Oral answer to question provided on Monday, 21 March 2011 in the House of Lords, by Lord Astor of Hever (Conservative).

HMS ““Endurance””

Answer: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his support regarding HMS ““Protector””. On the defence of the Falkland Islands, as the Secretary of State for Defence has said, the situation now is very far removed from that of the early 1980s. First, we maintain a far more robust and capable force in the Falklands to act as a deterrent and to secure our interests there, and that force is able to be reinforced as the need arises. Secondly, Argentina is no longer ruled by a military junta that is repressive at home and aggressive abroad, but of course we maintain robust contingency plans for times of crisis, and there is no questioning our resolve to defend the Falklands whenever required and from whatever quarter.

This is an answer to the Oral question asked on Monday, 21 March 2011 by Lord West of Spithead (Labour).

Question: My Lords, I have to take issue with the Minister on this. The ““Endurance”” plays a key part and, indeed, 29 years ago today, almost, we had a bunch of scrap metal dealers going on to some of the Antarctic territories. Therefore to think of it as not part of a cohesive package for the region is wrong. I am glad that the ship is being replaced. It is important that it has the right facilities, and it makes sense to look at the options for the future; I have no difficulty with that. I suppose my final statement is that the Minister referred to HMS ““Protector””, which was a net layer, as historic. Since I went on board that ship as a young officer, I find that rather difficult, but I understand the background.

Secondary information