Mr Mark Francois
MP for Rayleigh and Wickford · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Secondly, what actions is he as Defence Secretary, no doubt in consultation with the Chief of the General Staff, taking to push back against these pernicious in-year funding cuts imposed by the Treasury?”
“Taking him at his word, I must press him on some extremely worrying reports—first published in The Times on 3 September, and amplified in the Defence Eye journal on Tuesday—that British Army training is being seriously curtailed in order to provide in-year efficiency savings— “cuts”, in pub English— at the Treasury’s behest.”
“I am sure that I speak for the whole House in paying tribute to the Ukrainians for their fierce and determined resistance. They are fighting for the values of freedom and democracy, which this House has represented for centuries, so when we say, “Slava Ukraini!”, we mean it.”
“On behalf of the shadow Defence team, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new Defence Secretary—Labour’s third in three months—to his place and to thank him for advance sight of this important statement.”
“Tragically, a number of innocent civilians were murdered in Kyiv last night. On supporting Ukraine and brave President Zelensky, there has been absolute solidarity between ourselves and the Labour party.”
“On housing numbers, there is no Reform MP present this afternoon, but Reform-led Rochford district council has just published its regulation 19 local plan.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,746 lines we hold for Mr Mark Francois, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 14 of 55.
“Madam Deputy Speaker, how do we prevent that from happening again?”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As you know, when we have a Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivers the Budget and then the Red Book, with all the fine detail, the numbers and the graphs, is immediately made available to MPs, so that they can at least glance through it and ask the Chancellor questions. Conversely, this afternoon we just have spent nearly an hour and a half debating a statement about a Bill and a very important remedial order that we were quite deliberately not allowed to see. Surely it would have been better if hon. Members had been allowed to receive the Bill and the remedial order—at least to glance at it for a few minutes—so they could have asked much better informed questions of the Secretary of State. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State has organised this cynically to prevent that.”
“I am completely opposed to digital ID cards as a matter of principle. The proposal was not in the Labour party manifesto, and the Government have no mandate for it. It is basically a multibillion-pound gimmick to try to address the fact that small boat arrivals are up a third since they came to power and they have not got the faintest clue how to stop them. I have two very specific questions to ask of the Secretary of State. First, how much—even as a ballpark figure—will it cost to bring in this system? Secondly, if it is to be mandatory, which would be completely wrong, what would be the penalty for a citizen who refuses on principle to have digital ID?”
“Is it the case—my right hon. and learned Friend is a former Attorney General—that the ITU treaty to which we and others are a party states specifically that the ITU has no authority over the allocation of military spectrum, or military communications? It is clear that the ITU has no leverage legally at all over Diego Garcia.”
“This is fundamental to the whole argument. We have pressed the Government for months to tell us what the legal threat to the islands was. In his opening speech the Minister said that it was UNCLOS. That was the justification they have given us. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we have a general opt-out and two specific opt-outs under article 298(1)(b) of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, which includes “disputes concerning military activities”? We have an opt-out from UNCLOS. The Government’s whole case is spurious—£35 billion worth of spurious.”
“Nearly a fifth of a million people have now signed the parliamentary petition to protect Northern Ireland veterans from prosecution, in opposition to Labour’s proposals for two-tier justice. Surely Ministers must understand that facilitating lawfare against our Army veterans, none of whom received letters of comfort after leaving their service, shows that Labour just does not have their back?”
“Labour’s currently stalled remedial order would specifically make it easier for Gerry Adams and his friends to sue the British taxpayer while throwing our Army veterans, many of them recruited from red wall seats, to the wolves. After everything the Government put their Back Benchers through in recent months, are No. 10 and Ministers really intending to press ahead with this madness and do Gerry Adams a favour, at the expense of the soldiers who opposed him? Are they pressing ahead with the remedial order—yes or no?”
“I will be short, as I already am. Can we have a debate about delays in obtaining driving tests? There is a growing problem with unscrupulous operators using bots to sweep up months’ worth of tests then selling them back to very frustrated parents and students at a profit. The Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency seems to be in denial about this issue. Can we have a debate in Parliament and try to fix this problem?”
“It is a fact that partly because of the great efforts of Lord Beaverbrook overseeing aircraft production, we never ran out of aircraft in the battle—but we very nearly ran out of pilots. So does my right hon. Friend agree with me that part of Dowding’s genius was generating enough pilots and then taking sufficient care of them so that we won?”
“Although Churchill rightly paid tribute to “the few”, in fact there were many who contributed to that critical victory in 1940, the vast majority of whom never flew in combat.”
“As well as the RAF squadrons, those from other nations also played a crucial role, perhaps most famously the Polish 303 Squadron, based at RAF Northolt, which shot down more enemy aircraft—126—than any other squadron. It was supplemented by other Polish squadrons, plus the Czechs and Canadians, and indeed the three Eagle squadrons of American pilots who volunteered to fight with the RAF more than a year before Pearl Harbour. History also owes a great debt to those who kept them flying, not least the ground crew of Fighter Command, but also the Royal Observer Corps, the General Post Office technicians who assisted with communications and those working in the factories to produce the iconic Spitfires and Hurricanes on which the defence so crucially depended.”
“Turning to the battle itself, there is no doubt that it was an example of heroism on multiple levels, beginning with the pilots, from some of the well-known aces, such as Peter Townsend, Bob Stanford Tuck, Douglas Bader and Sailor Malan, through to those who only flew in combat once and never returned. Those young men, some of whom had barely 10 hours on type, must have known before they took off that the chances of their returning alive were slim. Nevertheless, they took off anyway. In all, almost 3,000 allied pilots fought with Fighter Command in the officially defined period of the battle of Britain, which runs from 10 July to 31 October 1940. However, it is important to note that the defence in the battle was by no means solely a British affair—far from it.”
“Southend airport, which abuts my constituency, was RAF Rochford in 1940, one of Fighter Command’s vital forward airfields. Secondly, several years ago I worked with a former constituent and local historian called Steve Newman on a project to help restore and refurbish our official war memorial at Wickford. Steve is now involved in another ambitious project, this time to restore a world war two Hurricane, serial Z5134. With a dedicated band of helpers, he is attempting to rebuild this historic aircraft almost from the wheels up. I was privileged to view the fruits of their labour during the summer recess. Realistically, it will take them several years to achieve their ambition. I would like to place on record my admiration for what they are attempting, and to wish them every possible success.”
“Good afternoon, Sir Desmond. It is a genuine pleasure to serve under your chairmanship as we debate these momentous events in the run-up to Battle of Britain Day, which commemorates the 85th anniversary of the culmination of the battle on 15 September 1940. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) on securing this very important and timely debate, which he introduced so very admirably. Lest we forget. On a personal note, I regard it as a genuine privilege, as the son of a world war two veteran—albeit one who fought in the Royal Navy—to be able to sum up for His Majesty’s Opposition this afternoon. I would like to begin by declaring two personal interests, first as an amateur military historian and a battle of Britain buff in particular.”
“He never suffered fools gladly, and his manner could be abrupt, even when dealing with superiors, which ultimately led to his downfall. Nevertheless, he was a man utterly dedicated to his task, and one to whom history owes an immense debt. Arguably, had Dowding never been born we might even have lost the battle, as we would undoubtedly have been far less well prepared to fight it.”
“As he trenchantly put it, “if the Home Defence Force is drained away in desperate attempts to remedy the situation in France, defeat in France will involve the final, complete and irremediable defeat of this country.” In Dowding, Britain possessed a commander with an absolutely single-minded determination to prepare meticulously for, to fight and then to win the battle, for which his pilots, whom he referred to affectionately as “my boys”, held him in particular reverence. His truly was the controlling mind that orchestrated the ultimately successful defence of these islands. Like many commanders before him, Dowding was a maverick, but he was not an extrovert. He was socially awkward, which led to his nickname “Stuffy”.”
“Critically, the Dowding system, as it became known, allowed the RAF to make best use of its resources in combating an enemy that frequently outnumbered it three, or even four, to one. Thirdly, Dowding possessed tremendous moral courage in dealing with superiors, up to and including Churchill. The epic 1969 movie “The Battle of Britain”, with its all-star cast, opens with the Dowding letter of 16 May 1940, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) referred to. In it, Dowding famously argued the need to conserve Britain’s fighter strength during the fall of France.”
“As head of the newly created Fighter Command from July 1936, Dowding went on to create a command and control network alerted by radar, all feeding into Fighter Command headquarters at RAF Bentley Priory, and supported by an organisation of group and sector headquarters designed to co-ordinate timely fighter interception of incoming German aircraft. That was all interconnected by a system of telephone and, later, teleprinter communications. The historian and operational analyst Stephen Bungay, in his brilliant book, “The Most Dangerous Enemy”, describes that system as “the world’s first intranet”, albeit an analogue version, half a century before Tim Berners-Lee.”
“He then used his new appointment enthusiastically to pull together multiple strands of scientific development, crucially including Watson-Watt’s experiments with radar, to create a highly resilient defensive system. In May 1937, Dowding presciently delivered a lecture to the air staff regarding the air defence of Great Britain, in which the scenario he outlined was one of a war with a European dictator—the inference was obvious —attempting to starve Britain into submission by the aggressive use of submarines, but not before the United Kingdom had been subjected to an all-out assault designed to destroy the RAF and cripple the nation’s ability to make war, by remorseless attack from the air.”
“As well as being a pilot, Dowding was keenly interested in scientific development, which he pursued zealously when promoted to the Air Council in 1930, with responsibility for supply and research. That critical appointment was to have profound consequences for the subsequent conduct of the battle a decade later, as several right hon. Members have alluded to. Dowding had three great attributes that materially contributed to the RAF’s victory. First, he possessed tremendous foresight. Like Churchill, he realised very early on that Nazi Germany and its nascent air force would one day provide a potentially fatal threat to Britain’s security, and he began to plan accordingly. Secondly, Dowding’s genius—I use the word deliberately —was that he conceptualised years in advance the battle that the RAF would have to fight.”
“The whole House is grateful to my right hon. Friend for that very telling intervention. While I have the opportunity, I pay tribute to his marvellous speech and, more than that, to the wonderful service of his father, of whom he can be immensely proud. Also fundamental were the RAF commanders, principally Air Chief Marshal Sir Keith Park, who famously commanded 11 Group, which bore the brunt of the battle. Park, a New Zealander, displayed tactical brilliance in the husbanding of his squadrons, while also fighting a highly aggressive and effective defence. Overall, however, perhaps the greatest single contribution to victory was that of the leader of Fighter Command throughout the battle, Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding.”
“Put another way, the debate today would not be taking place and there would be no Parliament or House of Commons for it to take place in. The Royal Air Force, as a service, can rightly be proud of the immense contribution it made in the battle of Britain to the defence of democracy, not just in the United Kingdom, but across the free world. The pilots whom Churchill famously christened “the few” have a special place in the annals of history, but so do the very few who so brilliantly commanded them to victory. We honour all of them today.”
“I am sure that I speak for the whole House in saying that that is entirely appropriate. James Holland, in his excellent book “The Battle of Britain: Five Months that changed History”, highlights the fact that the Luftwaffe made multiple mistakes in the campaign, but nevertheless concludes: “This should not detract from the achievement of the RAF in the summer of 1940. Had it not had such a superb defensive system and had it not had such inspired and brilliant leaders, the Luftwaffe would still have prevailed, no matter how valiant or skillful the pilots.” To conclude myself, the importance of winning the battle of Britain cannot be overstated. Had the RAF lost and had Hitler successfully invaded these islands, the whole history of the world thereafter would have been brutally different.”
“It definitely will not save the money that has been promised, and therefore the game simply is not worth the candle. If I could offer Ministers in the Department some honest advice, it would be this: pull stumps now while you can. If you must go ahead with the mayor, do that, but drop the unitary idea and let the local district, borough and city councils get on with the job of representing their people, and let us have elections for those councils.”
“Indeed, at a meeting of council leaders earlier this week, some Labour council leaders were openly disagreeing with each other over all this. The whole process is rapidly descending into a total farce, and having followed this issue closely for many years, I have yet to hear a truly compelling case for why any of these new authorities would genuinely be more efficient. As ever, we are promised efficiency savings in year 5, but as a former Minister, I have to tell current Ministers from long experience that year 5 never comes. To conclude, I say in all sincerity to Ministers that if they press ahead regardless and impose a solution via ministerial order with no consensus, it will still take a Parliament to implement. In the meantime, local government will almost grind to a halt, and many of the best officers will leave.”
“The third tier of town and parish councils would remain unaffected. However, it is not yet clear whether the Labour Government still intend to press ahead with their plans to create several unitary authorities in Essex—a matter that has led to much consternation and considerable disagreement, not least among the potential constituent authorities themselves. As of today, there are multiple different potential configurations. Essex county council seems to want three unitary authorities. Rochford district council and some other councils would prefer four. The Labour party appears to be agitating in favour of five. Contrary to the position of its own party, Labour-led Thurrock council has just announced that it would prefer four, the constituent local authorities of which it is yet to reveal.”
“I can confidently report to the House that in 24 years as an Essex MP, I have never once had a constituent tell me on the doorstep that they wanted a mayor of Essex. None the less, Ministers recently wrote to Essex MPs to confirm that they are going ahead with a mayor of Essex, loosely based on the Sadiq Khan model in London, with a related combined authority. That will result in mayoral elections across the whole of Essex in spring next year. The Government’s proposals would in effect replace the current two-tier system with another two-tier system. At present, we have Essex county council as the upper tier and a lower tier of district, borough and city councils. Under the Government’s plan, that would give way to an upper tier of an elected mayor and a combined authority, with a lower tier of multiple unitary authorities beneath.”
“Having tried for nearly four years to achieve that, if Heriot is not able to do so, perhaps the time has finally come for it to sell the site to an alternative developer with more experience, which might have more luck. Either way, I can report to the House that my constituents are thoroughly fed up with the whole drama of the old Co-op supermarket, as am I. For the sake of all my constituents in Wickford, I hope that we can somehow bring this prolonged saga to a successful conclusion and provide them with a new supermarket fit for the 21st century. Let me end my contribution with a few remarks on so-called devolution and local government reform. This has been a torturous process in Essex, made more difficult by the fact that there is absolutely no public demand at all for the changes.”
“I recently received a letter from Mr Allan Leighton, the chief executive of Asda, which unfortunately confirmed that after over a year of negotiations, it had reluctantly decided not to proceed with the redevelopment of the Wickford site. I have to say that that has not enhanced Asda in my eyes. Nevertheless, back in February Heriot applied to Basildon borough council for planning permission for a new store, but the council repeatedly dragged its feet and failed to determine the application to the point that, I understand, a developer could appeal to the Planning Inspectorate on the grounds of non-determination. It is absolutely vital that that planning application is passed by Basildon borough council in the hope that Heriot can find an alternative tenant, such as Lidl or another supermarket group.”
“Perhaps the most pressing issue in Wickford in my constituency is the fate of the old dilapidated Co-op supermarket site. It was purchased several years ago by an overseas developer named Heriot, which singularly failed to find a new tenant. In fairness, it attempted to negotiate a deal with Morrisons, which fell through. It instead tried to negotiate a deal with Asda, which fell through too. I am afraid that in the recent Wickford Park by-election, the Labour party claimed in its literature that a deal with Asda had been “secured”, and it was thus trying to take the credit. In fact, it turns out that that was simply untrue.”
“I am delighted to have been called in the debate on the summer Adjournment, which I am very pleased is now traditionally known as the Sir David Amess debate, after our fallen comrade and great friend Sir David. Following the brilliant speech by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), all I would say is that this matter is very close to the heart of the Amess family. If it is not possible to have a separate public inquiry, which is what they desperately would like, perhaps, as my right hon. Friend alluded to, the other alternative is to slightly amend the terms of reference of the Southport inquiry so that the matter could be investigated via those means. The additional cost would be miniscule, and the family could have their say. I merely repeat that request.”
“Their inspirational commander, General Bill Slim, was one of the greatest generals of world war two. His book, “Defeat into Victory”, which is about how he did it, is one of the greatest books ever written about that war. Does my hon. Friend agree?”
“On the matter of top guns, will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Air Marshal Harv Smyth on today being appointed as the new Chief of the Air Staff designate? He is what the Americans would call a warfighter. He and the new Chief of the Defence Staff, Sir Rich Knighton, will provide a powerful team in the defence—including the air defence—of the United Kingdom. Does my hon. Friend welcome both appointments, as I do?”
