The Leonardo helicopter operation in Yeovil was cited in Parliament as an example of how environmental, social and governance requirements risk undermining Britain’s defence industry if they are not matched by firm government procurement decisions.
During a Westminster Hall debate on the impact of ESG rules on defence, MPs from across the House pointed to Leonardo as a company that has actively invested in communities, skills and environmental initiatives, while warning that such commitments depend on predictable defence contracts.
Adam Dance, Liberal Democrat MP for Yeovil, told MPs that Leonardo had demonstrated a willingness to engage with environmental and social responsibilities alongside its defence work, but said this needed to be backed by government action.
“Defence firms such as Leonardo in Yeovil are happy to invest in environmental and social products,” he said. “Leonardo has invested heavily in Yeovil College and entertainment venues and is building its own solar farm, but if defence firms are to meet those obligations, the Government need to award contracts such as the new medium-lift helicopter. If not, we will lose the benefits for our community forever.”
Jack Rankin, the Conservative MP who secured the debate, agreed and said Leonardo’s presence in Yeovil illustrated the wider contradiction facing the defence sector. Companies are encouraged to meet ESG expectations, he argued, while investment rules and procurement delays simultaneously restrict their ability to plan and grow. “The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point about Leonardo, which builds helicopters in his constituency,” Rankin said, adding that the issue was not unique to one company but reflected a systemic problem affecting British defence manufacturers.
Other MPs reinforced the point, highlighting Leonardo’s role as a major employer and skills provider across the South West. Edward Morello, Liberal Democrat MP for West Dorset, said the company’s links with schools and higher education were critical to sustaining high-skilled employment in the region. “Leonardo in Yeovil employs vast numbers of people in my West Dorset constituency,” he said. “Those links with local schools and higher education institutions are vital to creating a pathway for people in the south-west, especially in rural communities, who might not have another avenue into high-skilled labour.”
Rankin argued that ESG frameworks often imply defence investment is unethical, despite the reliance of national security on firms such as Leonardo. He warned that excluding defence from finance and procurement risks hollowing out industrial capacity, even as governments pledge to increase defence spending.
“There is nothing less ethical than sending British sons and daughters into battle under-equipped,” he said, adding that Parliament itself sends conflicting signals when defence is praised rhetorically but constrained in practice.
Wastelands = job creation project, nothing more.
Are you suggesting it is better to sustain work and expertise at Airbus in France, Sikorsky in the USA and Leonardo in Italy, and that we shouldn’t do anything as difficult as helicopters in the UK, which are way above our capabilities?
Firstly? Accept all politicians are liars who would tell people black is white when in fact it is red.
No politician since Thatcher has had to guts to stand up for the UK.
I agree, sadly.
Unfortunately, there is a huge amount of remedial work and finances required to get our armed forces back up to strength.
New helicopters are just one more thing on the list to buy.
that shouldn’t mean binning Puma2 and their experienced and trained crews before a replacement is due. Shows how low down defence is in the priority list for this govt.
Puma was an example of a great design that saw decades of service.
I’d assume the Puma airframes are probably nearing the end of their lives, unless someone has seen a report otherwise. Its all well and good saying something should be retained until its replacement is available, but as we’re seeing with the T23s, its not usually feasible.
That doesn’t justify the incompetence that got us into this situation in the first place, but it does mean there isn’t an easy fix.
Airframes were all good new engines new avionics. IOC was only achieved in 2015. This is budget cut hence no replacement.
An upgrade programme more than a decade ago isn’t evidence that airframes from the 1970s are still good.
From what I can find in a cursory search, 2025 was the planned retirement date back when that upgrade programme was completed.
the availability rates in 2020 were very good with no programme issues
Everybody, everyone and everything is being sidelined in this goverments drive to the bottom.
“actively invested in communities, skills and environmental initiatives”.
That after all is the main driver for selecting a medium support helicopter!
If someone re started the Sopwith Company and sold it as a Green enterprise that will employ thousands of people in a sustainable factory, building an environmently sustainable fighter that will be far cheaper to own and operate, while supporting the local economy, the RAF would order 200 Sopwith Camels…
Only ‘half’ joking ….
The way we’re going John, we’ll probaly end up with a “camel”. The old saying … A camel is an animal invented by a committee, or words to that effect. I take your point. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to work out what an MLH has to do. It takes a commitment.
Alas, it takes a budget too. Our budget is under pressure from every direction.
I hope the DIP will permit an order for at least 30, with an option for another 30 in years to come. But I accept that the services may have other priorities that hoover up the available funds.
I’d be happy with the mooted 25, as 6 were taken by HC145 type for Brunei and Cyprus.
The “up to 48” is pure pie in the sky nonsense, and of course what the military actually want is also secondary.
No chance of sixty. I’d be content if we ordered 20/25 which would leave numbers more or less as they are.
For tactical manoeuvre it needs to be 50+. If Ukr has shown anything it’s that troops have limited tactical mobility in contested areas. Chinooks are not suited to ultra tactical movement v’s UH-60
I know what you’re saying and I agree with you but I honestly think we’ll be lucky if we get any.
This government? The last government did nothing but can kick and now we are suffering in declining frigate numbers, SSN that are tied up awaiting dry dock time. A strategic. Deterrent being undermined because boats which should have been replaced are requiring lengthy refits to squeeze a few more years out of them meanwhile the other SSBN are having to pick up the slack with absurdly long patrols . The list goes on. The medium lift helicopter being the latest in a very long list. The only thing I can accuse the current government is badly underestimating how much they need to inject and for how long to arrest the downward decline.
The previous government starting with Cameron were great at accounting games that made it look like we were spending 2% when in actual fact we were spending far less.
Yes. This government. You are sounding rather like Starmer and Reeves. Everything is someone else’s fault, even though they have been in power for 19 months. Back to reality then… The cuts and cancellations, particularly in the RN started under Blair/Brown and were dire. Please don’t believe me. Check them for yourself. Add to this the billions wasted in two pointless wars and it puts things in perspective
Did the Tories makje cuts? Yes, they did. Bear in mind though that even though S and R are still wittering on about the £26 billion black hole when they came to power the incoming Cameron administration were left with a shortfall of £106 billion at 2010 prices and our gold had been sold off at a discount by Brown. Again, don’t believe me. Check it out.
Every warship currently under construction was ordered by the Tory government, bar one, KG6. Fact.
Any business man will tell you that an approximate budget both capital and revenue can be organised in weeks at the outside, a prelim snapshot probably in days, so they are to blame for the dithering,. Where is the D.I.P. promised for last September and contiually delayed?
Finally, unlike some, I do not make political broadcasts. Could the Tories ahve done better? Of course they could. Do I trust Healey, Reeves and Starmer? No I don’t ,nor do most of the country.
You are entitled to your opinion but I have no particular political leanings other than anti Nationalist and very much Anti reform.
I call it, how I see it, sorry if that offends you.
The simple fact is whether you like it or not Frigates and Submarines take years to build and should have been ordered years earlier . The frigate fleet is uncomfortably small and it will get smaller.
Cameron and Osborne came up with a brilliant little wheeze where previous to their occupancy the budget for the strategic defence came out of a separate pot of money. They decided to lump it all together resulting in a 1% plus cut in the conventional defence budget.
19 months is hardly sufficient time to start correcting the mistakes of the past and imho this government is badly underestimating how much it will take both in one off capital injections and rate of increase to the annual MoD budget.
You started well and your comments don’t offend me but unfortunatelythen ignore all my comments and finish off with the same excuse the government is still using 19 months on. What’s happening NOW is their fault. Simple as that.
And I still disagree.
Under Brown defence spending was 2.5% and the strategic deterrent was separately funded and we were funding Afghanistan and the accusation of equipment shortages were valid.
On this point we will respectful agree to disagree.
Also under Blair and Brown were such woeful decisions as halving our destroyer force, dithering over the frigate programme for their stints, and selling off three brand new T23s.
There are no innocents in this – Labour, coalition, Tory are all guilty for the current state
Probably for the best. As i said before I don’t trust any political party these days on defence but I do like to get the numbers right. Labour Blair/Brown cuts followed by Tory/Liberal cuts and now we have Labour again who are shambolic with just about everything, not just defence.. I cannot be optimistic.
Very well said Geoffrey.
I’ve had some interesting “debates” here before with those with collective amnesia of anything pre 2010 Tory.
Tories delayed the Carriers is one that crops up a lot, until I show the 2009 headlines of the DS at that time delaying at a cost of over 1 billion.
On the Tories, they were bloody useless mate. Most SSN, Escorts and Fast Jet Sqns went in the Labour years 97 to 2010. But then the Tories came in vowing to fix defence and cut more, as well as a huge chunk out of the Army which Labour had not done due to the ongoing sandbox wars.
Both are gone for me I’m afraid, though, to rephrase that, the Tories are gone, as I’ve never voted Labour in my life.
I do not have amnesia far from it.
Putting the strategic defence budget in with the conventional defence was in my opinion criminal.
Funding a war from the defence budget is similarly criminal, whether it is Afghanistan or what we are supplying to Ukraine ( which I fully support)
I have on numerous occasions voiced my opinion on decisions such as given all our mobile artillery to Ukraine ( good) but having nothing on order to replace it.
Yes the Cameron government inherited their own black hole , I do take issue on how they choose to fill it by essentially can kicking and we are paying a heavy price for it now.
It is not rocket science that a hull or an airframe has a certain lifespan and the procurement process to replace it needs to be started in a timely manner., all of the Vanguard boats will be well passed their hull life by the time the first Dreadnaught is launched. The result of this is costly short term refits. An exponentially increasing burden on the defence budget due to maintenance, skilled manpower retention problems because of crazy long patrol ( 2 weeks on an oil platform and I was going stir and we had contact with the outside world and the sun) , because the Vsnguards get priority we had the utterly absurd situation a year ago that all the SSN were tied up awaiting dry dock time.
When it comes to defence I don’t particularly care what flavour is in government. The last PM who took defence seriously was Thatcher and that was only after she learned a very costly lesson in the Falklands .
I despaired when Hunt cut the NI contributions and robbed the treasure of significant funds just to buy votes. Defence is the number 1 duty of any government , we should not ask our brave men and women to potentially make the ultimate sacrifice without having the best kit and training money can buy, something that is often forgotten about.
Hi Michael. I’m glad to hear it! As I have had some tiring exchanges with some who simply refuse to accept the cuts that happened pre 2010 despite when given evidence.
We actually agree on plenty here. The moving of capital costs of CASD replacement into core budget was a killer blow the MOD and conventional military spend will not recover from until changed. It is a big elephant in the room currently.
As is GCAP and AUKUS.
This government are pulling the same stunt as we speak, you referenced Ukraine money from core budget rather than the Treasury reserve and MoD fully refunded. Ukraine, pensions, soon the SIA, Afghan rehoming, Chagos payments, all non core military voices eating at the MoD table and placed there to allow HMG to say we reach X% amount on “Defence” spending.
I apologise, by the way, if you took my comment as a direct attack on yourself, it could well have been construed that way. Which side did what and when is a record I’m sadly all too familiar with and trot out regularly enough in our conversations here so the comment was more of a general “attack” on all the Labour types I’ve jousted with over the years who are now lying quite low that their knights in shining armour coming to save defence from what the Tories did isn’t turning out ( yet ) into what they claimed.
I too have no position regards the pair of them other than both failed, and are failing defence, over many years. You mentioned the current lot have only been in 19 months, well it’s not a great start, a list of cuts and cancellations, can kicking, and vowing money that is already nibbled away by non military funding.
Much as the Tories did when the only commitment they gave to higher spend was after they were re elected.
Which they knew was not going to happen and I suggest this rabble know they are headed the same way, thus more can kicking.
Thank you for the support Daniele. Always appreciated. We have had thirty years of reductions, forty if we count in the so called peace divedend. I suppose the latter made a sort of sense with all the western world taking advantage of no more wars !! ho ho ho. Next comes Kuwait which again has some validity but then the most stupid of all …Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush and Blair having a love in. Apart from the tragedy for all the young people who were killed and disabled what did it cost us. Over £20/25 billion was it? Since then it’s been political wash out. They are all to blame but this lot are way out front in the useless ratings. I don’t remember anything like the last eighteen months in my lifetime.
Mate. Starmer, despite being hollow and utterly useless, is moderate.
What SCARES me is who they might replace him with if it comes to that, the left are already using this as a way to get him out.
Utterly terrifying.
Diane Abbott. 🤗
😳
God help us. My good lady and I were chatting about this earlier and neither of us could think of one member of the cabinet that we would trust and you know what I think of MP’s. Suggestions of Burnham as the great red hope forget that he is another left winger with a smile but damn all else.
At a time before Great Britain had started to have had enough of this shit, and were still “the silent majority” i can still recall Burnham stating openly in the media that he would “crush nationalism wherever it is found.”
Now, I’m a cultural nationalist, and bloody well proud of it, as I suspect are millions of others. That is not the same as far right Combat 18 BNP thugs and such ilk no matter how much the left wish it and declare it so.
He is very much of that type, it’s not forgotten.
The establishment are now discovering that the “silent majority” are not going to be silent much longer, as Labour are about to find out.
As Nigel Farage said once “you’re not laughing now….”
All courtesy of successive HMGs back to Thatcher.
Cheers.
Morning Daniele. “cultural nationalist”. A phrase I haven’t heard in along time but one that sums up what the vast majority of the population want I suspect. Calm, common sense and a feeling of community. Something that politicians, as you quite rightly say, seem to have forgotten in recent decades. I’m with you ,my friend. Let’s hope the electorate join in!
Also, love the picture of the 149, weapon systems ‘a plenty’, what a joke…
Meanwhile the Army Wildcat, in service for years is lucky to get a door gun.
Does anyone actually buy this crap???
I’ve heard they avoided putting weapons on wildcat so that Apache upgrade wouldn’t be cancelled.
I can believe it Hugo….
If they managed to strap passengers to the stub wings of the Apache, they could scrap the Army Wildcat altogether, but then what would the senior officers use as a Taxi service??
I was watching a Wildcat for about 3 hours yesterday, In and out, up and down and much of It just on the ground, engines running. Think It was running errands for a Tide.
(Please note, no Tide was showing on all the usual tracking sites but I saw one from my lofty perch, lurking off the coast, in the mist and rain.)
(please also note, It was normal rain not Purple rain)
👀
Yes, most of the public and politicians. How many MPs in the Commons even care?
And if the AW149 is already being built in Poland right now is a co-build or part purchase or an option to get the unit cost down? I think the Blackhawk is also produced under licence there too? Maybe an extra AH140 for AW149 deal?