Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Luff Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

4. What estimate he has made of his Department’s expenditure on military equipment in 2010-11; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

The Department’s current planned expenditure on the procurement of military equipment—excluding urgent operational requirements for Afghanistan—for the financial year 2010-11 is £6.6 billion, of which £5.5 billion is capital expenditure. In addition, planned expenditure on the associated military equipment support costs for the financial year 2010-11 is £6.3 billion, of which £1.6 billion is capital expenditure.

[Claire Perry]

Will the Minister confirm that he has digested fully the lessons of the Bernard Gray report, which was suppressed by the previous Government and, when released, suggested that £2.5 billion was being wasted on procurement procedures? When will he update the House with the new procurement procedures?

[Peter Luff]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on a very sensible question. Labour’s record on debt and financial instability makes that challenge even more important than it already was. I have digested the lessons of that very important report, the strategy for acquisition reform continues, and I hope to report to the House at a later date.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

The Government recently made a commitment to publish regional and national defence expenditure statistics and then, within days, reneged on it. Does the MOD have any commitment to equitable defence spending throughout the UK?

[Peter Luff]

If Scotland accepted the case for the nuclear deterrent, the hon. Gentleman’s argument would be a lot more impressive.

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is good to hear about the Department’s planned expenditure and, particularly, from my hon. Friend. Last year, on 20 July, the Ministry of Defence published its accounts, which set out the planned expenditure, and for the third year running those accounts were qualified. Will they be published again this month, and will they be qualified again this year?

[Peter Luff]

They will be published at a very early date, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend’s Committee will take a very close interest in them when they are.

[Mr Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

In December last year, I announced £150 million to improve the capacity of our counter-improvised explosive device teams in Afghanistan, and, as that is the highest threat level that our forces face, expenditure was kept under review. Recently, the Prime Minister announced another £67 million for the same purpose, and I welcome that, because it is really needed. However, will the Minister clarify the situation? The Prime Minister has repeatedly said that that £67 million will double the number of counter-IED teams. Is that true?

[Peter Luff]

The £67 million is intended to provide enhanced protection for our teams in Afghanistan and additional mine-detecting equipment, and to procure working dogs—a very effective part of counter-IED work.

[Mr Ainsworth]

I understand that, and it is welcome. That is exactly what I put in place when I was doing the job that the hon. Gentleman and his team are doing now, and I kept that need under review. However, is it all new money, and will it do what the Prime Minister repeatedly said it would? He said in terms, “We are doubling the counter-IED teams.” He cannot double the counter-IED teams for £67 million. Let us have a straight answer.

[Peter Luff]

The right hon. Gentleman is understandably concerned, as this is about a very important threat to our armed forces. I can tell him, however, that the difference between this Government and the previous Government is that we have found the money that is crucial in dealing with this threat, and lectures on new money or old money come very ill from him. In the past, commitments were made for many things, but we are actually going to find the money and deliver this vital tool for our armed forces serving in Afghanistan.

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

5. What plans he has for future support for cadet forces.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)]

6. What his plans are for the future of the aircraft carriers programme.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, we are in the process of carrying out a strategic defence and security review within which all aspects of the defence programme, including the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, will be examined. The impact on any specific equipment projects will be announced following the conclusion of the review in the autumn.

[Mr Hepburn]

I thank the Minister for that reply, but urge him to stand by the Defence Secretary’s pre-election comments and statements saying that these particular carriers were of urgent and vital importance to Britain’s defence. May I urge the Minister to give full steam ahead to these projects and invite him to meet me at my constituency shipyard to discuss the matter further?

[Peter Luff]

I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman in his constituency and look forward to doing so on a mutually agreeable date. However, he will understand that with a strategic defence and security review going on, it is impossible to give the type of commitment that he seeks. I wish I could, but I cannot.

[Diana R. Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

7. What recent discussions he has had on alternatives to the Trident nuclear deterrent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

17. How many defence procurement contracts have been frozen since his appointment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

Out of the 57 equipment-related projects that were subject to re-approval as part of the exercise announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 17 May, two projects—the search and rescue helicopter project, and the procurement of long-lead items for the successor deterrent—have been suspended pending the outcome of urgent ongoing reviews. However, all projects, including those that have been re-approved, are being considered as part of the strategic defence and security review.

[Mr Carswell]

Does my hon. Friend believe that it is in the best interests of our armed forces that senior officials involved in preparing MOD contracts are regularly recruited to work for the contractor and lobby Government on its behalf?

[Peter Luff]

Like my hon. Friend, I have severe doubts about that particular practice, and I can assure him that I am watching it very carefully.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Can the Minister tell the House when he expects to agree the contract signed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) for the A400M, which is built in Bristol and serviced in north Wales? Twenty-two planes with 22 sets of wings are under contract by the Labour Government, but they have been frozen by the Conservative-Liberal Government.

[Peter Luff]

I wish I could answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question at length, but all I can say is that the A400M, like all other major projects, is part of the strategic defence and security review—the long overdue strategic defence and security review.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)]

Will Ministers tell me how effective they consider Vector Aerospace, in Almondbank in my constituency, to be in keeping the UK’s armed forces’ front lines effective?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Peter Luff)]

I am delighted to pay tribute to the many defence companies that make such a valuable contribution to the work of our armed services, and I would be delighted to hear more from the hon. Gentleman about the company in his constituency. I know that its work is very valued.

[Richard Harrington (Watford) (Con)]

T5. In view of the constraints on military spending, both financially and in terms of personnel, what help has the Ministry of Defence been asked to give the Home Office in providing security for the Olympic games?

--- Later in debate ---

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anger in my constituency because the reverse bidding for the contract for the supply of socks did not work effectively? Does he understand that HJ Hall, which has supplied socks for three generations, lost the contract because it could not make its bids within the existing system, and will he please look into the issue?

[Peter Luff]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his vigorous defence of his constituents. I agree that the matter is important, and I should like to discuss it with him further.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

When personnel tragically lose their lives on active service, is there a time limit by which their families must vacate service accommodation? If so, what is the time limit, and what assistance are those families given to find alternative accommodation?