Proceeding contribution from Adam Ingram (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 8 November 2005. It occurred during Ministerial statement on Modernising Logistics Provision.
Modernising Logistics Provision
The hon. Gentleman says that we have failed to match aspiration with reality, but the Liberals have perhaps failed in that regard for the last 100 years or so. The standard redundancy and welfare package will of course apply, and every effort will be made to find alternative employment. Indeed, in some areas, one or two other developments are taking place within the MOD that could create a small number of none the less real opportunities. There may well be opportunities for people to relocate if they are mobile employees, and we will do everything to assist in this regard. I do not minimise the scale of this announcement—that is why we are making an oral statement. It is right that we do so and that we be questioned on it. The hon. Gentleman asks about investment at St. Athan. There was a view that the Red Dragon facility should not have been built—I do not know where the Liberals stood in that regard—and this issue certainly had to be debated. Had we not done so, we would not now be best placed. Nor would DARA at St. Athan have been able to achieve many of the efficiencies that it subsequently achieved, which in turn assisted the rest of defence. As a result of that initiative, the investment in that project that was due to break even in 2008–09 will do so by 2007. I do not know whether we can release the relevant information—I know of no reason why not, but sometimes there are commercial or confidentiality issues—but if we can, we will. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the commitment given to St. Athan’s viability in announcements that were made when the trading funds were set up. That was so, but following what happened with the Warship Support Agency—new ways of delivering support to the fleet were examined—both the RAF and the Army decided to do something similar. This initiative was driven by people who realised that the previous arrangement was inefficient, ineffective and extremely costly. Was there a better way? Yes, there was, so we engaged consultants to look at the entire air support process in an end-to-end study. The new approach of reducing four levels of support to two emerged from that study. The hon. Gentleman may want to retain four levels of support, but I consider that inefficient. If we reduce them from four to two, such support can be provided at the main operating base, or at the other base. What happened was that the St. Athan business moved to Cottesmore and Marham, and the rotary fleet returned to a civilian base at Fleetlands, so the process is not simply one way; it was carefully considered and subjected to a thorough investment appraisal. Of course, that stacks up in terms of the benefits to defence.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 439 c168-9
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Armed forces Cost effectiveness Closures Executive agencies Redundancy Military aircraft Sales Repairs and maintenance Reviews Reorganisation Army Base Repair Organisation Defence Aviation Repair Agency Gosport Logistics RAF St Athan
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-01-02 19:20:00 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_271751
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_271751
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_271751