria. Let me reinforce the point of difference that we have heard expressed from the two Front Benches today. It is certainly our contention that it is quite erroneous for the Government not to have included the future of the Trident nuclear submarine programme in their strategic defence review. It seems wholly ridiculous that such a review, which is looking at all aspects of defence spending—it is doing that because of the state of the economy and because no party can afford to do everything that it would like to do—is not considering that single biggest issue. Let me say a few words about the Woodford plan, because not only is it a region that I represent, but its problems epitomise the very issues that the hon. Gentleman referred to from his constituency's perspective. Last September, BAE confirmed that it would close the site in Woodford in 2012 with the loss of the remaining jobs—well under 1,000—as a result of the conclusion of the Nimrod project. To be fair to the Minister, he visited the plant just before the announcement. He had a look around and talked to the people directly involved. He made it clear that the option to convert three further development aircraft to production standard would not be taken forward. Whichever way one tries to wrap up that decision, it was a body blow to the hundreds of workers still employed at Woodford. The decision was all the more remarkable given the fact that the RAF had stated that it had an operational requirement for a further three aircraft. Given that the Government have now effectively chosen to buy three American Rivet Joint aircraft instead of Nimrods, will the Minister use this opportunity to explain how such a decision sits with the Prime Minister's declaration of British jobs for British workers, which now sounds rather hollow in Woodford? Any decision to contract the planes out to the US results in not only skilled workers losing their jobs earlier than necessary, but the UK defence industry losing the military aviation expertise that has been built up over many years and that is such vital a part of the north-west economy. There are many questions about exporting jobs and military aviation expertise, not least of which is that—I have put this point directly to the Minister before—if we are going to use American aircraft for intelligence and reconnaissance jobs, which is what such planes are for, who has first claim on the intelligence? I understand that we have a close working relationship with our American allies, but surely only one party has first claim on that intelligence. The Government will also lose the expertise developed in Woodford and various other locations that would help future possible productivity, leaving the UK with no option but to return to the US time and again for upgrades and maintenance. Let me make one thing clear, and this echoes points that were made earlier. The argument is not one of protectionism. Our priorities must be to give our armed forces the best equipment, to get value for the taxpayer and to support a strong defence industry—in that order. However, the decision is about short-term savings overriding long-term defence interests and financial common sense, which is why it would be economically advantageous in the long term to have stayed with the Nimrod programme. Let me turn now to the Eurofighter, which is where I differ from the hon. Gentleman and possibly the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). It is our contention that the project represents very little financial sense. I realise that such a remark will cause a great deal of consternation, not least to the hon. Member for South Ribble. It is accurate and fair to say that the programme has been beset by cost overruns, delays, technical problems and it is now an expensive and, as some might say, an unnecessary and inappropriate capability. The Eurofighter is considered by many people to be a damning indictment of this and previous Governments' military priorities, and is viewed as an anachronistic piece of cold war kit that serves no purpose in the modern world. Instead of fighting the wars of the past, the Government should be looking to utilise the skills base of those employed in the Eurofighter project to invest in technology such as UAVs, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that could help save lives in Afghanistan, where we have troops on the front line, putting their lives at risk every day of the week right now. Air Vice-Marshal Martin Routledge, the outgoing chief of staff for strategy, policy and plans at RAF HQ Air Command, has been vocal in his belief that the MOD and the RAF have not invested enough in this so-called agile technology. UAVS, such as the Reaper, can be used to monitor routes commonly used by troops to see if improvised explosive devices or mines are being planted by insurgents. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that some drones are already being used for that purpose, but the simple fact remains that there are not enough UAVs to handle all the operational demands. It is our view that the Government should embrace that technology, and when they finally do so, I am convinced that Lancashire and the wider north-west region have the workers with the necessary expertise and determination to get it to the front line. Members will be all too well aware today that the defence industry faces a great deal of pain as the economic downturn makes its inevitable impact on defence spending. However, Members should also remember that the MOD had saddled itself with massive debt even before the current downturn had begun to take shape. Bernard Grey's report last October described the MOD's procurement policies as "incompetent" and revealed a disparity of about £35 billion between our commitments and the resources that are available to fulfil them. We know that about £2.5 billion is wasted every year on equipment projects. That is Labour's legacy—a budget that is out of control and a programme that is years late. It is also a legacy that has caused a great deal of uncertainty among the thousands of people working in the defence industry in Lancashire and elsewhere. Given the tight financial shackles that the MOD will inevitably be operating under in the foreseeable future, it is vital that the Government learn the lessons from past procurement blunders. We have a situation now where some aircraft, such as the Eurofighter, are built with parts that are made all over Europe and then shipped somewhere else to be put together, purely as a result of political deals. A company such as BAE Systems, which still employs thousands of people in the north-west region, would do better in a more commercial atmosphere that had less political horse-trading. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will at least agree with my final point, which is that British industry has nothing to fear from a more business-led approach to military procurement.