Maria Eagle MP: speeches

Speeches

• 24 Jan 2025 · Unity Contract · Hansard source

  More

  I opened the centre in Glasgow that has some of those jobs, and I can assure the hon. Lady that it is well under way, and although the Cardiff centre is not quite up and running yet, it soon will be. So those jobs are already there. I disagree with her first point, of course, but that is fair enough. I hope that she will see the importance of manufacturing skills and job opportunities, many of which have dual-use applications, as indeed do the apprenticeships at Rolls-Royce in Derby. There is nothing to suggest that the young people who obtain those nuclear qualifications will not go and work on the civil side of nuclear in the future, and even she ought to be able to see the importance of skilling up young people and creating job opportunities across the nations and regions.

• 24 Jan 2025 · Unity Contract · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is right that there is much innovation in the defence industries in our nations, and often with dual-use technology, which means that it is not just about defence but about a broader range of potential opportunities. I see no reason why all those opportunities cannot be exploited using our defence industrial strategy to kick things off. I hope to see that in future.

• 24 Jan 2025 · Unity Contract · Hansard source

  More

  I find myself agreeing with a lot of what the shadow Defence Secretary said—unity, indeed. He asked about 2.5%. I think we all agree that defence spending needs to increase, and he knows well that we have just increased it by 5.9% in real terms this coming year—it is up by £2.9 billion—as a step on the way to getting to 2.5%, which is a cast-iron guarantee. The hon. Member referred to the strategic defence review, which as he knows we said will be coming in the spring, and that is still the plan. He will have to wait a little longer to see the precise details of the threats that that identifies and, therefore, the capabilities we need to develop. I think there is general agreement across the House about the dangers of things like the Yantar incident, which the Secretary of State spoke about on Wednesday, and we will all have noted that it was dealt with by one of our nuclear submarines. That reinforces the point that the hon. Member made about the importance of our deterrent.

• 24 Jan 2025 · Unity Contract · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I can confirm that. MOD spending already supports over 200,000 jobs directly, and many more besides, and my hon. Friend has set out an example from his constituency. The defence industrial strategy will aim to create jobs in every nation and region of this country.

• 24 Jan 2025 · Unity Contract · Hansard source

  More

  In the spirit of unity—that pun is becoming a bit wearing, but I have just used it, too—I very much agree that the foundation of security and deterrence is a key part of us being able to advance as a nation. Without that security, we cannot secure any of our public services or our way of life.

• 24 Jan 2025 · Unity Contract · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman, as ever, is fighting for his constituents. He makes some good points about Harland and Wolff and skills. We do have defence contracts based at Harland and Wolff, and I will be visiting Belfast in due course—I will not give him the exact date, but it is soon—in order to galvanise and understand what is available, particularly in the SME community, in Northern Ireland. I look forward perhaps to talking to him about that at the time.

