1-20 of 1,177 results for dept:"Ministry of Defence"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 1.459 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.016 seconds
- Search query
- dept:"Ministry of Defence"
- We searched for
- department_t:"Ministry of Defence" OR department_t:MOD OR department_ses:45998 OR answeringDept_ses:45998
Type
+
Members' contributions (1,040)
-
Oral answers to questions (20)
-
Oral questions (26)
-
Proceeding contributions (994)
+
Parliamentary proceedings (46)
+
Debates (9)
-
Adjournment debates (5)
+
Monarch's speech debates (1)
-
Queen's speech debates (1)
-
Opposition days (2)
+
Petitions and observations (2)
-
Observations on petitions (2)
+
Statements (34)
+
Oral statements (4)
-
Ministerial statements (4)
-
Written statements (30)
-
Urgent questions (1)
+
Parliamentary questions (118)
-
Oral questions (26)
-
Urgent questions (1)
-
Written questions (91)
+
Petitions and observations (2)
-
Observations on petitions (2)
House
Session
More
2006-07 (1,177)
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Deployment (1,177)
Publisher
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many volunteer reservists in each service were deployed on operations in each year since 1997.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many volunteer reservists in each service were deployed on operations in each year since 1997.
Asked by
Liam Fox
(Conservative)
Answered by
Derek Twigg
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
8 October 2007
For answer on
10 October 2007
Answered on
30 October 2007
The introduction of the Joint Pay Administration (JPA) system, which led to the closure of legacy systems, means that provision of the historical information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Subjects
Deployment; Reserve forces
Date
30 October 2007
Reference
157043; 465 c1358W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what average number of nights members of (a) the Army, (b) the Royal Navy, (c) the Royal Air Force and (d) all service personnel spent away from home in each year since 1997.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what average number of nights members of (a) the Army, (b) the Royal Navy, (c) the Royal Air Force and (d) all service personnel spent away from home in each year since 1997.
Asked by
Lord Vaizey of Didcot
(Conservative)
Answered by
Derek Twigg
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
5 October 2007
For answer on
8 October 2007
Answered on
30 October 2007
Time spent away from 'the family home' is not recorded for members of the armed forces. Time spent away is measured when an individual is away from their normal place of duty and is referred to as Separated Service (SS). Statistics are presented in the form of percentages of personnel breaching harmony rather than average number of nights spent away per person. Recording of SS only began in 2004 for all three Services.ArmyInformation on Army Separated Service is published in the quarterly 'Army Separated Service Report'. To enable reporting against Service Individual Harmony Guidelines (IHG), the Army Separated Service Report publishes periods of separation over a period of 30 months. Harmony guidelines recommend that a soldier should do no more than 415 days SS in any 30-month period. Latest Army statistics state that 10.3 per cent. of the Army is spending more than 415 days away from home base in a 30-month period, down by 3.1 per cent. since 1 January 2007, which equates to around 9,935 Army personnel exceeding harmony guidelines.Royal NavyBefore April 2004, SS was not recorded for individuals. However, for the period from 1997 until April 2004, units were programmed to meet a '60:40' operational pattern—60 per cent. deployed away from Base Port; 40 per cent. working at Base Port. Personnel attached to such a unit could therefore be assumed to have spent 60 per cent. (219 days) of a year away from their Base Port.In 2004 the recording of SS for individuals was introduced. The threshold for individual SS is currently 660 days away in a rolling 3-year period (referred to as 660/3) as a Category A (mandatory) Personnel Functional Standard (PFS). This guarantees individuals a minimum of 435 days at the home base over 3 years' harmony time. Due to the proactive management of individuals there is currently <1 per cent. of Naval Service personnel breaching the harmony guidelines of 660/3. Currently around 59 Naval personnel are breaching harmony.Royal Air ForceThe Royal Air Force operates a slightly different system which allows for greater flexibility within Expeditionary Air Wings. Under Harmony Guidelines an individual can be away for up to 140 days in a 12-month period before breaching harmony. However, the aspiration is not to deploy an individual for more than four months in every 20. The current SS figure (that is to say, those RAF personnel spending more than 140 days away from the home base in a 12-month period) is 6.7 per cent. of trained strength (around 2,918 RAF personnel).
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment
Date
30 October 2007
Reference
155796; 465 c1346-7W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether his Department's Harmony Guidelines have been met across all three services since the publication of the Autumn Performance Report in 2006.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether his Department's Harmony Guidelines have been met across all three services since the publication of the Autumn Performance Report in 2006.
Asked by
Bernard Jenkin
(Conservative)
Answered by
Bob Ainsworth
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
17 October 2007
For answer on
22 October 2007
Answered on
30 October 2007
[holding answer 22 October 2007]: Updated figures are set out in the 2007-08 first quarter performance report, copies of which are available at the MOD website:"www.mod.uk."
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment
Date
30 October 2007
Reference
160027; 465 c1347W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times Royal Air Force flights were scrambled to intercept aircraft approaching the UK in each month for the latest year for which figures are available; and in each case from which countries the approaching aircraft originated.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times Royal Air Force flights were scrambled to intercept aircraft approaching the UK in each month for the latest year for which figures are available; and in each case from which countries the approaching aircraft originated.
Asked by
Philip Hollobone
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Browne of Ladyton
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
5 September 2007
For answer on
12 September 2007
Answered on
29 October 2007
[holding answer 12 September 2007]: For the year from 1 September 2006 to 31 August 2007, the number of scrambles to intercept aircraft approaching the UK by month is given in the following table:
Not all scrambles resulted in an interception as some incidents were resolved before the target aircraft was intercepted. The military aircraft involved were Russian. The civilian airliners were from a range of countries.
| Number | |
| 2006 | |
| September | 1 |
| October | 0 |
| November | 1 |
| December | 0 |
| 2007 | |
| January | 0 |
| February | 1 |
| March | 0 |
| April | 2 |
| May | 0 |
| June | 0 |
| July | 3 |
| August | 1 |
Subjects
Deployment; Military aircraft
Date
29 October 2007
Reference
155132; 465 c975W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the (a) total UK military helicopter fleet and (b) the helicopter fleet deployed in (i) Iraq and (ii) Afghanistan are considered (A) fit for service and (B) fit for purpose, broken down by helicopter type.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the (a) total UK military helicopter fleet and (b) the helicopter fleet deployed in (i) Iraq and (ii) Afghanistan are considered (A) fit for service and (B) fit for purpose, broken down by helicopter type.
Asked by
Nick Harvey
(Liberal Democrat)
Answered by
Lord Browne of Ladyton
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
10 October 2007
For answer on
15 October 2007
Answered on
29 October 2007
The percentage of the total number of military helicopters in the Forward Fleet and considered 'fit for purpose' is detailed in the following table. Fit for purpose is defined as helicopters that are available, reliable, airworthy and capable of carrying out their planned missions on a given date. The term 'fit for service' is not recognised in this context.
These numbers will vary from day-to-day. The figures shown are the average for the month of August 2007.All UK helicopters deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan are considered fit for purpose, but not all will be available for operational flying each day due to routine maintenance requirements. However, operational capability is measured in terms of flying hours rather than the number of airframes available, and sufficient helicopters and helicopter hours are provided to meet essential operational commitments. We continue to review these operational requirements and do adjust as necessary.
| Helicopter type | Fit for purpose (Percentage) |
| Agusta A109 | 75 |
| Apache | 50 |
| Chinook 2/2a | 67 |
| Gazelle AMI | 81 |
| Lynx MK 3 and 8 | 69 |
| Lynx MK 7 and 9 | 57 |
| Merlin MK 1 | 41 |
| Merlin MK 3 | 50 |
| Puma | 64 |
| Sea King MK 3/3A | 64 |
| Sea King MK 4/6C | 52 |
| Sea King MK 5 | 54 |
| Sea King MK 7 | 44 |
Subjects
Deployment; Iraq; Helicopters; Peacekeeping operations
Date
29 October 2007
Reference
158358; 465 c971-2W
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will provide a full answer to question 155132, on Royal Air Force flights, tabled by the hon. Member for Kettering on 5 September for named day answer on 12 September.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will provide a full answer to question 155132, on Royal Air Force flights, tabled by the hon. Member for Kettering on 5 September for named day answer on 12 September.
Asked by
Philip Hollobone
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Browne of Ladyton
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
23 October 2007
For answer on
29 October 2007
Answered on
29 October 2007
I replied to the hon. Member today.
Subjects
Deployment; Air force
Date
29 October 2007
Reference
161121; 465 c941W
House
House of Commons
Have not the Government failed in their attempts since 2004 to produce a defence-specific inflation index? They keep trumpeting the fact that they have given the armed forces 1.5 per cent. more than the general level of inflation, but the Royal United Services Institute calculates that defence equipment projects run at 5 to 10 per cent. above the general level of inflation. Does that not mean that the Government's claim that they are spending more on defence in real terms is simply a load of hogwash?
Have not the Government failed in their attempts since 2004 to produce a defence-specific inflation index? They keep trumpeting the fact that they have given the armed forces 1.5 per cent. more than the general level of inflation, but the Royal United Services Institute calculates that defence equipment projects run at 5 to 10 per cent. above the general level of inflation. Does that not mean that the Government's claim that they are spending more on defence in real terms is simply a load of hogwash?
Asked by
Julian Lewis
(Conservative)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
22 October 2007
It is not a load of hogwash. I have given the figures, and the Opposition spokesmen must accept, however reluctantly, that there have been real- terms increases. The Opposition face a problem, as there is a £6 billion hole in their spending plans. In our policy debate last Tuesday, I invited the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) to say from the Dispatch Box whether he would match or improve our spending plans. Given that he said he was prepared for an election a couple of weeks ago, the Opposition face a challenge—will they spend more than us and, if so, on what will they spend less?
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment; Finance; Peacekeeping operations
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c4-5
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
The Secretary of State must be the only person in the House who does not understand that the armed forces are overstretched and under-resourced for the commitments that they have undertaken. When is he going to face up to the fact? If the military has to cancel 10 per cent. of their training every year, the resources are clearly not available for it to do the job and be trained for the job that it is meant to do?
The Secretary of State must be the only person in the House who does not understand that the armed forces are overstretched and under-resourced for the commitments that they have undertaken. When is he going to face up to the fact? If the military has to cancel 10 per cent. of their training every year, the resources are clearly not available for it to do the job and be trained for the job that it is meant to do?
Asked by
Bernard Jenkin
(Conservative)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
22 October 2007
Statistics show that the number of training events is increasing every year. For the year 2004-05, the total of planned training events was 379; for 2005-06, it was 533; and for 2006-07, it was 699. I accept that some of those events were cancelled, but the percentage of cancellations has decreased. I accept, too—I have said so at the Dispatch Box—that we are asking the military to do a significant amount, which has an effect. I have also explained time and again what we plan to do to reduce that pressure.
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment; Finance; Peacekeeping operations
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c4
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
It is not a load of hogwash. I have given the figures, and the Opposition spokesmen must accept, however reluctantly, that there have been real- terms increases. The Opposition face a problem, as there is a £6 billion hole in their spending plans. In our policy debate last Tuesday, I invited the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) to say from the Dispatch Box whether he would match or improve our spending plans. Given that he said he was prepared for an election a couple of weeks ago, the Opposition face a challenge—will they spend more than us and, if so, on what will they spend less?
It is not a load of hogwash. I have given the figures, and the Opposition spokesmen must accept, however reluctantly, that there have been real- terms increases. The Opposition face a problem, as there is a £6 billion hole in their spending plans. In our policy debate last Tuesday, I invited the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) to say from the Dispatch Box whether he would match or improve our spending plans. Given that he said he was prepared for an election a couple of weeks ago, the Opposition face a challenge—will they spend more than us and, if so, on what will they spend less?
Answered by
Lord Browne of Ladyton
(Labour)
Asked by
Julian Lewis
(Conservative)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Oral answers to questions
Have not the Government failed in their attempts since 2004 to produce a defence-specific inflation index? They keep trumpeting the fact that they have given the armed forces 1.5 per cent. more than the general level of inflation, but the Royal United Services Institute calculates that defence equipment projects run at 5 to 10 per cent. above the general level of inflation. Does that not mean that the Government's claim that they are spending more on defence in real terms is simply a load of hogwash?
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment; Finance; Peacekeeping operations
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c4-5
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
If the money for operations was built into the budget, that is exactly what the armed forces would have to do: they would have to budget within that structure. At present, the armed forces are funded to provide the capability required—operations are funded from the reserve—so that they are not put into that position. May I take the opportunity to scotch the rumour on which the hon. Gentleman drew? Unfortunately, the NATO spokesman, Colonel Appathurai—I hope that I have pronounced his name properly—made an error yesterday. I will not read the detail of the document I have received, but I am happy to place it in the Library. Today, however, he gave a clear explanation in a press conference, in which he admitted that he had inadvertently misled the media yesterday, and that there were no such plans to increase the UK contingent.
If the money for operations was built into the budget, that is exactly what the armed forces would have to do: they would have to budget within that structure. At present, the armed forces are funded to provide the capability required—operations are funded from the reserve—so that they are not put into that position. May I take the opportunity to scotch the rumour on which the hon. Gentleman drew? Unfortunately, the NATO spokesman, Colonel Appathurai—I hope that I have pronounced his name properly—made an error yesterday. I will not read the detail of the document I have received, but I am happy to place it in the Library. Today, however, he gave a clear explanation in a press conference, in which he admitted that he had inadvertently misled the media yesterday, and that there were no such plans to increase the UK contingent.
Answered by
Lord Browne of Ladyton
(Labour)
Asked by
Crispin Blunt
(Conservative)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Oral answers to questions
Given that 7,700 troops are on deployment in Afghanistan—it is rumoured in NATO that Britain will contribute more troops—and given that our ambassador in Afghanistan has spoken of a commitment that might last three decades, it is simply not reasonable to expect the armed forces to have to budget year on year, on the basis of an indefinite commitment. That money should be structured into the defence budget, and the armed forces should not have to come back to the Treasury, year in, year out for a commitment that is going to last decades.
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment; Finance; Peacekeeping operations
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c3-4
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Statistics show that the number of training events is increasing every year. For the year 2004-05, the total of planned training events was 379; for 2005-06, it was 533; and for 2006-07, it was 699. I accept that some of those events were cancelled, but the percentage of cancellations has decreased. I accept, too—I have said so at the Dispatch Box—that we are asking the military to do a significant amount, which has an effect. I have also explained time and again what we plan to do to reduce that pressure.
Statistics show that the number of training events is increasing every year. For the year 2004-05, the total of planned training events was 379; for 2005-06, it was 533; and for 2006-07, it was 699. I accept that some of those events were cancelled, but the percentage of cancellations has decreased. I accept, too—I have said so at the Dispatch Box—that we are asking the military to do a significant amount, which has an effect. I have also explained time and again what we plan to do to reduce that pressure.
Answered by
Lord Browne of Ladyton
(Labour)
Asked by
Bernard Jenkin
(Conservative)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Oral answers to questions
The Secretary of State must be the only person in the House who does not understand that the armed forces are overstretched and under-resourced for the commitments that they have undertaken. When is he going to face up to the fact? If the military has to cancel 10 per cent. of their training every year, the resources are clearly not available for it to do the job and be trained for the job that it is meant to do?
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment; Finance; Peacekeeping operations
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c4
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Given that 7,700 troops are on deployment in Afghanistan—it is rumoured in NATO that Britain will contribute more troops—and given that our ambassador in Afghanistan has spoken of a commitment that might last three decades, it is simply not reasonable to expect the armed forces to have to budget year on year, on the basis of an indefinite commitment. That money should be structured into the defence budget, and the armed forces should not have to come back to the Treasury, year in, year out for a commitment that is going to last decades.
Given that 7,700 troops are on deployment in Afghanistan—it is rumoured in NATO that Britain will contribute more troops—and given that our ambassador in Afghanistan has spoken of a commitment that might last three decades, it is simply not reasonable to expect the armed forces to have to budget year on year, on the basis of an indefinite commitment. That money should be structured into the defence budget, and the armed forces should not have to come back to the Treasury, year in, year out for a commitment that is going to last decades.
Asked by
Crispin Blunt
(Conservative)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
22 October 2007
If the money for operations was built into the budget, that is exactly what the armed forces would have to do: they would have to budget within that structure. At present, the armed forces are funded to provide the capability required—operations are funded from the reserve—so that they are not put into that position. May I take the opportunity to scotch the rumour on which the hon. Gentleman drew? Unfortunately, the NATO spokesman, Colonel Appathurai—I hope that I have pronounced his name properly—made an error yesterday. I will not read the detail of the document I have received, but I am happy to place it in the Library. Today, however, he gave a clear explanation in a press conference, in which he admitted that he had inadvertently misled the media yesterday, and that there were no such plans to increase the UK contingent.
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment; Finance; Peacekeeping operations; Afghanistan
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c3-4
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
The additional costs of operational deployments will be funded from the Treasury reserve for as long as the operational deployments continue.
The additional costs of operational deployments will be funded from the Treasury reserve for as long as the operational deployments continue.
Answered by
Lord Browne of Ladyton
(Labour)
Asked by
Crispin Blunt
(Conservative)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Oral answers to questions
For what period of time operational deployments are expected to require annual expenditure from the reserve.
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment; Finance; Peacekeeping operations
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c3
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
My right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Bob Ainsworth) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement. On 18 July 2002 (Official Report, cols. 460-64), my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Hoon) announced the publication of a new chapter to...
My right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Bob Ainsworth) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement. On 18 July 2002 (Official Report, cols. 460-64), my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Hoon) announced the publication of a new chapter to...
Member
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Department
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written statements
Subjects
Defence; Deployment; Military bases; Military aircraft; Terrorism; Airspace
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
695 c57WS
House
House of Lords
For what period of time operational deployments are expected to require annual expenditure from the reserve.
For what period of time operational deployments are expected to require annual expenditure from the reserve.
Asked by
Crispin Blunt
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Browne of Ladyton
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
Tabled on
16 October 2007
For answer on
22 October 2007
Answered on
22 October 2007
The additional costs of operational deployments will be funded from the Treasury reserve for as long as the operational deployments continue.
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment; Finance; Peacekeeping operations
Date
22 October 2007
Reference
465 c3; 159394
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
On 18 July 2002, Official Report, columns 460-464, my right hon. Friend, the Member for Ashfield (Mr Hoon) the then Secretary of State for Defence, announced the publication of a new chapter to the 1998 Strategic Defence Review (SDR) that was designed to ensure that our defence policies, capabilities and...
On 18 July 2002, Official Report, columns 460-464, my right hon. Friend, the Member for Ashfield (Mr Hoon) the then Secretary of State for Defence, announced the publication of a new chapter to the 1998 Strategic Defence Review (SDR) that was designed to ensure that our defence policies, capabilities and...
Member
Bob Ainsworth
(Labour)
Department
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written statements
Subjects
Defence; Deployment; Military bases; Military aircraft; Terrorism; Airspace
Date
19 October 2007
Reference
464 c59-60WS
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many volunteer reservists in each service are deployed on operations.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many volunteer reservists in each service are deployed on operations.
Asked by
Liam Fox
(Conservative)
Answered by
Bob Ainsworth
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
8 October 2007
For answer on
10 October 2007
Answered on
17 October 2007
As at 31 August 2007 (the latest figures available), the number of volunteer reservists deployed on operations was:
In addition, there were 627 reservists mobilised on pre-deployment training, receiving medical treatment, or on post operational leave.
| Royal Navy Reserve | Royal Marines Reserve | Territorial Army | Royal Auxiliary Air Force | |
| Telic (Iraq) | 26 | 9 | 169 | 66 |
| Herrick (Afghanistan) | 6 | 0 | 397 | 45 |
| Oculus (Balkans) | 1 | 0 | 15 | 0 |
| Sierra Leone and Democratic Republic of Congo | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Global Counter Terrorism | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 |
| Total | 33 | 9 | 587 | 111 |
Subjects
Deployment; Reserve forces
Date
17 October 2007
Reference
464 c1124-5W; 157044
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what units down to company level formed the Spearhead Land Element in 2005.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what units down to company level formed the Spearhead Land Element in 2005.
Asked by
Liam Fox
(Conservative)
Answered by
Bob Ainsworth
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
10 October 2007
For answer on
15 October 2007
Answered on
17 October 2007
The Spearhead Land Element was rostered, during 2005, as follows:
The Spearhead Land Element is a battalion size commitment. It is up to each battalion to manage this commitment between its available companies or sub units.
| Unit | Dates |
| 1st Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles | 1 January to 5 March |
| 1st Battalion The Royal Green Jackets (now 2nd Battalion The Rifles) | 5 March to 7 July |
| 1st Battalion The Green Howards (now 2nd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment) | 7 July to 1 December |
| 2nd Battalion The Light Infantry (now part of The Rifles) | 1 December to 31 December |
Subjects
Armed forces; Deployment
Date
17 October 2007
Reference
158394; 464 c1114W
House
House of Commons
Where is the barracks?
Where is the barracks?
Member
Lord Beamish
(Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Armed forces; Defence; Deployment; Defence equipment; Iraq; Recruitment; Peacekeeping operations; Ministry of Defence; Afghanistan; NATO
Date
16 October 2007
Reference
464 c792
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his intervention, but it does not move us much further forward. I seriously suggest that he listen to the British Armed Forces Federation and the Royal British Legion, and look at their websites. He should listen to them, not to me....
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his intervention, but it does not move us much further forward. I seriously suggest that he listen to the British Armed Forces Federation and the Royal British Legion, and look at their websites. He should listen to them, not to me....
Member
Andrew Murrison
(Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Subjects
Armed forces; Defence; Deployment; Defence equipment; Iraq; Recruitment; Peacekeeping operations; Ministry of Defence; Afghanistan; NATO
Date
16 October 2007
Reference
464 c791-2
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons