A senior figure steering Barrow’s regeneration has warned MPs that the government’s headline ambition to deliver a new SSN-AUKUS submarine every 18 months faces serious constraints far beyond the shipyard gates.
Appearing before the Defence Committee, Lord Case, chair of Team Barrow and former Cabinet Secretary, underlined that the timeline ministers cite for the next-generation nuclear fleet carries risks that have not been resolved.
Asked directly whether the programme is on track, he avoided any assurances. He described the target as “a very demanding target” and added that it would be “a real challenge to deliver.” Although the committee had previously taken evidence from BAE Systems on the shipbuilding schedule, the exchange exposed a parallel set of domestic bottlenecks that sit outside the MoD’s remit but still shape the feasibility of the AUKUS build rate.
Case argued that Team Barrow’s responsibility is not the assembly line itself but the town’s ability to sustain the required workforce. “We are under pressure to deliver housing, schools and hospitals to make sure that the workforce is there to produce the boats on time,” he said. He acknowledged that this supporting infrastructure is not in place. “We are behind where we need to be. We do not have the housing that we need for workforce growth.”
That admission raises questions about how credible the national commitment is when the enabling conditions lag behind defence planning. Case made clear that workforce readiness is only partly a skills issue. Even if recruitment targets are met, the physical capacity to absorb thousands of new workers remains doubtful because of long-standing underinvestment in local services.
The attempt to accelerate housebuilding has not yet produced material change. “We spent a lot of time together last month talking about how we can accelerate the house building,” he told MPs, but he stressed that operational details remain for BAE and the MoD.
Case’s comments show that the pace challenge is as much a civil-infrastructure problem as an industrial one, with delays in the former likely to ripple into the latter.
I suspect it is the roads as well. More dual carriageway to Barrow needed. Also Highways needs a less chaotic way to repair M6 bridges near Tebay.
I only spent a few weeks in Barrow and it was very rundown especially in the town centre could be a tough sell if they need skilled workers to relocate there.
Barrow isn’t great but could regenerate into something good.
Government has got to write the council a mid sized cheque to kick it off. Grants to regenerate rental housing. This is the problem no sane person wants to invest in private rental housing.
The one town in the country that actually want new homes to be built there…
Or even existing ones refurbished.
Aukus is a massive commitment apparently made without thinking through the full consequences. Much like building Astutes but failing to ensure there were adequate facilities to keep them at sea.
If workforce expansion at Barrow cannot be achieved, then Aukus on its currently envisaged timescale is undeliverable.
Maybe it’s time to take a long hard look at whether the spend on DNE is the best use of defence budget resources.
With no 10 year plan published since late 2023, and no sign of the defence investment plan, the exact numbers are unknown.
But with very little additional budget ( Starmers commitment to 3.5 % is about as sincere as his other promises) and funding for Tempest essential, how much more can sensibly committed to Aukus?
Timely article. The development of housing, schools, infrastructure could take years delaying military engineering even further.
To be honest, if we could start again, you wouldn’t choose Barrow as the main shipyard it’s too constricted by size, location and population/available skills and access – a 30mile cul-de-sac, not much better than a single track road..
It would have been better to have used either Liverpool/Birkenhead or the Clyde
Sticking the largest engineering project in Europe in a small town in one of the sparsest populated areas in Britain was always a mistake. We knew this in the 60’s which is why we built boats at Cammel laird and Barrow, if we want this kind of build rate then two sites are required.