“My hon. Friend’s speech is obviously provoking a great deal of interest in the Chamber. Can he confirm that in the defence appropriations Bill that the Pentagon put forward in late June, which asks Congress for money for equipment in the next financial year, the Wedgetail programme for the United States air force was deleted?”
“I should declare an interest: I served on the Defence Committee in the previous Parliament, so I contributed to that report, which was critical of the decision to cut the number from five to three. I do not deny that, and I still would prefer that we had stayed with five. I thought that, to be transparent, I should put that on the record.”
“Wedgetail is now absolutely critical to the defence of the UK, so when, oh when are the RAF and Boeing going to get their collective house in order and bring this absolutely vital capability into service?”
“Question three: when is E-7 Wedgetail finally expected to enter operational service with the RAF, and when are the second and third aircraft anticipated, to provide full operational capability? All experience suggests that if we are to maintain one aircraft consistently on task for any length of time, we would need all three aircraft in operational service in order to guarantee it. I say again: when we were in government, we should perhaps have done more to accelerate the progress of this programme. But now that Labour is running the show, and has been for over a year, we need to know what the Labour Government are going to do about it. We cannot contemplate the possibility of war with Russia in which we would be virtually blinded within the opening hours.”
“This is threatening to become a £2 billion white elephant in the room. May I conclude by asking the Minister three direct questions? I hope he can provide clear and ambiguous answers, given that he is covering for the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry this afternoon, while the Minister for Veterans and People remains on resignation watch. Question one: what is the exact status of the flight trials programme of the E-7 Wedgetail aircraft, and when will active trials of the MESA radar commence and conclude? Question two: what is the issue regarding certification of the airframe? What is meant by “limited certification”, and when are the aircraft expected to be fully certified by the Military Aviation Authority?”
“He too was concerned, and he has authorised me to say that he is minded to write to the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence to ask what on earth is going on—his words—regarding Wedgetail, and to request a meeting about the programme. In summary, as someone who served on the Defence Committee for seven years and was consistently highly critical of the Army’s Ajax programme—which I note in passing has still not entered operational service—I am afraid to say that, put bluntly, Wedgetail has now turned into the RAF’s very own Ajax. Here we are with another example of a highly complex, exquisite programme that, like Ajax, has not run massively over budget, but which is nevertheless years late, and there is still no guarantee that it even works properly in RAF service.”
“I would tell Boeing that it will not be granted any further contracts with the Ministry of Defence, be it for more helicopters or advanced jet trainers, unless and until it has introduced its project—its product, E-7 Wedgetail—successfully into operational service. On 25 June, when the House debated the new NAD role, the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), raised Wedgetail as a specific programme requiring more scrutiny. So concerned have I become while researching for this debate, and having considered the matter overnight, I asked this morning for a meeting with the Chair of the PAC, who wanted to be here this afternoon but unavoidably has to be elsewhere.”
“As the NAD will have to deal with the problem of Wedgetail, can the Minister update the House on exactly where we are on the appointment? Who are the two remaining candidates? Is it true that one of them is holding out for more money? When can we expect a definitive announcement on the appointment? It would appear that, despite extended tortuous negotiations between the RAF and Boeing, the matter has still not been brought to a conclusion. It may mean that the incoming NAD has to knock heads together to finally achieve some progress, which the 12,500 employees at Defence Equipment and Support do not appear to have managed to do. If it were me, I would start as I mean to go on.”
“Why is the Department of Defence apparently going to junk Wedgetail in favour of Hawkeye, and later, space-based systems? If it does, what are the implications for the RAF Wedgetail programme? Apparently, Boeing is now claiming that what was originally an off-the-shelf purchase of E-7 for the RAF is now turning into a development programme. Can the Minister explain exactly what that means? Can he reassure the House that if the US does withdraw, we are not going to ask the Royal Air Force to pay a vast amount of money to develop E-7, when the United States has refused to do so? The Government have been running a competition for a national armaments director—the NAD. If media reports are to be believed, they have now narrowed it down to two remaining candidates.”
“Can the Minister confirm whether that is true, and if it is—I hope it is not—will he say what the additional cost will be? To be clear, we need E-7 Wedgetail in RAF service, but we need it now, not in several years’ time. The US, which also has to replace a large number of its ageing E-3 aircraft, was planning to do that with E-7, but the programme is likely to be cancelled. As a stopgap, the US is now apparently even considering buying several dozen E-2D Hawkeye aircraft, which, as the hon. Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) said, originally entered service in the ’60s. They were famously featured in “Top Gun: Maverick”, guiding the attacking F-18s into the target. What exactly has gone wrong with the programme in the United States?”
“We have got one in with a special clearance, meaning that there is something that we do not know about that, which means that it cannot have a normal clearance.” I appreciate that the Minister is likely to say that the previous Conservative Government should have made greater progress on Wedgetail, and I accept that we are not without blame in this field. Nevertheless, the new Government have now had a year to sort it out. The MOD and Boeing have been locked in complex negotiations over the so-called full business case that would allow Wedgetail to enter service, but those negotiations have still not been brought to a fruitful conclusion. Indeed, whereas the original concept was to service and maintain the Wedgetail aircraft in the United Kingdom, there are some media reports that it will now take place in the US instead.”
“Three 737 airframes are being converted at Meriden, including retrofitting them with the MESA radar. One of those aircraft has been completed, while the other two are still in work. However, according to a freedom of information request answered on 12 June, the first aircraft has flown only three times—two of them to get painted—and MESA, which is the whole point of the aircraft, has not even been turned on yet in flight. Why? Moreover, as the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), a member of the Defence Committee, revealed at a meeting of that Committee two weeks ago, the lead aircraft is struggling to achieve certification. He said: “We were going to buy five, and then three, E-7s. They are horrendously late and overpriced.”
“In such a scenario—one which, as the international sky continues to darken, we are increasingly forced to contemplate—having mobile airborne early-warning such as Wedgetail would be critical to maintain the integrity of the UK’s air defences, plus covering RAF aircraft abroad. That brings me to the current sorry state of the Wedgetail programme, which is running years late and has now unfortunately been rated red by the Infrastructure Projects Authority. To remind hon. Members, a red rating is defined as a project that “reflects serious concerns about the project’s ability to meet its objectives. Immediate corrective actions are needed to address fundamental issues, as the project is unlikely to succeed without significant changes or interventions.” So, where are we today?”
“Part of the purpose of today’s debate is to elicit from the Government when E-7 Wedgetail will finally enter operational service with the RAF. That really matters. Experience in Ukraine shows the heavy propensity of Russia to attack targets with long-range cruise missiles. In the event of a peer conflict with Russia, it is highly likely that most of our fixed RAF radar stations would fall victim to cruise missile attacks within the early few days, or even hours, of such a conflict. At present, we can supplement those with a limited number of mobile radars. It is also unclear whether in wartime other airborne warning assets, such as via satellite and other overseas facilities, would also remain available for long.”
“I would like to have congratulated the Reform MP who contributed to this debate but, as ever, they are not here because Reform don’t do defence. We live in an increasingly dangerous world. The head of the British Army stated almost a year ago that we need to prepare for the possibility of a peer-on-peer conflict with Russia by 2027. If that is so, having a modern airborne early warning control aircraft, such as Wedgetail, in operational service would be vital. Moreover, if there were to be a ceasefire in Ukraine, Ministers have told us several times that it might involve not just boots on the ground but jets in the air. They also need eyes in the sky to protect them from a potential Russian threat. In short, we do not currently have any.”
“A couple of years ago, when I served on the Defence Committee—it is great to see the Chairman of the Committee in his place—I had the privilege of visiting the facility in Meriden where the work was being conducted. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East has been an assiduous constituency MP in standing up for the highly skilled workforce undertaking the conversion. I do have a number of serious concerns about the status of the Wedgetail programme, however, as he is about to hear. I state for the record that none of this is aimed at the workforce in Meriden, but much more at the senior management of Boeing, a company now facing massive reputational issues in both civilian and defence areas.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Christopher, as we examine the progress—or rather the sheer lack of it—of the RAF’s E-7 Wedgetail programme. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) on introducing the debate in such an articulate manner, with a touch of humour to boot. As a battle of Britain buff, I enjoyed his historical analogies with that epic conflict in 1940 and the critical importance of radar and early warning. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), in whose constituency the valuable work of converting Boeing 737s into the Wedgetail variant is under way.”