The government has defended a contract that will see 24 new support vessels built by a Dutch shipbuilder, telling an MP that only one company bid to both run the service and replace the vessels, and that the contractor was free to choose its own subcontractors.
The Labour MP for North Durham, Luke Akehurst, had asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether subcontracting the construction of support vessels for bases like Faslane to a Dutch shipbuilder was consistent with the objectives of the National Shipbuilding Strategy.
In reply, the Minister of State for Defence, Luke Pollard, explained that the work was a subcontract awarded by Serco to procure 24 new vessels for the Royal Navy, as part of the Defence Marine Services In-Port Services contract between the Ministry of Defence and Serco.
Pollard said the contract, which covers both in-port services and vessel replacement, had been sourced through a competitive tender intended to maximise domestic involvement in line with the strategy, which was first published in 2017 and refreshed in 2022.
“However, despite extensive market engagement, Serco was the only tenderer to submit a bid to both run the multi-year service and replace the vessels,” he said. Under the legislation in force at the time and the contracting arrangement, he added, Serco was free to select its own subcontractors to build the vessels.
The vessels in question are support craft rather than warships, the kind of harbour and in-port boats used to service the fleet, and the arrangement bundles their replacement together with the running of in-port marine services under a single multi-year contract held by Serco. Because Serco holds the prime contract, the choice of who builds the vessels fell to the company rather than to the Ministry of Defence directly.
Pollard said the government recognised the importance of a strong and resilient UK shipbuilding sector to national and economic security and was taking forward significant work to strengthen domestic capability. He pointed to a forthcoming Shipbuilding and Maritime Technology Action Plan, which he said would set out how the government would deliver work for UK shipbuilders, including in subcontracting, in future programmes.
Once provided by the in house RNAS, as always, cut and what’s left privatised
Yeh, decades of poor, short sighted decisions and a slow response to a resurgent and aggressive Russia and the rising power of China have led us to this point. Hollowed out industry and armed forces, leading to too few experienced engineers and service people. The lack of people means creating mass is doubly difficult and we are not the only country in the west in this position.
To be honest my only problem with this contract, given they are not warships, is that Damen Group and some of it’s executives are being prosecuted for corruption and sanction breaking for Russia. Whilst I would prefer that a British yard had got the work, I would not mind the Dutch getting if it was not for the corruption and links to Russia. Netherlands is a close ally after all, and they need to rebuild their capabilities as well.
Cheers CR
I seem to remember BAE and Rolls Royce being myriad in corruption scandals for the past thirty years, Airbus, Lockheed and Boeing too.
I can’t think of a single major contractor that’s no deeply involved in corruption scandals.
Is it though? RMAS had a fleet of mostly very old vessels which need replacing (which would have been subject to a buy British policy) There were also a number left in reserve. TBF to Serco they have replace most of the fleet ( ok, mostly from Damen) and you have ship likes SD Northern River which the RNAS never had. The MOD also have the ability in the contract to ask Secro to add extra vessels to the fleet if needed.
The two of most use beyond the standard harbour roles are SD Northern River, and SD Victoria. Victoria is unique as in I understand she is owned by the MoD, but carries the SD identity anyway.
Oh.
Oh well, never mind.
We can always pretend they are Cutting Edge, World Class State of the Art, Unmanned/Autonomous Vessels, just paint them Grey and call them HMS.
“A Growing Navy” tick.
1000 ship navy starts to see the light!
My sense of it was that Pollard was confusing ships and boats. An autonomous work boat towing mine sweeping gear is not a ship..! That does not mean the capability is invalid, but the claim is misleading. Of course, a few hundred 500 ton small autonomous ships towing sensors or carrying effectors of some sort that can be mass produced in smaller yards might count I suppose.
We live in changing times.
Cheers CR
My problem with this is, I’m looking forward to seeing these assets self deploy half way around the world, be it on convoy duty, presence patrols, port visits, whatever.
They cannot. They need a mother with them, by my understanding.
Hello mate,
To achieve that kind of independent deployment capability you would either need satellite control / direction, which is vulnerable to Russia’s ASAT capability, or full and effective autonomy which I believe is still some way off assuming it is even possible or acceptable to give AI full control of the full range of weapons systems, which frankly I hope I never see!
I would hope that a bit of common sense prevails and we learn to walk first with these AI systems and use them as force multipliers along side crewed warships. Of course, it remains to be seen if our adversaries share the same concerns..!?
Cheers CR
HMG will be emphasising them as another tool to divert from our lack of conventional war fighting assets.
Not surprised only one bidder – ‘both run the service and replace the vessels,’ – surely these are separate functions, with one company to build, another to operate?
Very little UK Industry remains so only one bidder no surprise really. When you run your manufacturing capability into the ground what else do you expect.
The acting surprised is nonsense as Serco have purchased most of the new vessels they have added to the fleet from Damen right from the time they took on the contract back in 2000’s
I have a list of the SD fleet at Portsmouth, Devonport, Faslane, Greenock, and Kyle of Lochalsh.
These 24 wont replace them all, it’s another cut otherwise.
I remember in an old post to me you’d indicated some will remain, hope so, very hard to keep a track of!
Buying “British Warships & Auxiliaries” is the best source ( it is a tad depressing other wise ) There a mixture of the very old and quite new, I suspect the contract is for the very old, as the newer boats are 10-17 years old and SD Tempest was built to move the carriers for example
It is good that the older vessels are being replaced but the numbers are down so it is in reality yet anouther cut and we have to look at who proffits from these deals this is the 2nd order from Serco direct to Damen with no British yards getting a look in.
Mac Duff who mainly build fishing boats but have built a number of tugs and smaller craft would be ideally placed to expand its busines if given a large contract like this or even given a number of vessels to build from Damen that would at least keep some of the fabrication of these vessels in the UK.
Also (as I have pointed out on a number of times) there is the point of who actually proffits from these contracts with the same companies/people owning both Serco and Damen not to mention a number of other prominent Mod civilian contractors.
The privatisation of the defence industry is not and has never worked the way we(the tax payer) were led to believe it has doubled the costs and halved the effective strength of the functions these companies have taken control of.