Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Glen and Philip Dunne

Monday 24th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

The Government were concerned to look at any export licences that had been granted and undertook an initial review in August. We launched another review earlier this month and when it is available we will respond to the hon. Lady.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

T6. I sincerely welcome the Government’s recent decision to grant pensions to forces widows who remarry. However, there are still 126 divorced spouses, including one of my constituents, who are denied access to their anticipated pensions due to an administrative error by an agency of the Ministry of Defence. In the light of the recent decision, will the Minister reconsider these cases and see what can be done across government to put this right?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Glen and Philip Dunne

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

T8. In view of the uncertainty about the future of Public Health England at Porton Down and the imminent submission of the outline business case to the Treasury, will the Minister confirm that the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory is ready and willing to work collaboratively on a Porton-based solution for the future of the PHE facility there?

[Mr Dunne]

My hon. Friend is a valiant champion of all that goes on in and around Porton Down, and he is to be congratulated on the work he did in securing the science park funding last week. With regard to the CL4 facility at Porton Down, which is co-shared with Public Health England, the Ministry of Defence will be working with the Department of Health to ensure that the best solution is found for the country as a whole for the future of CL4 facilities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Glen and Philip Dunne

Monday 17th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

11. What assessment he has made of progress in development of the B-variant of the joint strike fighter aircraft; and how many countries have expressed an interest in its procurement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

Development of the short take-off and vertical landing variant of the joint strike fighter aircraft is progressing well. I saw for myself our third aircraft, of which we have now taken receipt, when I visited Lockheed Martin’s facility in Forth Worth in April, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State also witnessed an F-35B demonstrating its hover capability at Pax River last month.

The STOVL variant, the mainstay of the US Marine Corps, has conducted nearly 3,000 flight hours to date, including vertical landings and short take-offs from the USS Wasp. The US, Italy and the UK are the three nations currently committed to procuring the STOVL variant. The UK is working with all joint strike fighter European partner nations to determine the most cost-effective support solution across Europe.

[John Glen]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Will he confirm that the F-35Bs will always be embarked on the carriers when they are out of port?

[Mr Dunne]

As my hon. Friend knows, the aircraft will be based at RAF Marham in Norfolk. The precise mix of aircraft embarked will depend on the mission, but the carrier will routinely have 12 fast jets embarked for operations whenever she sails outside of home waters, while retaining the capacity to deploy up to the 36 previously planned, providing combat and intelligence capability much greater than legacy systems. The aircraft carrier will also be able to carry a wide range of helicopters, including up to 12 Chinook or Merlin transports and eight Apache attack helicopters.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Glen and Philip Dunne

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Dunne]

The shadow Secretary of State is well aware that under EU procurement rules any nation can direct warlike stores, such as large warships, to be built within its national boundaries. That would mean that in the very unlikely event of a Scottish independence vote leading to an independent Scotland, a new Scottish Government could place orders for Scottish warships to be built in Scottish yards, whereas the residual UK Government could direct warships to be built in their own yards, if they decided to take advantage of the EU exemption. As far as Portsmouth is concerned, the terms of business agreement entered into by the previous Government left the decisions about how the company should rationalise the ship building programme for another day. Having placed large orders that would run beyond the general election, they were not prepared to take tough decisions on what should happen to consolidate the industry.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

7. What assessment he has made of the success of Operation Atalanta.