Proceeding contribution from Adam Ingram (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 6 July 2006. It occurred during Adjournment debate on Armed Forces Personnel.
Armed Forces Personnel
I did mention a Liberal in passing; the hon. Gentleman may have missed it. I am not doing any political knockabout at this stage—maybe later on. In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out to highlight the importance of our people in everything we do. Ultimately, unless we have well trained, properly resourced, highly motivated and dedicated personnel, we cannot deliver on the arduous and difficult tasks we set ourselves, whether they be in Iraq, Afghanistan, sub-Saharan Africa or elsewhere. I shall touch further on that in response to some of the points made in the debate. In paying tribute to our front-line personnel, it is right that we recognise at the same time the essential and vital role played by civilians in the many and varied functions they undertake. My hon. Friend the Member for Telford (David Wright) and the hon. Members for Mid-Sussex and for The Wrekin referred to the announcement that we made on Monday, which was a major announcement affecting thousands of those civil servants. I want to comment further on that before dealing with the other issues that were raised in today’s debate. The Defence Logistics Organisation and the Defence Procurement Agency are two major organisations, which employ between them a staff of some 24,500, with a combined budget of £11 billion. Given their importance to the provision and support of our front line, it is right to try to put in place an effective, efficient and properly-focused organisation, which is dedicated to the acquisition and through-life support of the battle-winning equipment on which our armed forces depend. I do not hide from the fact that our announcement is radical and ambitious. I appreciate that it will mean major change and upheaval for so many of our loyal and hard-working staff, who have given sterling service over the years, especially over the recent period. It is not an easy decision to make, knowing that it will result in the closure of facilities, thus adversely affecting many hundreds of our personnel and their families. However, I fundamentally believe that what we are doing is right. At the end of this process, we will have a new organisation, which will employ fewer staff than were employed by the DLO alone in 2004. Alongside that, as the hon. Member for Salisbury pointed out, we will have a new combined Army headquarters based on one site at Andover North. We will have released resources through base and facility closures at Telford, Andover South and subsequently at RAF Brampton, Caversfield and Sherborne between now and 2010-11. The efficiencies achieved from that will be reinvested to meet our front line requirements. With my noble Friend Lord Drayson, the Minister responsible for defence procurement, I spoke on Monday to more than 700 of our personnel in Bristol and Bath. That is why I was not here for the urgent question and response. I know that many questions remain unanswered about the detailed implementation of our new proposals, but what struck me most was the staff’s willingness to accept the need for another period of change. I do not claim that that is true of everyone who is affected but members of that large part of the DLO-DPA structure were markedly up for the change, even though they knew that it was going to be difficult. It is now up to Ministers and the senior management responsible for those changes to ensure that our objectives are achieved and that those members of staff whose jobs will go are properly treated. As ever, all that has been announced will be subject to full and proper consultation with the trade unions and staff interests. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex rightly said that the Conservative manifesto at the previous election proposed doing exactly what we are now doing— co-locating the DLO and the DPA. There was a wee bit of angels dancing on the head of a pin in the argument of the hon. Member for The Wrekin. He tried to say that he understood the justification for the change but that it should not happen now. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that there is probably never a right time for change because one can always find good reasons for putting off making the right decision. I know that, having driven through some significant change in the Ministry of Defence in recent years. I believe that all our changes have proved successful so far. They have been handled with skill by the management and, more important, they have been absorbed by the staff. The hon. Member for The Wrekin also mentioned the announced closure of a part of the Army Base Repair Organisation that affected his constituency. The background to that was that the work flow had disappeared. We could not keep part of an organisation going if the work had gone. That forced those who were considering what they needed in the form of support and armoured vehicles—in this case, the Army through Commander-in-Chief Land Command—to examine the matter. They determined that there was a further requirement and found the resource. Consequently, we reconsidered the matter and a change was made accordingly. Flexibility has to be built into all those processes. It is why we have consultation and why we have to be careful when we move forward with complex changes. However, the sound principle of what we are trying to achieve will bring us great benefits in defence in the years to come.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 448 c1076-8
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Armed forces Deployment Defence equipment Housing Health services Recruitment Peacekeeping operations Staff Training Reserve forces Reorganisation
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-01-26 17:07:45 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335764
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335764
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335764