| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Gray: The Under-Secretary has made the most bizarre remark. Incidentally, it is disappointing that the Minister of State has not come to the Chamber today to face me and talk about the issue. I made it plain a moment ago that I made no comment at all to the press until precisely 11.30 on Friday 4 July, in Lyneham village hall. I turned down visits from the "Today" programme and a variety of other people. I issued no press release of any kind whatsoever. If the Under-Secretary is suggesting that I somehow leaked the matter, he is wrong and should withdraw that suggestion.
Mr. Caplin: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 14 July and said that the hon. Gentleman believes that
- "this information was given to the media by someone at the base. Clearly, it is impossible to establish the truth or otherwise in this."
The hon. Gentleman's press release accused the Prime Minister of making a substantially misleading remark at Prime Minister's Question Time. That allegation was completely without foundation—he repeated the
accusation in the debate. The Prime Minister said on 7 May that he had no doubt that RAF Lyneham would play a role in future conflicts. At the time, no decision had been taken—my right hon. Friend the Minister of State had not even seen the final recommendations arising from the review. Moreover, even now that the decision has been taken to close RAF Lyneham, the Prime Minister's statement remains true.
Mr. Gray: I asked the Prime Minister:
- "Does he also agree that all future conflicts will equally depend on RAF Lyneham?"—[Official Report, 7 May 2003; Vol. 404, c. 688.]
Mr. Caplin: I am afraid that intervening sometimes does not help the hon. Gentleman's case. Why he thinks that the Prime Minister should apologise for, or come to the House about, a statement that was absolutely true is beyond me. Indeed, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should apologise for stating in his press release on 4 July that the Prime Minister gave an assurance that the base would not be closed. The Prime Minister's statement to the House on 7 May clearly gave no such assurance. The hon. Gentleman has decided to interpret it that way for his own constituency benefit.
I shall explain why the decision has been made. In the Adjournment debate on the 26 February last year, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State made the point that the review was driven not by the need to make financial cuts, but by the need to identify the best and most cost-effective basing arrangements for the new fleets. Despite that assurance, I note again that the hon. Gentleman stated in his press release that the decision was driven by financial cuts. He repeated that tonight. I stress that that is not the case. Indeed, I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that in the recent spending review, the Government provided for the largest sustained increase in defence spending for 20 years. We all know that it is the Tories who plan to slash public spending by 20 per cent. if they are ever elected to government again.
It is essential that the Ministry of Defence regularly reviews what it needs to meet the defence requirement, and this review was a part of that ongoing process. The review was needed to consider how best to accommodate the new fleets. Planning for the future is what any good business would do and it is our duty to the taxpayer to ensure that we only spend what we need.
The hon. Gentleman has also questioned the amount of money spent on the infrastructure at RAF Lyneham over the years. Does he believe that we deliberately underinvested in the station to make its closure more inevitable? If he does, he is simply wrong. All strike command stations have been treated equitably for such spending. Expenditure on infrastructure is authorised according to the urgency of the work and each station is required to prioritise its spend in accordance with specified criteria, the foremost criterion being work required to meet statutory requirements. In fact, for many years, additional money has been made available to support work on the Lyneham estate. There is no question that RAF Lyneham has in any way been singled out over the years for inequitable treatment.
The hon. Gentleman asked about working with local authorities and what he described as the Lyneham taskforce. Ministry of Defence officials would be happy to co-operate with such a taskforce. I understand that consultation is taking place with trade unions, which I think he said are involved in that taskforce, and others. All consultation and discussion will take place before closure in 2012.
I understand that the announcement of the closure of RAF Lyneham will be disappointing news for the dedicated military and civilian personnel at the base who have contributed so much to recent operations. I take nothing away from the excellent work that has been done at Lyneham over the years. I recognise, too, the disappointment that will be felt by those in the area who give the station so much valued support.
RAF Lyneham has a long and proud history. However, I am sure all concerned will understand that we must make best use of defence resources. Part of that equation is looking closely at the bases we need in the long term. Locating the RAF's air transport and air refuelling fleets at a single station will increase the efficiency of our operations and allow more efficient and modern working practices to be implemented.
- Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eight o'clock.
| Index | Home Page |