1-2 of 2 results for subject:Iraq
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.258 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.004 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Iraq
- We searched for
- subject_t:Iraq OR subject_ses:11044
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
More
Fox, Liam (2)
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Procurement (2)
Publisher
Defence. Fourth opposition day debate (part one). Main question negatived on division (208 to 277). Amendment agreed on question.
Defence. Fourth opposition day debate (part one). Main question negatived on division (208 to 277). Amendment agreed on question.
Lead member
Liam Fox
Answering member
Bob Ainsworth
Department
Ministry of Defence
Type
Opposition days
Subjects
Armed forces; Cost effectiveness; Defence; Capital investment; Defence equipment; Housing; Health services; Finance; Expenditure; Iraq; Helicopters; Pay; Procurement; Navy; Mental health services; Military aircraft; Afghanistan; Aircraft carriers; Trident
Date
1 March 2010
Reference
506 c663-720
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
On 8 July, the Secretary of State told the House:"““The MOD does not make provision for the net additional cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan—this is recovered from the Treasury Reserve.””—[Official Report, 8 July 2008; Vol. 478, c. 1458W.]"
However, is it not true that when procurement through urgent operational requirements reaches £900 million, 50 per cent. of the cost is directly carried by the MOD? This year, with troops active in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with fuel costs soaring, the MOD will be forced to cut £400 million from its own budget. What sort of crazy agreement penalises the military when they get new equipment and cuts the core budget in the middle of two wars? That arrangement is not the Treasury reserve carrying the burden of Afghanistan, but a guarantee to bleed the military dry over time.
On 8 July, the Secretary of State told the House:"““The MOD does not make provision for the net additional cost of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan—this is recovered from the Treasury Reserve.””—[Official Report, 8 July 2008; Vol. 478, c. 1458W.]"
However, is it not true that when procurement through urgent operational requirements reaches £900 million, 50 per cent. of the cost is directly carried by the MOD? This year, with troops active in Iraq and Afghanistan, and with fuel costs soaring, the MOD will be forced to cut £400 million from its own budget. What sort of crazy agreement penalises the military when they get new equipment and cuts the core budget in the middle of two wars? That arrangement is not the Treasury reserve carrying the burden of Afghanistan, but a guarantee to bleed the military dry over time.
Asked by
Liam Fox
(Conservative)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Topical questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
21 July 2008
I read in my copy of The Times this morning that the hon. Gentleman was threatening to grill me about the increase in the fuel bill. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, ““Don't believe what you read in the papers.”” I have often given him that advice, including when he has briefed the papers to report what was being reported. The fact is that I did not recognise the detail that had informed the story in The Times. [Interruption.] I say to the hon. Gentleman that the total cost of fuel last year for the MOD was about a quarter of what has been suggested. If he is relying on the information in The Times, he is misinformed. The agreement to which he refers, which is reported and transparent, is designed to get the balance right between long-term investment and urgent operational requirements. I have never been refused any request that I have made to the Treasury for urgent operational requirements, and I do not expect that I ever will be.
Subjects
Armed forces; Defence; Defence equipment; Finance; Iraq; Fuels; Peacekeeping operations; Procurement; Afghanistan
Date
21 July 2008
Reference
479 c526
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons