| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Married Quarters
10. Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): When he last met the Army Families Federation to discuss married quarters. [109406]
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): I last met the Army Families Federation on 16 November 1999 when I chaired the second families forum of the service families task force.
Mr. Leigh: I wish to ask the Minister about married quarters and I hope that he will not give the sort of party political reply that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), because there is much concern about the subject. Has the Minister read the Defence Committee's report on married quarters? Has he noticed that the last thing that service men want when they go abroad is to return to dilapidated married quarters? Has he noted the conclusions of the Committee's report--remembering that his party has a majority on the Committee--that
- "We have been provided with insufficient evidence for us to be sure that this area is not subject to budgetary squeeze simply because it is an easy target."
Mr. Spellar: As I said to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), we will spend some £112 million more than was budgeted for by the previous Government after their rapid sale to Annington in an attempt to balance the budget for the pre-election exercise. We are aware of the needs of married quarters and of single living accommodation, which is another area of considerable neglect that we inherited.
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury): May I invite the Minister to stop blustering about what happened five years ago and get on with finding proper housing for our service men and women and their families? Regardless of the reasons for the slippage that has occurred, it is unacceptable to try to save £2 million a year by cutting new carpets and curtains. The lack of appropriate quarters is a major factor in our inability to retain armed forces personnel. I accept that recruitment is not doing badly, but if he continues with the present policy, the Minister will do nothing but harm in the matter of retaining personnel in our armed forces.
Mr. Spellar: I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention once again to the considerable shortfall that we inherited. In addition to refurbishing existing property, we are letting a number of private finance initiative contracts to build new housing. Those initiatives involve building 279 properties at Lossiemouth, 88 at Yeovilton, 145 at Cosford and Shawbury, and 164 in central Scotland. That high-quality housing is highly appreciated, and considerable work is also being done in other areas. I fully agree that some properties are unacceptable as married quarters for our service families. However, much of the
available housing is good, and the improvements that have been made are greatly appreciated. Considerable sums of money are being devoted to the problem--some £112 more than had been budgeted for after the previous Administration's fire sale to Annington Homes.Ammunition Expenditure
11. Mr. Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale, West): How much his Department spent in each of the last three years on ammunition for each of the armed services. [109407]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): In financial years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99, we spent some £173 million, £168 million and £152 million respectively procuring ammunition for the Army. Equivalent figures for the Royal Navy were £122 million, £115 million and £148 million, and for the Royal Air Force, £96 million, £157 million and £241 million. These figures cover the costs, at historic prices, associated with the procurement of lethal munitions, including small, medium, and large-calibre gun ammunition, grenades, mortar bombs, rockets, guided missiles, and torpedoes.
Mr. Brady: Is the amount of ammunition provided for training purposes larger or smaller than it was three years ago?
Dr. Moonie: As far as I know, the amount has remained roughly constant, but I shall certainly look into the matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley): Given the amount of money involved, will the Minister ensure that the Government will continue to meet procurement needs in the UK, and that Britain does not become reliant on other countries in that regard?
Dr. Moonie: Clearly, I cannot give my hon. Friend any guarantees on that. Each case will be considered on its merits. Our main emphasis is on securing value for money and high quality. Within those constraints, we shall certainly endeavour, wherever possible, to source materials in this country.
Defence Attaches
12. Mr. Gareth R. Thomas (Harrow, West): What plans his Department has to improve its network of defence attaches. [109410]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): As part of the work following on from the strategic defence review, a comprehensive review of the distribution of defence attaches has been carried out. The outcome was agreed between the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at the end of last year, and the resultant new distribution of attaches is being implemented from 1 April 2000 over a two-year period.
I am pleased to inform the House that the number of countries with permanent British attaches in post will increase from 75 to 80. That is consistent with the
strategic defence review, which gave a general assessment that increased priority should be given to support for defence diplomacy in central and eastern Europe and to the provision for operational military advice and assistance in sub-Saharan Africa. The increase in our attache presence in central and eastern Europe will enhance the provision of support to the outreach programme in particular.
Mr. Thomas:
Does my hon. Friend agree that defence diplomacy, especially with the aim of conflict prevention in central Europe and in Africa, is among the strategic defence review's crucial priorities, and that it has need of further attention? Does he share my view that greater civilian and democratic control of the armed forces in those countries should be a priority for the Department? Will he assure me that, unlike the Conservative Government, this Government will fund such work properly?
Dr. Moonie:
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I confirm that extra funding to the tune of £2.5 million a year has been made available for that initiative.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield):
But where are the defence attaches going to live? There are still many parts of the world--especially in the former Soviet Union--where our representatives operate out of other embassies. Were it not for the help offered by the Germans and the Scandinavians, we would not have representatives in the former Soviet Union. Has the Minister spoken to the Foreign Secretary, who has announced that he is to reduce British representation overseas?
Dr. Moonie:
That seems a cost-effective way of providing accommodation! Seriously, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take the greatest care in ensuring that our employees are properly looked after when they are abroad.
13. Mr. Desmond Browne (Kilmarnock and Loudoun):
If he will make a statement about his Department's plans to procure four roll on/roll off container ships. [109412]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon):
The strategic defence review confirmed the requirement for an expanded sealift capability of six roll on/roll off ships--four in addition to the two currently on charter--to transport equipment for our joint rapid reaction forces. We are seeking to provide the capability under private finance initiative arrangements, and intend to announce a single preferred bidder later this year.
Mr. Browne:
My right hon. Friend confirmed that the building of the roll on/roll off ships is an essential part of the full implementation of the strategic defence review. He will be aware that the River Clyde has a great history of shipbuilding, but that recently, shipbuilding on the Clyde has become vulnerable to uncompetitive pricing practices, particularly from elsewhere. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that, in the selection of a
Mr. Hoon:
I can confirm the requirement for roll on/roll off ferries. As far as the Clyde is concerned, the Government are very pleased that the ownership of the Govan shipyard has been settled. Scottish shipyards such as Govan have historically made a vital contribution to shipbuilding in this country, and I hope that they will continue to play an important role. Certainly, there will be a full and open competition. Obviously, it is vital to the interests of the British taxpayer that we secure the best value-for-money order available.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate):
I welcome the commitment that six roll on/roll off ferries will be available as part of our strategic lift capability. However, it would be rather odd if such measures were set alongside measures to reduce Fearless to the reserve; to place a further three frigates and destroyers into the reserve; to put four Hunt class MCMVs to reserve; to put three Sandown class MCMVs to reserve; to lay up three further Royal Fleet Auxiliaries; and to bring home Dumbarton Castle from the Falkland islands. I understand, on authoritative briefing from within the Ministry of Defence, that all those measures are being considered to deal with a bloodstained long-term costings process as a result of the fact that the Ministry does not have enough money to support the defence budget in a sensible fashion.
Mr. Hoon:
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman, who has considerable knowledge of the way in which the Ministry of Defence operates, should choose to highlight the most speculative source of information with which I have so far had to deal. The hon. Gentleman knows better than that: he knows that, necessarily, a whole series of options is canvassed and that against those options, real decisions are taken. I assure him that no real decision along the lines of his speculation has been taken. I also assure him, as I assure other hon. Members, that when decisions are taken the House will be the first to hear--and rather before spurious pieces are published in whatever publication.
Mr. Mohammad Sarwar (Glasgow, Govan):
Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the Minister of State, Scotland Office replied to me in a recent Adjournment debate, he reaffirmed that Scotland offers support for Govan's Sealion bid? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that Govan shipyard is ready to work immediately on this order?
Mr. Hoon:
I am grateful for that personal commitment. I anticipate that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sarwar) will be down there in the event of the contract being awarded to that particular shipyard. However, it is a competitive process, and it is necessary for the Government, in the interests of the taxpayers, to choose the best value-for-money offer.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |