House of Commons
Monday 21 February 2000
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
DEFENCE
The Secretary of State was asked--
Royal Army Medical Corps
1. Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): What plans he has for the Royal Army Medical Corps to occupy the buildings of Staff College, Camberley; and if he will make a statement. [109394]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): We are examining a number of options for the future location of headquarters elements of the Army medical services, including the possible use of the Staff College building in Camberley. I hope to be in a position to make an announcement shortly.
Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful for that confirmation. The Under-Secretary's officials may have briefed him that the local press in my constituency has announced the decision as if it had been made. I hope that he will ensure that when his officials talk to officers, elected councillors and the press in my constituency, they provide accurate information at every stage.
The Under-Secretary knows that I asked his predecessor, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), almost the last question of the last Defence Question Time. I do not know whether that question was the straw that broke the camel's back and led to his resignation in a blaze of publicity over the vacuum at the heart of Labour's policies. Perhaps the previous Under-Secretary felt some embarrassment about his officials' actions over the matter that we are considering.
Dr. Moonie: I assure the hon. Gentleman that his questions, which are always polite and well phrased, if over long, would have had no influence on my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle).
I have seen the report to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It did not emanate from the Department. No decision has yet been made; the hon. Gentleman will be informed when that happens.
Aircraft Carriers
2. Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside): What progress has been made in the Government's plans to procure replacements for the current Invincible class of aircraft carriers. [109395]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Competitive contracts, each worth about £30 million, for the future aircraft carrier assessment phase were awarded on 23 November to BAe Land and Sea Systems, now BAe Systems, and Thomson-CSF Naval Combat Systems. The assessment phase will investigate options for carrier design and, by 2003, will deliver proposals for the demonstration and manufacture of the vessels. The carriers, which will be built in the United Kingdom at a likely cost of £2 billion, are scheduled to enter service in 2012 and 2015.
Mr. Jones: Will my right hon. Friend explain the strategic thinking behind the decision to build 40,000 and 50,000-tonners, and set out the consequences for naval planning? What are the employment and industrial consequences for our regional shipyards? Will my right hon. Friend explain the timing and say when the decision will be implemented? On a less serious note, will one of those great aircraft carriers take the A400M? We do not want the C-17; we want the A400M heavy lifter.
Mr. Hoon: I recall congratulating my right hon. Friend on his ingenuity on the last occasion we met for Defence questions. He managed then to introduce a relevant constituency element into his question and he has done so again. I am not likely to delay the specification of any aircraft carrier to take the A400M. My right hon. Friend will probably understand that.
Aircraft carriers will be a key component of a future United Kingdom force structure. It was concluded in the strategic defence review that aircraft carriers could contribute greatly to our commitment to creating modern, highly capable joint forces that are able to fulfil our current commitment and adapt to the evolving requirements of the strategic environment. Carriers have a key role in force projection; they contribute to peace support and, when necessary, to military action.
On employment implications, the construction and fitting out of the carriers will offer good opportunities for United Kingdom shipyards. The identification of build yards will form part of industry's bids for the demonstration and manufacture phase. It is clearly too early to speculate about the exact number of jobs that might be created or sustained.
Mr. Michael Colvin (Romsey): I, too, should like to know what sort of aircraft will be flown from the carriers. If they are to succeed the successful Harrier, with vertical or short take-off and landing--VSTOL--or short take-off and vertical landing--STOVL--capabilities, and perhaps be a variation on the joint strike fighter, surely a long vessel is not required. It might be more economic to refit our existing three aircraft carriers than to build two Goliaths.
Mr. Hoon: I was following the hon. Gentleman's thoughtful contribution until he made his last observation. We have committed ourselves to two new carriers,
which will have more capability than the existing vessels. It would be unfortunate if any Government went back on such an undertaking.On the nature of the aircraft, some matters have to be carefully investigated when selecting the type of aircraft to fly from such vessels. They have implications for the size and specification of the carriers. Those matters remain under active consideration. No decision has yet been made on those precise matters.
Mr. Syd Rapson (Portsmouth, North): As you and I know, Madam Speaker, the people of Portsmouth are interested in the berthing of those two magnificent ships and their future victualling. They must be prepared for in advance and a lot of studies on quays and support facilities are usually carried out. As no research at all has been done in Portsmouth, may I take it that it has been written off as a home port for the two ships?
Mr. Hoon: Absolutely not. Portsmouth is a vital port for the Royal Navy and will continue to be so, but as my hon. Friend will have heard in my answer to the substantive question, those vessels do not come into service until 2012 and 2015. I assure him and the House that the investigation of berthing facilities at Portsmouth will continue as a matter of urgency in order to meet those two dates.
Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford): Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to deny clearly and unambiguously the serious report in Warship World--which he knows is generally a well-informed magazine--to the effect that the Government are considering withdrawing HMS Invincible from service rather than giving it the refit that it will need? Contrary to all their public assurances, they have a covert plan to reduce our carrier fleet to two--long before the new large carriers are even contracted for. I shall give him a copy of the report, and hope that today the House can be told authoritatively exactly what the Government's plans are.
Mr. Hoon: I begin by welcoming the hon. Gentleman to his new post on the Opposition Front Bench. I am sure that he will bring to the defence team a welcome enthusiasm for European matters. I only wish that it were possible to participate in the team meetings when he and his colleagues discuss them.
On the substantive matter, I assure the hon. Gentleman that the House will be the first to hear about any change in the Government's plans and, as no decision has been taken along the lines of the speculation that he described, he probably ought to remain cool, calm and collected, as he usually does.
British Forces Post Office, Mill Hill
3. Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon): If he will make a statement on the future of British Forces Post Office at Mill Hill. [109396]
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): The future structure and location of the British Forces Post Office United Kingdom base is under review as part of my Department's strategic development plan for Greater London.
Mr. Dismore: The review has been under way for a considerable time and is causing uncertainty and disquiet among the staff--both civilian and uniformed personnel--at Mill Hill. When is it likely to be completed, and can my hon. Friend give me the assurance that it will take into account the excellent work done by BFPO at Mill Hill? It delivered millions of letters and parcels over Christmas well within the performance criteria and makes a major contribution to the morale of our service personnel overseas.
Mr. Spellar: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the loyalty and dedication of the military and civilian staff at BFPO--they are vital to the agency's success--and he and I went to see it for ourselves. Following the study, we hope to be able to make a decision about BFPO's future in late summer.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Will the Minister accept from me that support for the safe and secure service provided by BFPO is widespread on both sides of the House? Is he aware in particular that it is a matter of the utmost importance to me for the simple reason that my mother lives in the Mill Hill area? Will he also accept from me that tolerating representation by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) is sufficient burden for her to bear--she does so with dignity and stoicism? Does the Minister agree that it would be monstrous to deprive her of that admirable facility, of which she is a longstanding supporter?
Mr. Spellar: I see that Conservative Members are very sensitive in declaring interests these days. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for the excellent service and the staff at Mill Hill. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), they are critical to the success of a much-appreciated agency. As part of the restructuring of our service estate in the London area, we are considering how best to provide that service. Key considerations in making that decision will be the maintenance of continuity of service and the enormous loyalty and dedication shown by those staff.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |