Category: Defence

  • Ben Wallace – 2022 Statement on Defence Equipment Plan

    Ben Wallace – 2022 Statement on Defence Equipment Plan

    The statement made by Ben Wallace, the Secretary of State for Defence, in the House of Commons on 29 November 2022.

    I am pleased to place in the Library of the House a copy of the 2022 defence equipment plan report, which details the Department’s spending plans in equipment procurement and support projects over a period of 10 years.

    This year’s equipment plan report comes at a pivotal point in time as the Ministry of Defence has become increasingly in the spotlight over the last year in the wake of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

    The uplift received from the 2020 spending review meant we were able to rectify an existing deficit and produce an affordable equipment plan. We have retained this affordable position for the 2022 plan and continue to hold a contingency to mitigate against emerging financial pressures.

    Since the publication of the last report the Department has made significant improvements in the process and production of the equipment plan. We have revised guidance to improve realism judgments, strengthened our assessment of affordability and ensured closer engagement between top-level budget holders and head office to mitigate finance and capability risks.

    The recent autumn statement has recognised the need to increase defence spending, and we look forward to the outcomes of this once the integrated review is refreshed. For now, however, we are assured that the spending decisions we have set out remain in line with departmental priorities.

    The plan is not immune to risk, we have set ambitious savings targets and made hard decisions in spending priorities across the commands. The defence landscape has shifted, and we must and will remain agile to those emerging threats. We are entering a new age of warfare and will face pressure from the rising levels of inflation; the Department however remains confident in the resilience of our spending decisions despite now living in a more volatile environment.

  • Alex Chalk – 2022 Speech at the Make UK Defence Summit

    Alex Chalk – 2022 Speech at the Make UK Defence Summit

    The speech made by Alex Chalk, the Defence Procurement Minister, in Birmingham on 23 November 2022.

    It’s a pleasure to be here in Birmingham today for this Make UK Defence summit.

    Before continuing I should formally introduce myself – I’ve been the Minister for Defence Procurement for around a month now.

    As was just touched upon, unlike my ministerial colleagues in the department, I have a legal rather than a military background.

    Which means I bring two things, I hope, to Defence.

    First, an understanding of – and deep respect for – the rule of law. When we see the atrocities being committed in Ukraine, as unlawful as they are heinous, we are reminded how important it is to protect the rules-based international order, but also to do so with hard edged military assistance if required.

    Second, I bring an open mind and a willingness to listen and learn from you. I’m not coming in with any preconceptions, other than this, I believe very passionately in small business and I believe it is in your interest and the nations interest that you get a fair shot when it comes to defence procurement.

    That is particularly so in an era that is described by some as “a Golden Age of innovation”. That is digital innovation but other innovation, new ways of management, how to manage data.

    And let me say this too as an overarching way of principle. I come to this job very conscious of the advantages that come with speed of procurement and the risk that come with delay.

    Perfect is the enemy of the good and 80% capability today is very often preferable to 100% capability tomorrow if tomorrow never comes.

    There are so many examples of firms of all sizes giving us a crucial defensive advantage in this part of the world alone.

    There’s the team at Birmingham Airport who are converting Boeing 737s into E-7 airborne early warning aircraft.

    There’s the work being undertaken in Telford to manufacture Boxer armoured vehicles.

    And all the exciting small businesses in this region who we will be championing next weekend on Small Business Saturday.

    Take for example the Coventry-based SME Hygiene Pro Clean who – with help from our Defence and Security Accelerator which provides access to over £250 million in excess funding – won a contract with the Welsh Ambulance Trust to roll out their rapid cleaning system to speed up the decontamination of ambulances during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

    So, it’s no surprise our current defence spend in the West Midlands is about £120 for every person living here.

    But the important work of the SME work stretches beyond the boundaries of Birmingham and the Black Country.

    As we battled the pandemic, we saw the entire Defence supply chain step up to produce ventilators, build Nightingale hospitals and move millions of pieces of equipment around the country.

    More recently, it’s been fantastic to see firms pulling together nationwide to get vital defensive weaponry into the hands of Ukrainians as quickly as possible.

    And that takes me onto the third thing I want to do this morning and that is to set out my priorities for this role.

    But before I do that, it’s worth reminding ourselves of the context in which Defence is currently operating.

    First, the threats we face as a nation are proliferating and intensifying.

    Whether it’s state-on-state aggression like we are seeing in Ukraine.

    Or so-called sub-threshold dangers, including disinformation campaigns, cyber warfare and the sabotage of undersea cables.

    Meanwhile, the global pandemic, the energy crisis and ongoing impact of climate change have not just increased the demands on our forces, but imposed additional demands on our resources.

    Which means – as the Chancellor made clear in his financial statement last week – we need to deliver the maximum value for money, we need to deliver the maximum punch for our pound so to speak.

    As a result, your role as suppliers to our armed forces is more important than ever.

    Not just in keeping our forces equipped with everything they need, not just providing that innovation, technology, and cutting-edge capability which keeps us ahead of our adversaries, but through your achievements strengthening the entire sector so that no matter what happens, when the call comes, our nation is ready to respond.

    Let me also say by way of context, that where there are challenges there are also great opportunities for firms like yours to expand into new markets.

    Nations across the world are reawakening to the value of Defence.

    France, Australia, the United States and Germany, of course, are among the countries to have increased their Defence spending in the last year.

    That means we are now looking at a Defence export market potentially worth many billions of pounds more over the next decade.

    So, how are we going to grip this moment and seize this opportunity?

    Well, the good news is that we aren’t starting from scratch – this is the third bit of context.

    Most of you will be well acquainted with the Defence and Security Industrial Strategy – better known as DSIS.

    Launched under one of my predecessors Jeremy Quin, DSIS marked a step-change in our approach to industry.

    It means we now think about defence industry as a national strategic capability in its own right.

    It means we are considering the much broader impacts of our commercial decisions, such as how we can boost regional economies, how we can develop new skills bases, and how we can develop national industrial capability.

    But publishing any strategy is of course only the beginning, it is delivery that really counts.

    We’ve been working alongside industry to deliver on over 50 commitments during the last year and a half.

    Driving innovation, improving efficiency, and strengthening the entire sector.

    Now, we need to build on that success and create Defence supply chains which are truly fit for this new, more competitive and unstable era.

    So, turning to those priorities, they are only threefold:

    First, we want to see a more resilient supply chain.

    In this new era of global competition, we must make ourselves agile and resilient by design.

    That’s why last week we launched our new Supply Chain Strategy, the first in over a decade. You will be hearing from Major General Simon Hutchings who will cover in more detail our approach to that strategy.

    But in a nutshell, this is a clear mandate to do things differently to maximise the resources at our disposal.

    That means moving away from an exclusive focus on cost-cutting and efficiency savings.

    And instead considering reliability, through-life service and environmental sustainability as part of the package too.

    We’re also going to prioritise in ensuring supply chains are flexible enough to cope with sudden disruption.

    And we want to work closer than ever with you, our industrial partners, to build genuinely collaborative relationships.

    Including by having better visibility of firms – the SME and mid-tier companies – in that critical supply chain.

    And doing so by sharing more information because that allows us to make better decisions.

    And that brings me onto my second objective; greater collaboration with SMEs.

    Now, perhaps more than ever we need SMEs to play their proper part in this national mission and I am personally committed to that goal.

    So where have we got to?

    Last year 23% of our procurement budget went to SMEs – that’s a procurement budget of over £20 billion a year – that’s up from 13% in 2016/17.

    But we want to go further and we are targeting 25% for next year. That’s a bold but important ambition.

    Now I recognise, even after a few short weeks in this post, that smaller suppliers face unique challenges like ‘barriers to entry’ as economists sometimes refer to them.

    And that is why we are determined to make the barriers to working with us as low and as navigable as possible.

    At the heart of that determination is our SME Action Plan, published in January.

    Setting out how we’re maximising SMEs’ opportunities to do business with us.

    Take for example our £16 million Defence Technology Exploitation Programme – it’s offering grants up to £500,000 to help SMEs develop new technologies and processes.

    Meanwhile our new Procurement Reform Bill is helping SMEs by slashing the number of complex regulations which govern public procurement.

    But we have also created a new single supplier registration system, which means bidding companies will only have to submit their core credentials once, making it cheaper and easier for you to work with us too.

    Another key part of the Action Plan is our new SME Working Group within the Defence Suppliers Forum – which works closely with Make UK.

    It brings together SMEs from across the country, to sit alongside primes and MOD representatives. It is already beginning to bear fruit.

    During its first year, it’s addressed the use of Framework contracts on Defence and how to measure our impact on the SME community.

    So, to my third priority; boosting exports.

    That’s because partnerships are not just crucial on our own shores.

    If we are going to capitalise on the massive potential export market that I eluded to earlier, we need to strengthen industrial ties with our global partners.

    That’s because that in turn enables greater information sharing, greater interoperability with our allies as I saw myself in the Mojave Desert a couple of weeks ago with our Australian and American allies, and it also enables greater strategic planning.

    So, I want to drive better use of our strong and unique network of military officers, industry secondees and over 5,000 trade specialists.

    Based across the UK and within 120 countries, they can help promote innovation, opportunity and partnership around the world.

    We are also creating a more efficient system for managing any government-to-government relations in support of your exports.

    Meanwhile the UK DSE Export Faculty is working with the wider Department for International Trade Export Academy to provide SMEs with advice and support.

    So that’s an overview of what we’re doing and where we want to go.

    There’s a lot of different strategies and policies in there but the three most important words are ambition, resilience, and collaboration.

    And that collaboration really matters because if we are to really succeed, if we are to grasp these opportunities of this era to make you thrive and to make us safe, we are going to need your support too.

    So let us know what support you need to innovate and expand. Constructive engagement is welcome.

    Let us grasp those opportunities on offer to turn your cutting-edge ideas into cutting-edge capabilities.

    Let us seize the moment presented by excellent events like this, to meet new people and new business partners to strike up new business relationships.

    Your success is our country’s success and government will be willing you on.

    Thank you.

  • Stan Newens – 1982 Parliamentary Question on Cruise Missiles

    Stan Newens – 1982 Parliamentary Question on Cruise Missiles

    The parliamentary question asked by Stan Newens, the then Labour MP for Harlow, in the House of Commons on 16 November 1982.

    Mr. Newens asked the Secretary of State for Defence when the first cruise missiles are due to be deployed in the United Kingdom.

    The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Peter Blaker)

    In the absence of concrete results in the arms reduction negotiations in Geneva on intermediate nuclear forces, cruise missiles are due to be deployed in the United Kingdom by December 1983.

    Mr. Newens

    As the United States, on many occasions, particularly recently, has made it clear that it is prepared to put United States interests before those of Britain where it suits it, how on earth can the deployment of American owned and controlled cruise missiles in this country be justified? Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the majority of people in Britain today reject this proposal?

    Mr. Blaker

    The hon. Gentleman appears to misunderstand the reasoning behind the proposed installation of cruise and Pershing II missiles in Europe. That action is due to be taken, in the absence of an arms reduction agreement, at the request of the European countries. It is intended to demonstrate to the Soviet Union and to Western Europe that the United States is fully committed to the defence of Western Europe.

    Mr. Cartwright

    Has the Minister noted statements by United States officials that development problems affecting cruise and Pershing II missiles are no worse than those affecting any new weapon system? Does he find that choice of words comforting? Is he convinced that the cruise will be ready on time?

    Mr. Blaker

    According to the information that I have, I expect the cruise to be ready for deployment by the end of next year. The tests being conducted on the Tomahawk cruise missile, which is the relevant one, show a success rate of over 80 per cent.

    Mr. Stokes

    Is my hon. Friend aware that most people hope that the sooner these weapons are deployed in the United Kingdom the better, especially in view of the threat from the growing number of Soviet SS20 missiles? Will my hon. Friend do all in his power to counter the dangerous and misleading opposition to the stationing of these weapons here?

    Mr. Blaker

    I agree with my hon. Friend about the urgency of this problem. When NATO first proposed in 1979 the installation of cruise and Pershing missiles, and simultaneous negotiations with the Soviet Union to make that deployment unnecessary if agreement could be reached, the number of SS20s in the Soviet Union was just over 100. The figure is now 324. I believe, therefore, that the imbalance that existed in 1979 has worsened. We shall try to reach a disarmament agreement, but in the absence of such an agreement we must press on with our plans.

    Mr. Strang

    Is the Minister aware that the brave women of the Greenham Common peace campaign are representative of the views of millions of women in this country? Has he recognised that the harsh decision of the authorities to imprison them will increase rather than decrease the determination of women and men throughout Britain who are determined to oppose this dangerous escalation of the nuclear arms race?

    Mr. Blaker

    It is clear to me that the vast majority of people in this country believe in nuclear deterrence combined with a policy of multilateral negotiations for arms reduction. The case of the women at the so-called peace camp at Greenham Common is not a matter for me.

    Mr. Colvin

    Will my hon. Friend confirm that cruise missiles are defensive or retaliatory, and that they are in no way offensive or first-strike weapons.

