House of Commons
Monday 29 March 2004
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
DEFENCE
The Secretary of State was asked—
Sea Harriers
1. Mr. Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con): When the first Sea Harriers will be withdrawn from service. [163773]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The first of the three Sea Harrier squadrons will be withdrawn from service on 31 March 2004. It is planned to retire the second squadron in March 2005 and the final squadron in March 2006.
Mr. Prisk : I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. His plans seem to rely on replacing the Sea Harrier with the GR7/9, yet, as many people know, that aircraft is not designed for the same purpose. It is designed to attack slow-moving tanks on land, not to defend against high-speed missiles at sea. Without the appropriate radar and missiles, how exactly is the Minister's plan going to work?
Mr. Ingram: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has followed the progress of the decision. This was a balance of investment decision. In looking at the upgrade of the Harrier fleet and/or the continuation of the Sea Harrier, the cost of retaining the Sea Harrier was deemed prohibitive, and it would also have been technically difficult in terms of the upgrade programme that was envisaged. There was no certainty, having spent the money or having spent some money some way down the line, about getting the upgrade with the aircraft that he may now wish to see remaining in service. I suggest that he raise the matter with his shadow Chancellor, who envisages a cut of £1.5 billion. The cost of the upgrade is about £0.5 billion, with other whole-life costs attached. I only put the information to him; clearly, he has not been following it.
Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con): The Government's own strategic defence review recognised in 1998 that air superiority and air defence would be
essential for maritime operations, yet this week, Ministers will start removing air defence from our maritime forces, deliberately taking risks with men and ships by exposing them to air attack. The Minister knows that the GR7 is no substitute for the Sea Harrier and that there will be a serious capability gap between now and the arrival of the new carriers and the joint strike fighter, assuming that, as is planned, they are not delayed beyond 2012. Perhaps that is why HMS Ark Royal is now to be put in mothballs this month—because it cannot be protected by Sea Harriers. Even at this late hour, may I urge Ministers to keep to their original policy—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The supplementaries from the Front Bench are far too long.
Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk) (Con): That is just the Minister.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not be long in taking care of the Minister when the time comes.
Mr. Ingram: I will be very brief. I refer the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) a few moments ago.
Married Quarters (Policing)
2. Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury) (Con): What assessment he has made of the policing of service married quarters in Salisbury constituency. [163774]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): While no specific assessment has taken place of the policing of service family accommodation in Salisbury, the policing requirements at all service family accommodation, including that located in Salisbury, is kept under review by the Ministry of Defence police commander responsible for public safety. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the safety of service personnel and their dependants remains a matter of significant concern to Ministers and the Department.
Mr. Key : It ought to be of first concern to the Minister. Is he aware that, in the redeployment of the Ministry of Defence police and the cutting of their presence in the Salisbury area—only 14 MDP officers will be available to cover the Salisbury area—he is putting a new burden on the Wiltshire constabulary for the 300 or so criminal acts that require police presence every year in just the Amesbury area, and that this is no time to be cutting any of our security forces?
Mr. Caplin: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of these issues, because he and I have corresponded long and hard over this matter in the past six months, but I can say to him that the divisional support group will, as he knows, be located at Larkhill. It will have 22 officers, and I am confident that it will provide the type of policing that those families expect in Salisbury.
RAF Stafford
4. Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab): What consideration he has given to representations made to him on the future of RAF Stafford. [163776]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): At a recent meeting, I advised my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), who was accompanied by senior local authority representatives, that I am considering carefully all representations from areas potentially affected by the review of the air combat service support unit and will take them into account when making my decision. I expect to make a decision after the Easter recess.
Paul Farrelly: The Minister will know that RAF Stafford has a long and proud history as an important civilian and military employer in the north Staffordshire area. My granddad worked at RAF Stafford, and my cousin from Stafford joined the RAF as a pilot and flew Tornadoes in the first Gulf war. We are currently trying to attract much-needed government jobs into north Staffordshire for regeneration, so before my right hon. Friend the Minister makes his decision on RAF Stafford will he please consider carefully the demoralising effect of moving jobs not from south to north, but from north to south?
Mr. Ingram: That concern must form part of our consideration, but my hon. Friend knows that operational effectiveness is the main driver in the process, which is one reason why we have examined the distribution of those units. We fully recognise the impact on local communities of closing particular stations, but we must face up to such tough decisions in government and consider what is right in terms of operations and the balance of the arguments. Many areas of the country have given loyal support and service to the armed forces, but over the years the armed forces' presence in those areas has contracted. I will take all my hon. Friend's points into account—indeed, I am doing so.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): In considering the future basing study, of which the possible closure of RAF Stafford and, indeed, RAF Bulmer are a part, will the Minister carefully examine the capital costs, which would take a very long time to pay off, in the investment appraisal? The alternative is to leave important facilities on sites where investment has already taken place.
Mr. Ingram: I had a useful meeting about the Bulmer station with the right hon. Gentleman, where he made those points. I gave him a commitment that I would meet all local interests at each station that could be affected by the decision, and I have done just that. I am taking my time to trawl through all elements of the matter because of those stations' importance within their local communities.
Mr. David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly) for supporting RAF Stafford. Indeed, all Staffordshire MPs—Conservative and Labour—have
been united in their support. Will the Minister acknowledge that RAF Stafford is the last surviving military presence in Staffordshire's county town, that it has accepted its responsibility for tri-service working, and that it has been militarily effective? Will he make a commitment that a military presence will remain in Stafford after the end of the review in April?
Mr. Ingram: I pay tribute to the way in which my hon. Friend has campaigned with his local authority colleagues on a cross-party basis. They have made a cogent case, which must be set against the operational imperatives that I referred to earlier and the overall balance of the decisions that must be taken. I note what he says, and he made the same points when he attended the meeting that I referred to earlier. After any decision is taken, I would obviously be willing to meet interested parties again to talk through the implications.
Shoeburyness Ranges
5. Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con): If he will make a statement on the future use of the new ranges in Shoeburyness. [163777]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): Shoeburyness provides a unique capability for test and evaluation activities and makes a vital contribution to national security. The ranges are included in the long-term partnering agreement that has been negotiated with Qinetiq for the delivery of a long-term test and evaluation capability to the Ministry of Defence. This agreement came into effect on 1 April 2003 and is intended to continue for 25 years.
Sir Teddy Taylor : As the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, in consultation with Thames gateway, has just announced the expenditure of £2 million on a study of access to and the use of Shoeburyness, can the Minister give an assurance that Southend borough council and Rochford council will be fully consulted if there are any proposals for development of unused land on the new ranges?
Mr. Caplin: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance because my Department is in discussions with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister about many land issues.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |