Fear over aircraft carrier change

7 July 2011 Last updated at 10:28 GMT Navy's flagship the Ark Royal taken out of service (broadcast December 2010)

The National Audit Office has expressed deep concern about changes to the Royal Navy's two new aircraft carriers made in the 2010 defence review.

The NAO queried whether the changes represent value for money and pointed out there would be a decade-long gap without aircraft carrier capability.

Margaret Hodge, chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, said the report was "deeply worrying".

Defence Secretary Liam Fox said changes put the programme "back on track".

In its report, the NAO said changes to the carrier programme in the government's strategic defence and security review (SDSR) had created "significant levels of operational, technical, cost and schedule uncertainty", with the final total cost of the programme now set to exceed ?10bn.

The ships - HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales - were saved from defence cuts under the coalition government because it said it would cost more to cancel the projects than proceed with them.

Ministers agreed to change the design of one, or both, of the aircraft carriers to make them compatible with the US Navy's version of the Joint Strike Fighter.

Continue reading the main story Caroline Wyatt Defence correspondent, BBC News

The NAO's worries are that the impact of the changes is not yet fully understood by the MoD.

Such a major project requires a huge amount of planning and technical preparation, and costs have already escalated significantly since the project began. The government's decision to change the variant of the aircraft to go on board - from the short-take off and vertical landing version of the joint strike fighter to the carrier version that requires catapult and arrestor gear - has added new risks to the project, which range from financial to operational.

While the decision to buy the more capable version of the aircraft makes operational sense, as it can drop heavier weapons and has a greater range, the 'cats and traps' that will be needed for take-off and landing are a whole new system which hasn't yet been trialled or used.

Regenerating the Royal Navy's ability to launch aircraft from a carrier after a gap of 10 years will bring its own challenges, in ensuring crews are trained, ready and able to perform this intricate and demanding job.

The report also makes clear even under the previous government's plans, the MoD had a "funding gap" when it originally ordered the carriers - the order went ahead on the basis the MoD would make other savings in order to be able to afford the carriers.

The NAO said the way the SDSR was conducted was "not the ideal situation in which to have to take strategic decisions", and it has warned it is concerned the carrier programme may be vulnerable to further changes if the promised increases in defence spending don't materialise in 2015.

HMS Prince of Wales will not enter service - it will be built but not kitted out, and then kept as a reserve vessel - while HMS Queen Elizabeth is expected to go into service around 2020, with both said to cost some ?6bn.

The NAO said the decision to buy a different version of the aircraft has delayed the entry into service date by two years, leaving the UK without a carrier able to launch aircraft for a decade and adding significant new risks to the project.

The Whitehall spending watchdog pointed out the decision to make only one carrier with aircraft operational means the UK will only have a carrier at sea for between 150 and 200 days per year - meaning it will rely heavily on allies to fill the gap.

Ms Hodge said the report also revealed that cancellation of the aircraft carriers had been feasible.

She said the report showed cancelling one carrier would save ?200m in the long term and cancelling both would save ?1.2bn over the same period.

Ms Hodge told the BBC: "It's a very depressing report. This is a project that has been plagued with poor decision-making.

"What the government decided to do in the defence review was substantially change the design and buy a different plane.

"What the report says is that it's something technically which has never been achieved elsewhere in the world and that we have no idea of the costs.

"What we are getting is a delay without a capability for a decade of a carrier on the seas.

"The costs haven't been cut, they've been delayed by delaying the purchase of the plane, by mothballing one of the carriers."

But BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt said the MoD's own list of options contained in the report showed that would have meant accepting the demise of the UK's shipbuilding industry.

Dr Fox insisted that decisions made in the defence review had cut the overall costs by more than ?3bn.

He said: "We inherited a complete mess from Labour, a carrier programme which they didn't have the money for in the budget, where they had the wrong design on the ship, and the wrong planes to go on it.

"So we inherited a starting point that we would not have chosen, but having said that, we had to take the appropriate decisions to make it inter-operable with the United States and to give us 50 years of the best utility we could have in terms of power projection."

Last November, the UK and France signed a defence treaty that agreed to share aircraft carrier resources by keeping at least one vessel at sea between the two countries at any one time.

Each will be able to use the other's carrier in some form for training and possibly for operations.

The SDSR in October 2010 outlined cuts of ?4.7bn over four years.

The new carriers will replace the 22,000-tonne Invincible class aircraft carriers, HMS Invincible, HMS Illustrious and HMS Ark Royal.

HMS Invincible, mothballed in 2005, was put up for sale on a government internet auction website, while Ark Royal - the navy's flagship - was decommissioned in January and HMS Illustrious will be decommissioned in 2014.

Displacement: 65,000 tonnesLength: 280m (920ft)Width (at flight-deck level): 70m (230ft)Keel to masthead: 56m (184ft)Nine decks (plus flight deck)Speed: 25+ knotsRange: 8,000-10,000 milesAircraft: 36 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters and four Airborne Early Warning aircraft, plus EH 101 Merlin helicoptersCrew: 1,450 (including air crew)Weapons: Phalanx close-in weapon systems; 30mm and mini-guns

Source: Ministry of Defence

View the original article here

Badger cull change is speculated

21 June 2011 Last updated at 06:58 GMT Cull plans were revived by the last government in March There is speculation that an announcement expected on controlling TB in cattle will mean a change in plans to cull badgers.

Environment Minister John Griffiths is due to make a statement on bovine tuberculosis (TB) policy on Tuesday.

Farming unions want ministers to stick with the cull - an attempt by the previous Labour-Plaid Cymru coalition government to combat TB in cattle.

First Minister Carwyn Jones has refused to say if the cull will go ahead.

The previous government planned the cull - advocated by then rural affairs minister Plaid's Elin Jones - alongside other measures to control TB in cattle in an area of west Wales.

The cull was revived in March, eight months after the coalition was forced to shelve the proposal following a legal challenge by the Badger Trust.

'Very grim day'

Continue reading the main story Iolo ap Dafydd BBC Wales environment correspondent

Will he keep to a badger cull, or will he try and duck out of it? Environment Minister John Griffiths has been tight-lipped and probably understandably nervous before his expected announcement on bovine TB.

The guessing is there may be a change, or partial change on the way. But the Welsh Labour party needs to show what new scientific evidence proves a delay, a halt or a modified policy merits a change.

Labour, now in government, will be wary of being seen to waste the long and expensive efforts undertaken by the previous coalition government of Labour and Plaid Cymru in the last three years, and throw that aside. However, it may be nervous of another legal challenge.

But it will be hard to just kick this into the long grass, as cattle farmers, especially in Pembrokeshire, have to work under stricter cattle movement controls that elsewhere. Bovine tuberculosis has cost Welsh taxpayers a ?100m during the past decade, as compensation payments for slaughtering infected cattle.

It will be interesting also if Mr Griffiths will change his stance since the plenary vote in March when he voted in support of the existing policy.

Maybe public opinion and playing a waiting game to see what the UK government might do in England, will all play a part in Tuesday's announcement.

Labour, who are now governing alone, promised a "science-led" approach towards bovine TB in its manifesto for May's assembly election.

Plaid rural affairs spokesman Llyr Huws Gruffydd told BBC Radio Wales that the Welsh Government must stick to the cull plan.

"If they don't it will be a very grim day for Welsh farming," he said.

"We've been through this quite recently and the decision was made that the cull was one part of a wider programme which includes other elements like increased bio-security and tighter restrictions on animal movement."

'Horrible disease'

Liberal Democrat AM Peter Black, an opponent of the cull, said: "I hope the government is going to announce they've finally taken notice of the science, abort the cull and introduce a vaccination program.

"The impact of a cull is to spread TB. A vaccination program would reduce the instances of TB."

NFU Cymru deputy president Stephen James called on Mr Griffiths to "do the right thing", adding: "We look to the new Welsh Government to continue and progress their commitment and to now take tangible action with a view to eradicating this horrible disease."

FUW TB spokesman Brian Walters said: "The previous Welsh Government's position was based on firm science, and a protracted review of the science will only make matters worse."

Celia Thomas, chairwoman of Pembrokeshire Against the Cull, said the government should be looking at ways to vaccinate badgers.

"It's important to say we are not just sitting back. We are seriously looking at trying to get vaccination underway because TB is a huge problem," she said.

The Badger Trust said they would refrain from commenting until after the announcement was made.

View the original article here

NHS reforms may change - Lansley

2 June 2011 Last updated at 06:59 GMT Health Secretary Andrew Lansley promised he would "never privatise our NHS" Health Secretary Andrew Lansley has said he is ready to accept "substantial and significant" alterations to plans for changes in the NHS in England.

He told the Daily Telegraph there could be changes to the health bill "if they help us improve care for patients".

But Mr Lansley warned the NHS would face "financial crisis within a matter of years" unless it was reformed.

Labour, as well as Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg, have called for the bill to be sent back to MPs for reconsideration.

'Threaten values'

With the government's "listening exercise" on its proposed changes drawing to a close, Mr Lansley said: "We have always been clear that we are ready to accept any changes - substantial and significant - if they help us improve care for patients.

"When the Health and Social Care Bill comes back to Parliament, people should have every confidence that we will make the changes necessary to ensure the NHS is protected for our future generations.

"We will never privatise our NHS.

"But if we choose to ignore the pressures on it, the health service will face a financial crisis within a matter of years that will threaten the very values we hold so dear - of a comprehensive health service, available to all, free at the point of use and based on need and not the ability to pay.

Continue reading the main story

Our health service is facing huge challenges that, if not dealt with today, will almost certainly mean a crisis tomorrow”

End Quote Andrew Lansley Health Secretary "I will not allow that to happen."

Mr Lansley said reform was necessary in the face of "enormous financial pressures" caused by an ageing population and the rising cost of treatment.

He said the number of people in the UK aged above 85 had almost trebled over the past 25 years and was set to double again over the next 20 years. By 2034, one in 20 of the population would be aged over 85.

As a result the NHS would have to perform two million more operations a year and health spending would double to ?230bn, he said.

Mr Lansley said this was a figure the UK "simply cannot afford".

'Disgracefully unethical'

Prime Minister David Cameron has "paused" the legislative progress of the reforms, which aim to hand control of budgets to GPs and increase competition in the NHS.

The move was to allow further consultation on the proposals, a process which came to an end on Tuesday, with the NHS Future Forum, which is overseeing the exercise, expected to report later this month.

The forum brings together doctors, nurses and other health professionals.

Health officials said they had received about 15,000 website responses and 720 letters.

Mr Clegg has said he would oppose the idea of a regulator promoting competition in the health service, a key part of the planned changes.

Confidence vote

The deputy prime minister has indicated that Lib Dem MPs could vote against the bill unless changes are made.

The British Medical Association (BMA) has described a system of incentive payments for GPs known as "Quality Premium", another important part of the reform programme, as "disgracefully unethical".

Dr Laurence Buckman, chairman of the BMA's General Practitioners Committee, said: "We don't understand what the Quality Premium means. We don't understand where it will come from. We rather fear it will come out of our pay and be paid back to us if we do certain things."

In April, delegates at the Royal College of Nursing conference in Liverpool passed a vote of no confidence in the health secretary.

Nurses said they were angry about the changes and the way the government was running the consultation.

'Care passionately'

Mr Lansley said the vision set out by the government would deliver "a truly world-class NHS, with doctors and nurses leading the design of health services, patients taking more control and budgets controlled by locally-accountable people".

"Our health service is facing huge challenges that, if not dealt with today, will almost certainly mean a crisis tomorrow," he said.

"I care passionately about protecting the NHS for the future. This is why doing nothing is not an option. I will not leave the NHS to neglect."

However, for Labour, shadow health secretary John Healey said Mr Lansley was "just adding to confusion and uncertainty in the health service".

"He makes a case for change but not the Tory-led government's top down re-organisation of the NHS," he said.

"As Labour has argued from the outset and as the chorus of criticism during the 'pause' has underlined, these are the wrong reforms for the NHS.

"They are being forced through for reasons of political ideology not improved patient care.

"The huge upheaval of re-organisation is making it harder not easier for the NHS to deal with the financial and efficiency squeeze."

View the original article here