• 15 Jan 2025 · UK Submarine Fleet · Hansard source

  More

  I knew I would get it wrong. My hon. Friend also mentioned the efforts of her constituents in contributing to this national endeavour. The backlog of 23 decommissioned submarines that have yet to be dismantled and recycled, which has built up over many years—seven are stored in Rosyth and 16 in Devonport—is a longstanding and ongoing issue that needs to be resolved. The previous Government set out on a path to resolve it, and we intend to continue and make sure that that work is done. While hon. Members should be in no doubt that our submarine capabilities are the envy of the vast majority of countries in the world, the disposal backlog is one of the challenges across the portfolio of the Submarine Delivery Agency that it identified in its most recent annual report, resulting from historic underinvestment in capability and infrastructure over many years. As a Government, we are committed to defueling, dismantling and disposal of those submarines, and to meeting our responsibilities at every stage of the life-cycle of our fleet. Defueling and disposal are complex tasks, and Ministers, our Submarine Delivery Agency, and our entire defence nuclear enterprise take their responsibilities extremely seriously. HMS Swiftsure was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar, and workers at Rosyth yard, as he knows very well, are in the process of entirely dismantling it, which is on track to be completed by the end of 2026. That will make HMS Swiftsure the first decommissioned Royal Navy nuclear submarine to be fully dismantled, with around 90% of its structure and components being reused or recycled. This is a demonstrator programme, designed to identify methods of dealing with the backlog of decommissioned submarines swiftly and safely—and, I might say, “surely”, given the name of the submarine, but that is a very corny joke. We intend to do that in a way that provides the best value for money for the taxpayer. The responsible and innovative approach we are taking has a strong focus on sustainability. By extracting the reactor rather than storing the whole reactor compartment, we are recycling a greater proportion of each submarine and dramatically reducing the volume of radioactive material being placed in long-term storage. We are also ensuring that steel from decommissioned hulls will be able to be reused to support the manufacture of future UK-built submarines. Workers at the Rosyth yard have also successfully and safely completed the initial stage of the dismantling process on four decommissioned submarines—which should give my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar some reassurance about future work that is going on. That will pave the way to accelerate the programme, having learned, from HMS Swiftsure, the best way of going about it, and should sustain high-skilled jobs in Rosyth as we deal with this legacy. In parallel, we are evaluating our long-term options for future submarine disposal capability in the UK, using the lessons being learned from HMS Swiftsure, to enable us to dispose of future classes of submarine as they leave service, rather than having to park them at Devonport again and then wonder what to do with them thereafter. The submarine disposal capability project was established in 2022, as I am sure the hon. Member for South Suffolk and you, Dr Murrison, recall, to identify an enduring disposal capability for future submarines. The project is still in its concept phase, assessing all options for a future submarine disposal capability within the UK. An initial study has shown that there were various potential sites for disposal, including Rosyth. That work was investigative.

• 15 Jan 2025 · UK Submarine Fleet · Hansard source

  More

  I echo the many comments that you have already heard about what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I hope we are providing one of the most interesting of the debates that you have chaired, although having not heard the others, I cannot really have a view on it. The Government is 100% committed to the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent, which keeps both the UK and our NATO allies safe from the most extreme threats. As the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) said, and as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) made a big point of setting out in his speech, we were elected with a commitment to deliver our triple lock guarantee of maintaining our continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent, constructing four new Dreadnought-class submarines at Barrow-in-Furness, and delivering all future upgrades needed for that programme. I am glad to hear the widespread consensus between all parties represented this Chamber today on that being the right way to go. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), whose ears must be ringing at the moment with the gratitude from those around him for initiating the debate, which, as the hon. Member for South Suffolk said, is timely and important. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar for his ongoing interest in our submarine fleet and the disposal of decommissioned submarines—I am not surprised by that, given his constituency interests, but it still good to hear that he is so passionate about it. I am also grateful to those of his constituents who are among the skilled workers involved in that work at the Rosyth royal dockyard. I would like to echo comments by Members here today who have thanked both our submariners and our industrial workers, who contribute across the nations to this tremendously important enterprise. I am grateful to all of them, whether they serve on board a submarine, serve in our armed forces, or help to build or maintain the submarines, and for all the support work that goes into them. I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister), who talked about Faslane, my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) who talked about Devonport, and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South—

• 15 Jan 2025 · UK Submarine Fleet · Hansard source

  More

  I can, of course, confirm that. We are more than willing to look at any suggestions that any hon. Member might have. I would like now to try to answer some of the specific questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar—it is his debate. He asked specifically about the well-being of submariners, and about what is being done and what more can be done to support them and their families. We are aware of the pressure put on submariners and their families during their long periods of absence. They are given extensive training prior to deployment to try and help to them prepare for life underwater and for life away from their families for such a long time. They have access while at sea to a weekly short message from their nominated loved one, which should help, although it is, of course, not quite like being in the same place at the same time. When returning from deployment, submariners have access to the Royal Navy family and people support services, which can offer a range of specialist, tailored welfare services if they are needed. Recognising the impact on families, the Royal Navy has also worked to enhance support for families of those deployed, backed by service charities, so there is work there. We are conscious of the extra pressure that exists, and we take steps to try to make sure that there is support and help. My hon. Friend also asked what assessment I can make of the Astute fleet, and whether it is able to carry out its intended role. The fleet is perfectly capable of carrying out all of the roles that are required of it. As my hon. Friend knows, there are two more Astutes that are not currently commissioned yet—HMS Agamemnon and Astute Boat 7. We will continue to build those, and we expect that the new class to replace Vanguard will also be fully built—certainly, the first boat is currently on target in terms of timing—so we are confident that the fleet can do what it is intended to do. My hon. Friend also asked what steps have been taken in regards to the NAO findings to ensure that the defence nuclear enterprise is delivering effectively and efficiently. The organisations that make up the defence nuclear enterprise are working more closely than ever before, operating effectively as an integrated team to ensure the maintenance of the continuous at-sea deterrent posture. We are harnessing expertise and experience of multidisciplinary teams to deliver this mission and are committed to sustainment and renewal of the nuclear capabilities for as long as is required. The NAO’s work is tremendously valuable to us. It shines a very positive light and focuses minds in the Department and the defence nuclear enterprise on making sure that we do the best we can to get value for money and deliver on time and to budget. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar asked me about the budgets. He discerned from a parliamentary question the £9 million per year cost of maintaining submarines that are awaiting disposal, and he asks whether that reduces the £298 million budget for the major project portfolio data, which he got from a parliamentary answer. Obviously we do not release particular spending profiles for individual programmes, but I can tell him that the latest whole-life cost for the submarine dismantling project is £298 million, and that figure includes costs associated with dismantling work in Rosyth and maintenance costs for decommissioned submarines in Devonport. My hon. Friend asks if I will work with Babcock, Fife council, Fife College and other local partners to help to turn Rosyth into a world-leading centre for submarine dismantling. He wants a quick announcement on the next stage of the programme. We are currently learning lessons from the dismantling of Swiftsure, which he already knows is on target to be completed by the end of next year. It will pave the way for future dismantling—my hon. Friend knows that there are already four submarines there and that the first stages of the process have already been undertaken for them. Once that work is done and we have finished with Swiftsure, we will look to accelerate the programme in Rosyth, drawing on the lessons we will have learned. That will sustain high-skilled jobs and support sustainability. My hon. Friend will see that we will have made more progress by then on the future of submarine disposal capability. I am happy to work with my hon. Friend and his local council and other organisations—indeed, we already do. There is a partnership between the MOD, the Royal Navy, and local authorities and nearby universities and colleges called the Arrol Gibb Innovation Campus. Three projects that relate to Rosyth are currently earmarked there for funding. We are more than happy to try to assist in making sure that the local area and his constituents get best value for the money being spent in Rosyth. I hope that answers some of my hon. Friend’s questions.

• 15 Jan 2025 · UK Submarine Fleet · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to have to go back to my officials and interrogate them about what the possibilities are in Belfast. It is not a place where submarine work or nuclear work has previously been done. There will be criteria that any potential place would have to meet in order to do that, but I will certainly go back and challenge my officials about the extent to which Belfast—

• 6 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, she will make a commitment to visit the site. I agree with my hon. Friend: our defence industrial strategy will enhance the incentives for long-term investment in the UK defence sector. It will encourage investment by private firms, alongside public money, align the imperatives of national security, and ensure that we have the necessary skills.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend will be aware that despite the fact we have had nuclear submarines since 1980, we have never dismantled one, so there is a lot of work to be done. What is happening with Swiftsure is very encouraging and will hopefully provide many jobs in dismantling nuclear submarines. I hope my hon. Friend will be happy with that reply.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Yes. My hon. Friend will know that the report was produced under the previous Government. Its findings were set out under the previous Government, and I think they announced that all the necessary steps to implement all 24 recommendations—15 were accepted and nine were accepted in principle—had been completed. We need to continue to learn the lessons and make sure that such problems do not arise in other programmes.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I hope that our defence industrial strategy, in enabling SMEs to access contracts and work for the MOD more easily, will increase that number substantially.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Yes.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Defence Industrial Strategy: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  Neither of the ships has been at sea for years—one since 2022 and the other since 2017—and neither was due to go back out to sea before their out-of-service date. The question of who might be said to have scrapped them is moot; the ships have not been scrapped, but we took the tough decision in November to retire ageing capabilities, so that we can save the money for dealing with the threats that we will face in future.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Defence Industrial Strategy: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  I do not disagree at all. I look forward to visiting the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency and to seeing the potential of firms. He is completely correct that clusters of excellence and skill are the way forward. I look forward to visiting his constituency shortly.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Defence Industrial Strategy: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  First, I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and his North East Technology Park businesses as soon as possible. The Government recognise that SMEs face particular challenges, which I want to address. Through the defence industrial strategy we will reduce barriers to entry and foster a more diverse community of suppliers, including non-traditional SMEs and those that are developing future technologies. We will also send a clear market signal about our preference to grow onshore production capability.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Defence Industrial Strategy: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  We are delivering for defence, boosting spending by £3 billion in real terms this coming financial year. I hope that more of our procurement spend can go to SMEs. The defence industrial strategy will set the conditions to unlock the full potential of SMEs, to seize future opportunities and ensure the growth and resilience of our defence manufacturing base, providing more good jobs in every nation and region.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Defence Industrial Strategy: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to accept that point, and I agree. Plenty of jobs and skills will be needed around the country in every nation and region, so that we improve matters everywhere.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Defence Industrial Strategy: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is certainly true that exports are important, in addition to production for our own use. We are working very hard on the export campaigns. I cannot say any more than that at present, but I can assure him that we are working very hard. The rest of our spend on such matters is part of the SDR. Once that is completed, there will be conclusions. It might not be a Christmas present—I do not know when his birthday is—but a present some time later.

• 27 Nov 2024 · UK Air and Missile Defences · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on obtaining this debate and making such a superb contribution—very knowledgeable and incisive. I agree with the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) on one thing: the quality of this debate has been superb, with excellent, knowledgeable contributions from all sides. I want to answer some of the questions that I was specifically asked before getting on to the meat of what I want to say. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) made an important point about concerns in his constituency, which contains Lakenheath and Mildenhall. He also referred to a nearby site at which developments are worrying local people. As far as I am aware, we do not have concerns in the MOD about that development, but I fully acknowledge that his constituents do. I am more than happy to offer him the meeting he seeks, so I can understand more fully the concerns that have been raised with him and so we can engage to make sure that he is reassured, to the extent that that is an accurate thing for him to be. Hon. Members across the Chamber have spoken about the commitment to 2.5%. I make it clear that that is our commitment. The hon. Member for South Suffolk tried to make sure that I do not resort to saying that the last time the country spent 2.5% on defence was at the time of the last Labour Government, but I will disappoint him: that is, in fact, accurate. I can understand why the party that has just left office after 14 years does not necessarily want to talk about all aspects of its record. None the less, the record is there. We are committed to setting a path to 2.5% in the spring. As Members across the House know, the strategic defence review will report in the spring. When we have a full strategic sense of what we ought to be spending the money on that we are going to be committing in order to meet the current threat, rather than operating on the basis of an industrial strategy and a defence and security review that, even with its refresh, did not take into account—

• 27 Nov 2024 · UK Air and Missile Defences · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Dowd. All the screens are showing different times. I am perfectly happy to conclude my remarks.

• 27 Nov 2024 · UK Air and Missile Defences · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, the Secretary of State made a statement that dealt with withdrawing six capabilities. It would, in fact, save some money—£150 million over two years and £500 million over five years—but the primary purpose is to ensure that we do not continue to spend money on capability that will not actually provide modern defence. It is a rationalisation. It is fairly clear that with some of those announcements, it was just necessary to get on and make the decision. As the hon. Gentleman will see in the new year, a path will be set out to 2.5% in the spring, along with the SDR, which I think is the right way of doing it. We are committed to it and we will get there. That, I think, answers the point that the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), who is no longer in his place, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made about getting to 2.5%. This has been a timely and excellent debate across the Chamber. If the aim of my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham was to show that there is support across the House, he has succeeded. It will be clear to anyone who reads the debate that there is no real distinction between the concerns that we all have across the parties. As we were reminded last week by Russia’s reckless and escalatory use of an intermediate-range ballistic missile, which my hon. Friend and others mentioned, the global air and missile threat is advancing, proliferating and converging. Given the increasingly volatile and contested threat environment, we must ensure that we have the capability and capacity to counter threats in the most appropriate way. In this uncertain future, as the hon. Member for South Suffolk said, deterrence—not only of the nuclear kind—will form the main line of defence. We have to ensure that we provide the right level of deterrence through the joint effort of land, sea and air power. To do so, we must properly consider the range of threats, from the low-cost drones that we see affecting the UK today to the strategic long-range weapons that Russia threatens to use. This might be an opportune moment to deal with the points that hon. Members made about the drone situation. Obviously we are aware of recent reports of drones flying in the constituency of the hon. Member for West Suffolk and elsewhere. Protection of our personnel and bases is our highest priority. We employ multi-layered and credible force protection measures. I will not say here precisely what has been employed and where; for security reasons, I will not go into specifics, but the Chamber can be assured that we are taking steps. We are aware of what is going on and are doing our best to deal with it. The House will be aware that through the Civil Aviation Authority, aerodromes in the UK are protected under the Air Navigation Order 2016 by uncrewed air system flight restriction zones. We will be making sure that anybody we manage to catch engaging in such behaviour is shown the full force of the law for their illegal activities. That is about all that I can say at present. Obviously, the Chamber would not expect me to go into too many details, but we are fully dealing with the matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham says, our geography makes the threats facing the UK different from those facing many of our allies. Solutions preferred by some will therefore not necessarily be suitable for us. However, our geography should not and does not make us complacent. We have to continue to look at how the UK can meet her own NATO commitments, provide defence and deterrence and protect the UK homeland, but we must also ensure that we become increasingly interoperable with our NATO allies. Let me be clear that although the threat is evolving, the UK is not defenceless. We have a very broad range of capabilities contributing towards our integrated air and missile defence approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham and the hon. Member for West Suffolk said, we have Typhoon aircraft on alert 24 hours a day. The Navy has proved the effectiveness of the Type 45 against various air threats. Although it is right that we do not predetermine the outcome of the strategic defence review, the Chamber can be clear that a key part of it will be to look at how we can deal with preparedness against air and missile threats. It would be wrong to suggest, however, that the Government are therefore not taking any action. We have recognised the vital importance of integrated air and missile defence, which is why we are not just passively reviewing our own capabilities but actively leading the way internationally with initiatives such as DIAMOND, which the hon. Member for West Suffolk did indeed initiate during his time in office. It aims to improve air defence integration across Europe, boost interoperability and strengthen NATO integrated air and missile defence. It is all very well for us all to procure different missiles, but if we do not work together, one ends up with holes and gaps. There is a good argument for ensuring that we can join up whatever systems there are to boost overall defence for Europe. That is what DIAMOND seeks to do. That is all going on now, and it should put us in a better position to understand how to go forward and spend the money wisely on the right things, not the wrong things. The Secretary of State announced at the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers last month that the UK will lead on some of that work. The UK has also launched the NATO multinational procurement initiative on defensive and offensive missile capabilities to mobilise the Euro-Atlantic defence industry in support of Ukraine. We still have to double down on supporting Ukraine and ensure that we boost it as best we can to defend it against the appalling aggression that it faces. Boosting industrial capacity is another key part of the debate. It is a certainty in our strategic way forward. We have boosted the money that we will be spending. Members present will recall that at the recent Budget we got an extra £2.9 billion for defence over the next year. There is no way that all Government Departments are as happy with their settlement from the Treasury as the Ministry of Defence is. That is a down payment on the support that we need. We have to do more to improve co-operation in Europe. We are boosting bilateral engagement, for example. Last month, the UK and Germany signed the landmark Trinity House agreement. We committed to improve and enhance bilateral defence co-operation with a shared objective of sustaining effective deterrence against would-be aggressors by sharing plans on integration of capabilities, taking more steps together to procure the right kind of equipment, supporting implementation of NATO-agreed common standards, and ultimately working towards the vision of a peaceful and stable Euro-Atlantic area by having sufficient deterrence to prevent any aggression. We also work closely with France. Co-operation in the field of defence capability and equipment is a vital pillar of the Lancaster House treaty. We intend to ensure that that gets a boost and works better and faster towards improving our defence co-operation in areas such as integrated air and missile defence. We have a substantial range of equipment and capabilities across all domains, and we continue to work closely with the French and the Germans. One of my hon. Friends—I cannot quite recall which—suggested that we need to focus much more on boosting our relationship with Europe and with the EU. We are also doing that—

• 27 Nov 2024 · UK Air and Missile Defences · Hansard source

  More

  I will when I finish my sentence. Even with its refresh, the review did not take into account what was happening with Ukraine. At that point, we will be in a position to know very clearly what we ought to be spending those increased resources on.