    Mr. Blaker

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right. They travel at about the same speed as a British Airways jet. They would take three hours to reach Moscow.

    Mr. Denzil Davies

    Is the Minister aware that the original decision to deploy cruise missiles, far from bringing America and Western Europe closer together, has created confusion and dissension, especially by raising the spectre of limited nuclear war in Europe? Why do not the Government cancel the project, which is a major and dangerous step on the ladder of nuclear escalation?

    Mr. Blaker

    If there is confusion, it has been caused largely by some of the unilateralist organisations which have been spreading false information. I have previously told the House that one CND leaflet contained five gross errors of fact, three of which are conceded either by Monsignor Bruce Kent or by Lord Jenkins of Putney, a former hon. Member of this House. A limited nuclear war is not an objective of Western policy. The introduction of cruise missiles is intended to demonstrate that the United States is bound into the defence of Western Europe.

    Mr. Davies

    Will the hon. Gentleman concede that the whole object of a cruise missile is to fight a nuclear war on the Continent of Europe? Why is that not a limited nuclear war?

    Mr. Blaker

    The right hon. Gentleman is talking rubbish.

  • Robert Hicks – 1982 Parliamentary Question on HMS Fisgard

    Robert Hicks – 1982 Parliamentary Question on HMS Fisgard

    The parliamentary question asked by Robert Hicks, the then Conservative MP for Bodmin, in the House of Commons on 16 November 1982.

    Mr. Hicks asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has yet determined the future use of the land now occupied by HMS “Fisgard”, Torpoint; and if he will make a statement.

    The Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Jerry Wiggin)

    As has been announced, HMS “Fisgard” is due to close in December 1983. Provided that there is no other Ministry of Defence requirement for the land and buildings there, the property will be passed to the Property Services Agency for disposal in the usual way.

    Mr. Hicks

    Will my hon. Friend state whether there is any prospect of the Royal Marines or some other Service unit occupying this valuable and extensive site? If not, can he give the House the assurance that he will instruct the PSA to get on as quickly as possible with the sale of the site for some other positive use?

    Mr. Wiggin

    As the search has not been completed, I cannot say whether there will be any other Service use. If there is not, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks. I can also inform him that the Royal Marines will not be going there.

  • Bill Esterson – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Offshoring Warship Production

    Bill Esterson – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Offshoring Warship Production

    The parliamentary question asked by Bill Esterson, the Labour MP for Sefton Central, in the House of Commons on 18 November 2022.

    Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)

    Of course, if the whole contract was coming to UK yards, the investment would be more than £77 million. Now that the Minister has confirmed that the consortium is indeed Spanish-led, I remind him that no other G7 country offshores its warship production. Will he tell us how many jobs are going to Spain that would have come to this country as a result of this reckless decision by his Government?

    Alex Chalk

    I say respectfully that that is an absurd mischaracterisation. I am pleased that the overwhelming majority are coming here. By the way, jobs are also included for the people who designed this—BMT in Bath—which the hon. Member should welcome. The majority of the manufacturing is coming here. This decision also means that we will have the know-how to ensure that we have the pipeline to the future. If he wants to say that there are some jobs in Spain, that is perfectly true, but the overwhelming majority are here. Some of the Typhoons, for example, are assembled in Italy, so does he resent the fact that there are British jobs making some of the components? Of course he does not, because that is the modern world in which we live. Crucially, that modern world ensures that, as opposed to having some sort of prehistoric, antediluvian approach, we have strength for the United Kingdom, strength for the British armed forces and strength for British industry.

  • Alex Sobel – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Prime Contractor for the Fleet Solid Support Ships

    Alex Sobel – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Prime Contractor for the Fleet Solid Support Ships

    The parliamentary question asked by Alex Sobel, the Labour MP for Leeds North West, in the House of Commons on 18 November 2022.

    Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)

    In responding to the urgent question, the Minister seems to have left out a number of important details. Will he confirm whether the prime contractor for the fleet solid support ships will be the Spanish state-owned company Navantia, or will it be a British company?

    Alex Chalk

    I invite the hon. Member to look at the things that really matter—that is, the jobs that will come into British yards. Since we set out the national shipbuilding strategy, which was refreshed earlier this year, we have ensured that, for the first time in decades, there is a lasting pipeline for all Government-procured ships, whether for defence or elsewhere. That is important because the stability ensures that there can be investment.

    On the hon. Member’s specific point, there is, of course, a role for Navantia UK—there is no secret about that—just as there is a role for BAE Systems and all sorts of other industries in other badged weapons systems. That does not mean, however, that there is any reduced benefit for British workers. On the contrary, there is £77 million of investment. I respectfully say to him that the question that he has to answer is: would he set his face against a deal that would mean £77 million-worth of investment in a British yard, which, by the way, desperately needs it? Without that investment, who knows what the future would be for Harland & Wolff? With that investment, we can be sure that it is bright, and he should welcome that.

  • Derek Twigg – 2022 Parliamentary Question about Building British Warships in Spain

    Derek Twigg – 2022 Parliamentary Question about Building British Warships in Spain

    The parliamentary question asked by Derek Twigg, the Labour MP for Halton, in the House of Commons on 18 November 2022.

    Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)

    As my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) said, the Defence Committee is very clear that British ships should be built in British yards. As I understand it, this consortium is led by the Spanish. Will he confirm whether it is the case that they are ultimately responsible for the contract, and how can he square that with what the Conservative party has told us for many years, which is that leaving Europe would ensure that British ships would be built in this country?

    Alex Chalk

    It is perfectly true that there is an international collaboration, but I gently point out that that is not unusual and nor is it unwelcome. In any modern sophisticated piece of engineering, whether Typhoon or F-35, there will be an international component. If all nations produced everything themselves, that would become incredibly expensive and would defeat the object. Through international collaboration, which by the way we are proud of, we will produce something world-class and meet the needs of the taxpayer as well as the needs of our armed forces, and—I have not emphasised it enough before, so I must do so now—critically, a world-class shipbuilder will bring a lot of its technical know-how into Harland & Wolff, allowing it to build excellent ships long into the future.

  • Mick Whitley – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Whether Ship-Building Contracts Should be UK Only

    Mick Whitley – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Whether Ship-Building Contracts Should be UK Only

    The parliamentary question asked by Mick Whitley, the Labour MP for Birkenhead, in the House of Commons on 18 November 2022.

    Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)

    The union Prospect has warned that, as a result of this decision, as much as 80% of the work on these vessels could be offshored to Spain. This is a devastating blow to British shipyards and will compound the anxiety felt by workers at Cammell Laird in my constituency following last week’s announcement that, as a result of procurement laws imposed by Whitehall, much of the work on the new Mersey ferries will take place in Romania. It is time that the Government began to back British business. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister now commit to implementing Sir John Parker’s recommendation that all Defence-funded vessels should be open to UK-only competition and speak to Cabinet colleagues about the need for a broader overall procurement law so that, at last, we can begin to build in Britain by default?

    Alex Chalk

    These are British ships built to British designs in a British dockyard. I am pleased to be able to make that absolutely clear. The contract is essential to ensure not just that there are British jobs but, critically, that there is the best know-how—wherever in the world it comes from—so that our yards are equipped with the expertise, skills and talent they need to sustain these ships and ships into the future.

  • Alex Chalk – 2022 Statement on Fleet Solid Support Ships

    Alex Chalk – 2022 Statement on Fleet Solid Support Ships

    The statement made by Alex Chalk, the Minister for Defence Procurement, in the House of Commons on 18 November 2022.

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. On 16 November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that Team Resolute—consisting of Harland & Wolff, BMT and Navantia UK—has been appointed as the preferred bidder in the competition to build the fleet solid support ships. Having appointed Team Resolute as the preferred bidder, the Ministry of Defence expects to award it a contract around the end of this year. That appointment follows on from the award to BAE Systems in Glasgow of the £4 billion contract for five Type 26 frigates earlier this week. Both are excellent news for UK shipyards and the shipbuilding skills base in our country.

    Those crucial vessels will provide munitions, stores and provisions to the Royal Navy’s aircraft carriers, destroyers and frigates deployed at sea. Ammunition and essential stores will ensure that the mission can be sustained anywhere around the world. The contract will deliver more than 1,000 additional UK shipyard jobs, generate hundreds of graduate and apprentice opportunities across the UK, and a significant number of further jobs throughout the supply-chain. Team Resolute has also pledged to invest £77 million in shipyard infrastructure to support the UK shipbuilding sector.

    The entire final assembly will be completed at Harland & Wolff’s shipyard in Belfast to Bath-based BMT’s British design. The awarding of the contract will see jobs created and work delivered in Appledore, Devon, Harland & Wolff Belfast, and within the supply chain up and down the country. This announcement is good news for the UK shipbuilding industry. It will strengthen and secure the UK shipbuilding enterprise as set out in the national shipbuilding strategy, and I commend this decision to the House.

    Chris Evans

    The awarding of this contract raises one fundamental question: are the Government on the side of British workers? When the Secretary of State for Defence designated these ships as warships in 2020, he said:

    “The Fleet Solid Support warships competition will be the genesis of a great UK shipbuilding industry”.

    However, he then seemed to cool on the idea. When speaking in front of the Defence Committee in July, he stated that ships will only be constructed and integrated in the UK, and two weeks ago at Defence questions he said that he would

    “not cut corners for party political ideology”.—[Official Report, 7 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 13.]

    This is not about party politics; this is about creating British jobs for British workers, with British ships using British steel.

    Ministry of Defence spin doctors were quick to get to work on the press release, claiming that this bid will create 2,000 jobs in UK shipyards and in the supply chain. However, research by the GMB and Team UK’s contract bid shows that if these ships were built in the UK rather than in Spanish shipyards, it would mean more than 6,000 UK jobs. The Government have created a new Spanish armada more than 430 years since the last one lost. It is also highly unusual for warships to be built abroad, due to security implications. Earlier this week, the Government announced that the new Type 26 warships will be built in the UK, yet the fleet solid support ships will not be. Why has a different decision been made, and how will security and economic concerns be managed?

    Before we hear calls from the Government Benches of “What would Labour do?”—well, we would build British by default. Our approach has broad support. The Defence Committee has said that Ministers should

    “ensure that warships are built in UK yards and that this designation continues to include the Fleet Solid Support ship contract”.

    The Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions has argued that building and maintaining fleet solid support ships in the UK was strategically important, but how much of those ships will be built in Spain and not the UK? Will Ministers continue to use UK steel to build those ships? British workers have the right to know whether their Government are on their side. Based on their words and deeds, the answer is a resounding no.

    Alex Chalk

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman but, with great respect, what a load of nonsense. He started by saying that the Labour party would be on the side of British jobs for British workers, and that is exactly what the contract delivers. There will be 1,200 jobs—not any old jobs but fantastic new jobs—in our shipbuilding sector. The Government are already investing in Type 26, and we are seeing full order books in Scottish yards. This will mean additional jobs in Harland & Wolff. It is worth focusing on what Harland & Wolff had to say. Its chief executive said:

    “I am pleased to see UK Government seize the last opportunity to capture the skills that remain in Belfast and Appledore before they are lost for good”.

    The contract is about ensuring that there is strength and depth in shipyards across our country.

    The hon. Gentleman went on to make points about how some components will be built overseas, but in modern engineering designs ’twas ever thus. Take, for example, the F-35—a highly sophisticated bit of equipment built in the United States. Where is much of the equipment designed and manufactured? Here in the United Kingdom. That is exactly what we do. Do the Americans think that, somehow, because of its British components, it is some latter-day invasion on the lines of the Spanish armada, as he referred to? Of course not. That would be complete nonsense. This is fantastic investment that, by the way, also ensures an additional £77 million invested in Harland & Wolff. That is supporting British jobs, British know-how and a pipeline of British expertise that will sustain our shipbuilding industry into the future.

  • Rebecca Long-Bailey – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Exposing Military to Nuclear Weapons Testing in 1950s

    Rebecca Long-Bailey – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Exposing Military to Nuclear Weapons Testing in 1950s

    The parliamentary question asked by Rebecca Long-Bailey, the Labour MP for Salford and Eccles, in the House of Commons on 16 November 2022.

    Rebecca Long-Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)

    A 1958 instruction from Whitehall ordered medics to take blood samples regularly from exposed veterans during nuclear weapons tests. I have been made aware that many veterans and their families have been reported being unable to obtain the test results, so are denied the ability to make any sense of what they, and in some cases their families, suffered. Will the Deputy Prime Minister investigate and inform me of the legal rights of these men to obtain their medical records? Will he undertake to ask the Prime Minister to order that the medical files be opened to veterans and the UK Health Security Agency immediately?

    The Deputy Prime Minister (Dominic Raab)

    I thank the hon. Lady, who has been a consistent champion on this issue, for which I recognise and pay tribute to her. My understanding is that the information is available to veterans and their families, who may request details of their service and medical records, but if the hon. Lady would like to write to me, I will make sure that she gets an adequate answer on her more specific point.