Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nick Harvey]

In a sense, we already provide cover for those on the front line in the matter I have described—through the armed forces compensation scheme and the armed forces pension schemes—so that anyone who suffers in consequence of their military service is compensated appropriately. The hon. Lady will be aware that, after the previous Government ordered an independent review of the armed forces compensation scheme, the amounts payable were substantially increased. If members of the armed services decide, for personal reasons, that they want to seek cover additional to that, we are determined to ensure that they are not disadvantaged or prevented from doing so on account of their service in the armed forces. That is why we intervened in the market to ensure that the schemes I mentioned are available, but it would not be right for us to go out and procure those policies on behalf of individuals: these are personal decisions that those individuals make. We provide death-in-service and injury-in-service benefits; it is up to—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Minister of State, I think there is extensive scope for an Adjournment debate on the matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jim Murphy]

For the purpose of this question, I shall set aside the partisanship and ask the Minister about the issue again. When one in five members of our forces is shouted at in the street and almost as many are refused service in a pub, hotel or elsewhere, we must all go further. There are sensible examples of legal protections for other specific groups that go much further than the military covenant to protect against discrimination, harassment or abuse. In the light of the research, in the build-up to Armed Forces day and as part of these indulged in—or indulgent—all-party talks, will the Minister consider new legal protections for those who keep our country safe?

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister should make particular reference to access to social housing.

[Mr Robathan]

I hear your strictures, Mr Speaker. I am not sure whether new laws are required. What is required is a greater respect for our armed forces and the truth is that most people in this country view our armed forces with great pride, which the four out of five people who are not subject to any form of abuse will recognise. Now, I notice people wearing uniform in the streets much more often, for instance. Once upon a time, that was actively discouraged because one did get abuse, typically from long-haired left-wing students, but that was just when I was young.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

Here I call on the help of my civil servants, because I am not aware of any other councils in the west midlands following suit. I applaud Birmingham city council—under, I think, Conservative administration —for putting this to one side—[Interruption.] Then under Conservative administration. I applaud the council and, as the hon. Lady will know, we are encouraging the community covenants that lead to such activities.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the Minister will write to the hon. Lady with further and better particulars when he has consulted his officials.

[Mr Robathan]

Of course.

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Luff]

I must be honest and say that I am not sure what delay the hon. Gentleman refers to, so I suggest that we have a conversation about it later.

[Mr Speaker]

That is a refreshing outbreak of splendid candour, on which we congratulate the Minister.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

Any suicide is a tragedy. The UK has much lower rates of suicide in the armed forces than the US. Research is being done on the matter as we speak, in particular by Professor Simon Wessely of King’s College hospital. Although we remain concerned, for people over 25, service in the armed forces means, curiously, that one is less likely to commit suicide than others. I am happy to discuss the matter further with the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, Mr Duncan Hames.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

Next month, the UK will join other Governments at the United Nations to negotiate and agree an international arms trade treaty. We are often told that Britain’s arms controls are among the strictest that one will find anywhere. Does the Minister recognise the benefit to Britain and the world of reaching a strong agreement with as many countries as possible, even if certain countries opt not to become signatories at this time?

Defence Budget and Transformation

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is much interest in this matter among right hon. and hon. Members. Accommodating that level of interest will require brevity in questions and answers alike.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State was enormously helpful last Thursday when he told me that procuring an aircraft carrier was slightly more complicated than buying a bottle of milk or a box of eggs. I wonder whether he will be equally helpful today. He keeps referring to the £38 billion black hole. Will he tell us how much of that £38 billion he assesses as being due to contractual commitments and therefore outside the scope of his cuts, and how much of it as being outside those contractual commitments?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Given the number of right hon. and hon. Members still seeking to catch my eye, and the fact that the debate to follow is very heavily subscribed, I repeat my exhortation to single, short supplementary questions and the Secretary of State’s typically pithy replies.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Britain’s national and international defence interests are not best served by having a smaller Army, a smaller Navy and a smaller Air Force. We are now told that the budget is in balance, so, looking to the home front, can the upgrade and modernisation of the family accommodation be brought forward?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

That is an interesting question, because the Labour party’s position is to deny that there was a £38 billion black hole. It is rather helpful to us that we have in our possession a letter from the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire to the Leader of the Opposition, setting out his view that the £38 billion black hole was Labour’s greatest weakness and vulnerability when it came to defence.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State and to colleagues.

Carrier Strike Capability

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that at the SDSR, a view was taken about the amount of risk that was tolerable, about the horizon to which we could accept an absence of carrier capability and, as I have said, I am certainly not prepared to see us go beyond 2020 without the carrier strike capability.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is the question for Opposition Members to answer: why did they order two 65,000 tonne carriers without cats and traps, which anyone involved in naval aviation operations knows is itself an absurdity? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appeal to the House to calm down. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), assisted by his colleagues, is chuntering repetitively from a sedentary position, in breach of the conventions of the House. I ask the hon. Gentleman to exercise what modicum of self-restraint he is able, in the circumstances, to muster.

[Mr Hammond]

We inherited this programme, and frankly I am not interested in trading insults with the Opposition about what happened in the past. What I need to do now is take the carriers that are in build and that are being built under a contract that makes it more expensive to cancel them than to complete them, and put them to the best possible military use for the defence of this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hammond]

I agree.

[Mr Speaker]

We can leave it at that. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), but in future, a question mark would be appreciated.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm if he has investigated whether Mr Adam Werritty met any companies or lobbyists involved in the original very bad decision?

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Even a first-week midshipman could tell the Prime Minister that adopting two 180° U-turns takes us back to where we started two years ago. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that the Government will continue to stand beside the use of Rosyth dockyard for the long-term maintenance of the carriers when they enter service? Will he tell the House what we will achieve, except squandering he knows not how many millions of pounds, by flogging our Harrier fleet for spare parts for a peppercorn, scrapping a generation of fast-jet Harrier pilots, and leaving the nation with—

[Mr Speaker]

We have got the gist. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Hammond]

A first-week midshipman could probably tell the hon. Gentleman that it is not normal to order a 65,000 tonne STOVL carrier without any cats and traps. With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s question on Rosyth, no decision has been taken on where the carriers will be maintained in future.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I think the right hon. Gentleman perhaps spends too much time reading the Sunday newspapers. I too read an article yesterday that said we had spent £500 million refurbishing the Harriers shortly before selling them to the United States. In fact, the programme in question was instigated by the previous Government in 2002 and sustained the Harrier through to the end of its service with UK forces. Far from sneaking the Harriers to the US in secret, when the deal was signed the MOD issued a press release announcing the sale price, $180 million, which was nearly twice the figure that I was told when I arrived at the MOD had been pencilled in as the receipt. It was a success, although the right hon. Gentleman would hate to admit it.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I just remind the House that there is a lot to get through so from now on we need shorter questions and shorter answers?

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)]

T6. The Minister will be familiar with Chetwynd barracks in Chilwell in Broxtowe having visited it just the other week, when he brought a cheque for £50,000 for Alderman Pounder school, for which we are very grateful. Will he ensure that some of the extra money announced in last week’s Budget is provided to soldiers’ families at Chetwynd, who want, like many soldiers, to live on base as a community?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robathan]

The reason I said that I do not wash my hands of the situation is that we are concerned about service children whose parents have been killed. However, as I said at the time, this is a Department for Education initiative. I should have hoped that the Opposition praise the pupil premium initiative. We are very keen that all children of service personnel should do well, but the premium is paid because of the mobility of children. We therefore have to look very carefully at how children will be affected when their mobility ceases.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very keen to hear Back Benchers.

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

T8. Does the Secretary of State agree that the tempo of our military withdrawal from Afghanistan should be dictated by real measures of military success on the ground, so that the British lives lost in Afghanistan will not have been in vain?

Afghanistan (Civilian Killings)

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Accommodating the level of interest in this subject, given that there is important time-limited Back-Bench business to follow, will necessitate brevity, which will now be exemplified by Dr Julian Lewis.

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

I thought you might pick me for that, Mr Speaker.

The Afghan Government and the Afghan people are rightly outraged by this atrocity, but does the Minister agree that the one bunch of people who have no right to promise revenge are the Taliban? It was their hosting of an international terrorist organisation that murdered thousands of men, women and children that led to the invasion of Afghanistan in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Harvey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to pay tribute to the personal commitment made by all those whom we ask to go out to serve on our behalf, and of course we must recognise the stress and worry that this puts on their families behind them. We will continue to do everything we can to support them, and I know that everyone in this House is very proud of what they do, no matter what our policy differences might be. It is right that, after we have had casualties of our own, we grieve and acknowledge the sacrifice that has been made, but of course the reason why we have had this question this afternoon is to recognise also that the Afghan civilian population is making a terrible sacrifice. Our thoughts and our prayers remain with those Afghan villages and the families there, who have been on the wrong end of an appalling tragedy, which I know we all profoundly regret.

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to the Minister. I call Mr Eric Joyce to make a personal statement.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 20th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Peter Luff]

Actually, I think there is a widely shared misunderstanding in the SME community of the issues that it faces. I refer my hon. Friend to the box on page 61 of the White Paper, which explains in detail the security requirements and how the obstacles that I accept some small and medium enterprises think they have experienced can, in practice, be dealt with.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not think that the House has access to the box in question, but we are immensely grateful to the Minister.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

In view of the important role that SMEs play in some of our bigger programmes, and their need to be confident in the process and to have security of outcome, will the Minister give the House some clarity on the intention for the F-35 programme? In particular, given rumoured reductions in orders from the USA, Australia and Canada, does he expect the price that the MOD pays for each F-35 to rise, and does he have a view on the exact point at which they become unaffordable for the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Hammond]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the scale of support that he has announced. I recently visited the regional fire control centre that is opening in my constituency, which will provide emergency fire control at the Olympics. Will my right hon. Friend offer some insight to the House about who might be in overall command of an emergency or of security, and what procedures he is putting in place to ensure that both the civil and military authorities concerned with the Olympics security will work together?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Secretary of State, who had intended to group Question 5 with Question 11. He did not, so I do so on his behalf. I know he will be grateful.

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I had understood that Question 11 had been unstarred. Perhaps I misunderstood.

[Mr Speaker]

I think the Secretary of State did, and I did too. However, the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) says that he never withdrew it in the first place. A gremlin got into the system.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

11. What contribution the armed forces will make to security at the London 2012 Olympics; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Philip Hammond]

I and my colleagues are asking ourselves, “What’s he talking about?” I’m not quite sure what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. Is he talking about whether the Army is top-heavy? [Interruption.] I am at a loss to know exactly what he is talking about, but we intend to reduce numbers in the senior ranks of the Army in order to address the disproportion there.

[Mr Speaker]

I think that arrangements can be made for a conversation outside the Chamber, possibly over a cup of tea—who knows?—if the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (John Cryer) is lucky.

[Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)]

I welcome the forthcoming review of the awarding of military medals and I thank my right hon. Friend for his recent correspondence regarding the survivors of the 1940 Lancastria disaster and their campaign for a medal, but may I press him for further details on the timing and remit of this important and timely review?

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

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

14. What assessment he has made of the advice from the Armed Forces Pay Review Body; and if he will make a statement.

[Mr Speaker]

Now for an intelligent answer, from whichever Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

Further—wrong one.

[Mr Speaker]

No. 16.

[Mr Robathan]

Yes. We will continue to work closely with the Department of Health on the mental health care of our former service personnel. That includes implementation of all the recommendations in the “Fighting Fit” report produced by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison).

[Mr Speaker]

I am glad the right hon. Gentleman’s sense of humour has not deserted him.

[Stephen Phillips]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Martin Pratt, about whom I wrote to my right hon. Friend in November, was a constituent of mine before his untimely death. He served his country in the SAS and his experiences were sufficiently traumatic that, long after he had left the Army, he suffered from severe post-traumatic stress disorder which ultimately led to alcoholism and the death of a much loved husband, father and grandfather. It seems clear that there is little understanding in the civilian medical community of such cases of later-life PTSD in military personnel, and very little joined-up thinking between agencies responsible for the care of veterans. I hope that my right hon. Friend can assure Martin’s family and the whole House that he will look into this case in detail with his colleagues in the Department of Health so that the lessons that plainly need to be learned are learned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Harvey]

I very much endorse the enthusiastic welcome that my hon. Friend has given the military wives choir, which comprises constituents both from his Plymouth constituency and my North Devon constituency. We wish it well with its “Wherever you are” single released today and hope that it will be the Christmas No. 1. Matters of VAT must be addressed to the Chancellor.

[Mr Speaker]

I am relieved that the Minister of State did not burst into song, but that may happen later in the day—who knows?

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

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

BAE Systems

John Bercow Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Just before I call the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) to move the motion, I stress for the convenience of the House that the six-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions will take effect after the speech by the shadow Minister, which I think will be the fourth speech in the debate.

Armed Forces Bill

John Bercow Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Andrew Robathan)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 5.

[Mr Robathan]

This group of amendments deals with the armed forces covenant report. Amendment 1 reflects the concerns in the other place about what some considered to be an unfortunate juxtaposition that would result from inserting the armed forces covenant report clause in the Armed Forces Act 2006 directly after section 359, which deals with pardons for soldiers executed during the first world war. This Lords amendment, which the Government accept, will have the effect of moving the clause to a different position in new part 16A to the Armed Forces Act 2006, and the new part will be entitled “Armed Forces Covenant Report”. So, for the future, the covenant report will have its own part within the legislation. I commend this change to the House.

Lords amendment 2 deals with inquests. It responds to the views expressed in this House and in the other place about the desirability of including the operation of inquests in the list of topics to be covered in the armed forces covenant report. It addresses an issue that is close to the heart of many right hon. and hon. Members. Our intention has always been that, when the Defence Secretary prepares the annual report, he should have regard to the whole range of subjects within the scope of the armed forces covenant, including the operation of the inquest system for bereaved service families.

We have listened very carefully to the concerns expressed in both Houses and we have decided to accept the amendment. In so doing, I wish to put on record our understanding of what the amendment envisages. The effects of service that the Defence Secretary could cover as a result of this amendment could encompass a wide range of inquests for both veterans and serving personnel. In accordance with his understanding of what the amendment envisages, the Defence Secretary will exercise the same discretion on this topic as on the other mandated topics—namely, he will consider which groups of service people and which aspects of the operation of inquests it is appropriate to cover in his report.

Quarterly ministerial statements on military inquests are already provided to Parliament; indeed, they have been since 2006. They are accompanied by detailed tables outlining progress in conducting an inquest for each fatality resulting from operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Notwithstanding the wide range of potential issues, our expectation is that in current circumstances the annual report will focus on similar matters to those covered in the quarterly statements. Our understanding of what the amendment envisages is that it is intended to be broad, but that there are matters that should not be covered in the annual report.

Members are well aware that inquests and coroners are independent of Government. In so far as the Government provide a legislative framework for inquests, this is a matter for the Ministry of Justice, so I wish to make it clear that the Defence Secretary will not report on matters concerning the general operation of the inquest system, but only on those that affect service people.

It is clearly essential that investigations into the deaths of service personnel are treated equally in the annual report, regardless of where they are held in the UK. So, where appropriate, the Defence Secretary will under his general powers under this clause report on matters relating to the operation in Scotland of fatal accident inquiries into the deaths of service people. Inquests are a crucial part of how we support those who died in the service of their country. This amendment emphasises the debt we owe to the members of our armed forces who have given their lives and to their families. I urge the House to agree to it.

I deal now with the three Government amendments 3 to 5. These relate to the involvement of other Government Departments and the devolved Administrations in the preparation of the annual report. The fact that there are three separate amendments simply reflects the advice that the proposed new section of the Act was becoming too long and should be split up. It has no other significance.

During the Bill’s passage much attention has been paid to the relationship between the Secretary of State for Defence, who will be responsible for laying the annual report before Parliament, and the Ministers and Departments responsible for delivering many of the services discussed in that report. The annual report will of course be on behalf of the United Kingdom Government as a whole. However, the Government have responded to concerns expressed in both Houses, and the amendments introduce a framework enabling Parliament to be absolutely clear about who is contributing what to the report.

The Defence Secretary will in future be under an obligation to obtain the views of the relevant Departments on the matters covered in the report, and to seek those of the relevant devolved Administrations. That difference in emphasis reflects the different constitutional position. We are working with the devolved Administrations on the covenant, not imposing new duties on them. The Defence Secretary will be required to set out those views in full, or to obtain the Department’s agreement to any summary of their views. If the devolved Administrations have not contributed to part of the report, the report will make that clear.

I also draw the House’s attention to a number of undertakings given in another place on 4 October by my noble Friend Lord Astor of Hever on how the annual report will be prepared. In particular, the Government have made a commitment to consult the covenant reference group at an early stage on the issues that will be addressed in the report. The amendments, together with those commitments, underline our determination that the preparation of the annual report should be an inclusive and transparent process, so that Parliament can rely on its highlighting the key issue of the day. I commend them to the House.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 5 agreed to.

After Clause 23

Commonwealth Medals

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

When I was awarded the Order of Merit, officer class, by the President of the Republic of Poland, I received, without any solicitation, a letter from Buckingham palace signed by Her Majesty’s representative saying that I could wear the Order of Merit, officer class, of the Republic of Poland anywhere in the United Kingdom. Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems a little unfair that former members of the Royal Green Jackets regiment in my constituency cannot wear the medals that they earned in conflict whereas I, without asking, have been given permission to wear the OM, officer class, of the Republic of Poland?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The distinguished career history of the hon. Gentleman will be of continuing interest and indeed fascination, but I know that in responding, the hon. Lady will wish to remain in order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gilbert]

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. The Liberal Democrats support the national defence medal and a thorough review that will deliver consistency for the awarding of all medals for members of our armed forces. It is absolutely right that for people joining our armed forces it is as much a calling for them as it is a job. It is right that we give them the recognition they deserve for their bravery in standing up for our freedoms. It is absolute hypocrisy for a former Minister sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, who was chuntering under his breath and saying that the reason they changed their view—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman that no allegation of hypocrisy against an individual hon. or right hon. Member should be made. I feel sure that he is not imputing such motives, but if he is perhaps he would withdraw his remark.

[Stephen Gilbert]

If that is what the record shows, Mr. Speaker, I of course withdraw the remark.

There is a level of disingenuity, shall we say, in a party that had 13 years to act on this issue but failed to do so now seeking to make political capital from it. It is important that we get this right for all the men and women who serve in our armed forces and that we do so in a considered way. That is why we disagree with the Lords tonight.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not know whether the Minister is seeking to respond to the debate. No? He is not obliged to, as the Government have set out their position.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 6.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Bercow Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Peter Luff]

I think it is stretching a point a bit to define AgustaWestland as an SME, but nevertheless I am happy to confirm that I happen to have in front of me the previous Government’s defence industrial strategy, which says of AgustaWestland that it is important to understand that AgustaWestland’s role is

“neither predefined nor guaranteed, but dependent on their performance and the value for money of their propositions.”

Our position is very similar and I am happy to be able to confirm to my hon. Friend that the contract we have for the construction of the new Chinook helicopters will lead to some £350 million-worth of work flowing to the British supply chain, which—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are extremely grateful to the Minister, but we need to move on.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

Last week, in a written answer, the Minister confirmed that the MOD’s estimate for the number of contracts issued in the last financial year was 2,370 in England but only 50 in Scotland. Does he believe that that is fair and equitable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The question I was about to ask was properly asked by the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), so I shall sit down.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is setting an example that others could usefully follow.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

Effective medical support is essential to any operation, so will the Minister join me in wishing 22 Field Hospital a successful forthcoming tour of Afghanistan, particularly as some 30 servicemen and women from 22 Field Hospital are in the Public Gallery watching these proceedings?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Luff]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position and, as it is her first outing, I will be relatively kind in my response to her. [Interruption.] I have to say that I have read with considerable interest her party’s defence review procurement document, which advocates a similar policy in relation to off-the-shelf and modified off-the-shelf, so she should read what her own party is suggesting before criticising us. As for her comment that demand for Typhoon is falling, it is true that the four partner nations are stretching out production, but demand is rising fast around the globe, and I am confident that Ministers have a strong commitment to their export diaries, which will lead—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We need to move on; I am grateful to the Minister. [Interruption.] Order. The Minister’s answers are simply too long—we need to make progress.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

I am grateful for the efforts that the Defence Secretary and his team have made to try to export Typhoon and secure jobs for my constituents in Lancashire at Samlesbury and Warton. However, should the British Government be successful in helping to win those orders abroad, what guarantees can we try to secure from BAE that this is good news for work in Lancashire, and not just good news for BAE shareholders?

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Harvey]

It is true that there has been a problem with inventories and accounting for equipment. Audit processes have identified that, on occasions, that has been a matter of misclassification of items. The situation in practice is probably less gloomy than it sometimes looks in reports.

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Michael Connarty—not here.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

13. What steps he is taking to ensure that any increase in the level of defence exports is transparent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Fox]

As I said, we went into Libya not on the basis of recovering the costs, but because we believed there to be an imminent humanitarian disaster. Mindful of such disasters in previous generations, we can be proud that we averted this one. How costs are apportioned and whether other countries can help with those wider costs can be discussed, but only after the conflict has been concluded, which it has not yet been.

[Mr Speaker]

On question 14, I call Mr John Spellar.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

No. 15, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has quite taken my hint, but I am sure that he can ask his question under this one with great dexterity.

[Mr Spellar]

Is there not great concern in Libya about the future of the surface-to-air missiles? When I asked the Minister for the Armed Forces about this back in June, he said:

“We continue to assess the situation in Libya closely, including the potential proliferation of man-portable anti-aircraft missiles.”—[Official Report, 28 June 2011; Vol. 530, c. 672W.]

From his answer earlier, he does not seem to have been doing a great deal. This is a major threat and we need some evidence of urgency and some results.