1-20 of 219 results for subject:"Defence Logistics Organisation"
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 2.118 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.003 seconds
- Search query
- subject:"Defence Logistics Organisation"
- We searched for
- subject_t:"Defence Logistics Organisation" OR subject_t:"Chief of Defence Logistics" OR subject_t:DLO OR subject_ses:28500
Type
-
Early day motions (1)
+
Members' contributions (99)
-
Oral answers to questions (7)
-
Oral questions (7)
-
Proceeding contributions (85)
+
Parliamentary committees (4)
+
Committee proceedings (2)
-
Select Committee oral evidence (2)
-
Select Committee reports (2)
+
Parliamentary papers (11)
-
Consultation papers (2)
-
Deposited papers (6)
-
House of Commons papers (5)
+
Parliamentary proceedings (15)
+
Debates (5)
-
Adjournment debates (2)
+
Committee proceedings (2)
-
Select Committee oral evidence (2)
+
Statements (11)
+
Oral statements (1)
-
Ministerial statements (1)
-
Written statements (10)
+
Parliamentary questions (102)
-
Oral questions (7)
-
Written questions (95)
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
More
Publisher
My Lords, I have nothing to add on the case of the two individuals. The Minister of Defence accepted his responsibility. He also acceptedthe direct recommendations of the report and the wider criticism, and we are acting to implement that report. As I said, we have nothing to add on the case of the individuals.
My Lords, I have nothing to add on the case of the two individuals. The Minister of Defence accepted his responsibility. He also acceptedthe direct recommendations of the report and the wider criticism, and we are acting to implement that report. As I said, we have nothing to add on the case of the individuals.
Answered by
Lord Tunnicliffe
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Ramsbotham
(Crossbench)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that extremely disappointing reply and of course add my condolences in relation to the three people killed in Afghanistan whom he mentioned. The military covenant is the tangible expression of the nation’s loyalty to its Armed Forces in return for their loyalty to the nation. In his report on the tragic loss of Nimrod XV230, Mr Haddon-Cave QC publicly condemned two distinguished senior officers, General Sir Sam Cowan and Air Chief Marshal Sir Malcolm Pledger, for imposing the defence cuts that were held partly to blame. Ministers, not senior officers, impose defence cuts, so can the Minister tell the House when the Government will heal this clear breach of the military covenant and demonstrate their loyalty to these now-retired officers by publicly refuting their unwarranted traduction for implementing ministerial direction?
Subjects
Defence; Accidents; Expenditure; Peacekeeping operations; Afghanistan; Defence Logistics Organisation; Nimrod aircraft; Nimrod Review; Pledger, Malcolm; Cowan, Sam
Date
22 March 2010
Reference
718 c750-1
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, the Government accept the position that my noble friend Lord Robertson set out about responsibility for the cuts. He was clear that it was the intention of the Government of the day that efficiencies should be achieved. However, we will not comment on what my noble friend said about the individuals concerned. He offers a view from the evidence, and that is the only evidence that we have. We do not believe that it makes sense to second-guess the inquiry and we will not do so.
My Lords, the Government accept the position that my noble friend Lord Robertson set out about responsibility for the cuts. He was clear that it was the intention of the Government of the day that efficiencies should be achieved. However, we will not comment on what my noble friend said about the individuals concerned. He offers a view from the evidence, and that is the only evidence that we have. We do not believe that it makes sense to second-guess the inquiry and we will not do so.
Answered by
Lord Tunnicliffe
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Craig of Radley
(Crossbench)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who was Defence Secretary at the time, says that he accepts full responsibility for the efficiency targets that he set for the Defence Logistics Organisation. He went on to say that Haddon-Cave made no attempt to interview Ministers, so, ""it was particularly unfair and unjust to name General Cowan … the first ever Chief of Defence Logistics, and his successor, Air Chief Marshal Pledger".—[Official Report, 16/12/09; col. 1607.]"
Do Her Majesty’s Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and, if not, why not?
Subjects
Defence; Accidents; Expenditure; Peacekeeping operations; Afghanistan; Defence Logistics Organisation; Nimrod aircraft; Nimrod Review; Pledger, Malcolm; Cowan, Sam
Date
22 March 2010
Reference
718 c751-2
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I did indeed say that I could not comment for that reason. It is perfectly true that there is a general connection and that that could become a problem. However, on reflection, I think we have to say that quite honestly it is not appropriate to elaborate on the Haddon-Cave report, and we do not think it useful to second-guess that inquiry. I cannot comment on what will happen with these cases. They are in the hands of the Royal Air Force Police, to which they were directed following consultation with the Director of Service Prosecutions. I can say no more until the cases come to court or are dropped.
My Lords, I did indeed say that I could not comment for that reason. It is perfectly true that there is a general connection and that that could become a problem. However, on reflection, I think we have to say that quite honestly it is not appropriate to elaborate on the Haddon-Cave report, and we do not think it useful to second-guess that inquiry. I cannot comment on what will happen with these cases. They are in the hands of the Royal Air Force Police, to which they were directed following consultation with the Director of Service Prosecutions. I can say no more until the cases come to court or are dropped.
Answered by
Lord Tunnicliffe
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Astor of Hever
(Conservative)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, we on these Benches send our condolences to the families and friends of Captain Driver, Corporal Hardy and Private Grigg of the 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment. During the Nimrod Statement, the noble Lord said that he could not comment on these two officers because of a separate police investigation into two senior serving Royal Air Force officers. What is happening to this police investigation and what is the connection with the officers mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham?
Subjects
Defence; Accidents; Expenditure; Peacekeeping operations; Afghanistan; Defence Logistics Organisation; Nimrod aircraft; Nimrod Review; Pledger, Malcolm; Cowan, Sam
Date
22 March 2010
Reference
718 c751
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, we on these Benches send our condolences to the families and friends of Captain Driver, Corporal Hardy and Private Grigg of the 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment. During the Nimrod Statement, the noble Lord said that he could not comment on these two officers because of a separate police investigation into two senior serving Royal Air Force officers. What is happening to this police investigation and what is the connection with the officers mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham?
My Lords, we on these Benches send our condolences to the families and friends of Captain Driver, Corporal Hardy and Private Grigg of the 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment. During the Nimrod Statement, the noble Lord said that he could not comment on these two officers because of a separate police investigation into two senior serving Royal Air Force officers. What is happening to this police investigation and what is the connection with the officers mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham?
Asked by
Lord Astor of Hever
(Conservative)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
22 March 2010
My Lords, I did indeed say that I could not comment for that reason. It is perfectly true that there is a general connection and that that could become a problem. However, on reflection, I think we have to say that quite honestly it is not appropriate to elaborate on the Haddon-Cave report, and we do not think it useful to second-guess that inquiry. I cannot comment on what will happen with these cases. They are in the hands of the Royal Air Force Police, to which they were directed following consultation with the Director of Service Prosecutions. I can say no more until the cases come to court or are dropped.
Subjects
Defence; Accidents; Expenditure; Peacekeeping operations; Afghanistan; Defence Logistics Organisation; Nimrod aircraft; Nimrod Review; Pledger, Malcolm; Cowan, Sam
Date
22 March 2010
Reference
718 c751
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that extremely disappointing reply and of course add my condolences in relation to the three people killed in Afghanistan whom he mentioned. The military covenant is the tangible expression of the nation’s loyalty to its Armed Forces in return for their loyalty to the nation. In his report on the tragic loss of Nimrod XV230, Mr Haddon-Cave QC publicly condemned two distinguished senior officers, General Sir Sam Cowan and Air Chief Marshal Sir Malcolm Pledger, for imposing the defence cuts that were held partly to blame. Ministers, not senior officers, impose defence cuts, so can the Minister tell the House when the Government will heal this clear breach of the military covenant and demonstrate their loyalty to these now-retired officers by publicly refuting their unwarranted traduction for implementing ministerial direction?
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that extremely disappointing reply and of course add my condolences in relation to the three people killed in Afghanistan whom he mentioned. The military covenant is the tangible expression of the nation’s loyalty to its Armed Forces in return for their loyalty to the nation. In his report on the tragic loss of Nimrod XV230, Mr Haddon-Cave QC publicly condemned two distinguished senior officers, General Sir Sam Cowan and Air Chief Marshal Sir Malcolm Pledger, for imposing the defence cuts that were held partly to blame. Ministers, not senior officers, impose defence cuts, so can the Minister tell the House when the Government will heal this clear breach of the military covenant and demonstrate their loyalty to these now-retired officers by publicly refuting their unwarranted traduction for implementing ministerial direction?
Asked by
Lord Ramsbotham
(Crossbench)
Oral questions - 1st Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
22 March 2010
My Lords, I have nothing to add on the case of the two individuals. The Minister of Defence accepted his responsibility. He also acceptedthe direct recommendations of the report and the wider criticism, and we are acting to implement that report. As I said, we have nothing to add on the case of the individuals.
Subjects
Defence; Accidents; Expenditure; Peacekeeping operations; Afghanistan; Defence Logistics Organisation; Nimrod aircraft; Nimrod Review; Pledger, Malcolm; Cowan, Sam
Date
22 March 2010
Reference
718 c750-1
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
I assume we are talking about the two officers who have retired. It is true that the DLO was required to make these savings. It was expected that efficiencies would be made as a result of restructuring the Defence Logistics Organisation, merging three organisations into one, so it was indeed a government policy for which the Government were responsible. We have commented elsewhere that we have to see whether our systems can be improved to make sure that financial pressures never come into safety decisions. Indeed, we have affirmed that we are putting safety first.
I assume we are talking about the two officers who have retired. It is true that the DLO was required to make these savings. It was expected that efficiencies would be made as a result of restructuring the Defence Logistics Organisation, merging three organisations into one, so it was indeed a government policy for which the Government were responsible. We have commented elsewhere that we have to see whether our systems can be improved to make sure that financial pressures never come into safety decisions. Indeed, we have affirmed that we are putting safety first.
Answered by
Lord Tunnicliffe
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Addington
(Liberal Democrat)
Type
Oral answers to questions
My Lords, first, I associate myself and these Benches with the condolences that have been expressed to the families and friends of the soldiers of the 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment who were killed in action. Will the Minister confirm that these officers were carrying out government policy when they were serving? If not, why were they still allowed to serve?
Subjects
Defence; Accidents; Expenditure; Peacekeeping operations; Afghanistan; Defence Logistics Organisation; Nimrod aircraft; Nimrod Review; Pledger, Malcolm; Cowan, Sam
Date
22 March 2010
Reference
718 c751
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, first, I associate myself and these Benches with the condolences that have been expressed to the families and friends of the soldiers of the 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment who were killed in action. Will the Minister confirm that these officers were carrying out government policy when they were serving? If not, why were they still allowed to serve?
My Lords, first, I associate myself and these Benches with the condolences that have been expressed to the families and friends of the soldiers of the 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment who were killed in action. Will the Minister confirm that these officers were carrying out government policy when they were serving? If not, why were they still allowed to serve?
Asked by
Lord Addington
(Liberal Democrat)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
22 March 2010
I assume we are talking about the two officers who have retired. It is true that the DLO was required to make these savings. It was expected that efficiencies would be made as a result of restructuring the Defence Logistics Organisation, merging three organisations into one, so it was indeed a government policy for which the Government were responsible. We have commented elsewhere that we have to see whether our systems can be improved to make sure that financial pressures never come into safety decisions. Indeed, we have affirmed that we are putting safety first.
Subjects
Defence; Accidents; Expenditure; Peacekeeping operations; Afghanistan; Defence Logistics Organisation; Nimrod aircraft; Nimrod Review; Pledger, Malcolm; Cowan, Sam
Date
22 March 2010
Reference
718 c751
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who was Defence Secretary at the time, says that he accepts full responsibility for the efficiency targets that he set for the Defence Logistics Organisation. He went on to say that Haddon-Cave made no attempt to interview Ministers, so, ""it was particularly unfair and unjust to name General Cowan … the first ever Chief of Defence Logistics, and his successor, Air Chief Marshal Pledger".—[Official Report, 16/12/09; col. 1607.]"
Do Her Majesty’s Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and, if not, why not?
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who was Defence Secretary at the time, says that he accepts full responsibility for the efficiency targets that he set for the Defence Logistics Organisation. He went on to say that Haddon-Cave made no attempt to interview Ministers, so, ""it was particularly unfair and unjust to name General Cowan … the first ever Chief of Defence Logistics, and his successor, Air Chief Marshal Pledger".—[Official Report, 16/12/09; col. 1607.]"
Do Her Majesty’s Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and, if not, why not?
Asked by
Lord Craig of Radley
(Crossbench)
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
22 March 2010
My Lords, the Government accept the position that my noble friend Lord Robertson set out about responsibility for the cuts. He was clear that it was the intention of the Government of the day that efficiencies should be achieved. However, we will not comment on what my noble friend said about the individuals concerned. He offers a view from the evidence, and that is the only evidence that we have. We do not believe that it makes sense to second-guess the inquiry and we will not do so.
Subjects
Defence; Accidents; Expenditure; Peacekeeping operations; Afghanistan; Defence Logistics Organisation; Nimrod aircraft; Nimrod Review; Pledger, Malcolm; Cowan, Sam
Date
22 March 2010
Reference
718 c751-2
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
My Lords, first I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering sincere condolences to the family and friends of Captain Martin Driver, who died in Selly Oak Hospital last week from wounds sustained in Afghanistan, and of Lance Corporal Scott Hardy and Private James Grigg, who were killed in operations in Afghanistan recently. All were from 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment.
Before I answer the Question, I declare a past interest as a non-executive director of the DLO, the DPA and subsequently of Defence Equipment and Support. I assure noble Lords that in those roles I was not personally involved in any decisions relating to the matter before us, and that I have no interest, pecuniary or otherwise, to declare.
I turn now to the Question. The answer is no. The report was published last autumn. The Government are implementing its recommendations, but do not intend to make any further comment on Mr Haddon-Cave’s analysis of the roles of individuals.
My Lords, first I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering sincere condolences to the family and friends of Captain Martin Driver, who died in Selly Oak Hospital last week from wounds sustained in Afghanistan, and of Lance Corporal Scott Hardy and Private James Grigg, who were killed in operations in Afghanistan recently. All were from 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment.
Before I answer the Question, I declare a past interest as a non-executive director of the DLO, the DPA and subsequently of Defence Equipment and Support. I assure noble Lords that in those roles I was not personally involved in any decisions relating to the matter before us, and that I have no interest, pecuniary or otherwise, to declare.
I turn now to the Question. The answer is no. The report was published last autumn. The Government are implementing its recommendations, but do not intend to make any further comment on Mr Haddon-Cave’s analysis of the roles of individuals.
Answered by
Lord Tunnicliffe
(Labour)
Asked by
Lord Ramsbotham
(Crossbench)
Type
Oral answers to questions
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether there has been any change to the position regarding General Sir Sam Cowan and Air Chief Marshal Sir Malcolm Pledger and the allegations made against them in the Haddon-Cave report on the Nimrod XV230 crash.
Subjects
Defence; Accidents; Expenditure; Peacekeeping operations; Afghanistan; Defence Logistics Organisation; Nimrod aircraft; Nimrod Review; Pledger, Malcolm; Cowan, Sam
Date
22 March 2010
Reference
718 c750
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether there has been any change to the position regarding General Sir Sam Cowan and Air Chief Marshal Sir Malcolm Pledger and the allegations made against them in the Haddon-Cave report on the Nimrod XV230 crash.
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether there has been any change to the position regarding General Sir Sam Cowan and Air Chief Marshal Sir Malcolm Pledger and the allegations made against them in the Haddon-Cave report on the Nimrod XV230 crash.
Asked by
Lord Ramsbotham
(Crossbench)
Answered by
Lord Tunnicliffe
(Labour)
Oral questions - Lead
Status
Answered
For answer on
22 March 2010
Answered on
22 March 2010
My Lords, first I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering sincere condolences to the family and friends of Captain Martin Driver, who died in Selly Oak Hospital last week from wounds sustained in Afghanistan, and of Lance Corporal Scott Hardy and Private James Grigg, who were killed in operations in Afghanistan recently. All were from 1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment.
Before I answer the Question, I declare a past interest as a non-executive director of the DLO, the DPA and subsequently of Defence Equipment and Support. I assure noble Lords that in those roles I was not personally involved in any decisions relating to the matter before us, and that I have no interest, pecuniary or otherwise, to declare.
I turn now to the Question. The answer is no. The report was published last autumn. The Government are implementing its recommendations, but do not intend to make any further comment on Mr Haddon-Cave’s analysis of the roles of individuals.
Subjects
Defence; Accidents; Expenditure; Peacekeeping operations; Afghanistan; Defence Logistics Organisation; Nimrod aircraft; Nimrod Review; Pledger, Malcolm; Cowan, Sam
Date
22 March 2010
Reference
718 c750
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much and what proportion of its staffing budget for 2007-08 the Defence Logistics Organisation spent in Scotland; and what the equivalent figures were for (a) 2004-05, (b) 2005-06 and (c) 2006-07.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much and what proportion of its staffing budget for 2007-08 the Defence Logistics Organisation spent in Scotland; and what the equivalent figures were for (a) 2004-05, (b) 2005-06 and (c) 2006-07.
Asked by
Angus Robertson
(Scottish National Party)
Answered by
Lord Beamish
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
3 December 2008
For answer on
8 December 2008
Answered on
12 January 2009
The Defence Logistics Organisation ceased to exist as a discrete budgetary area in April 2007 when its functions were merged with those of the Defence Procurement Agency to form Defence Equipment and Support. Personnel costs, broken down as requested to show the proportion spent in Scotland, are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Subjects
Finance; Defence Logistics Organisation
Date
12 January 2009
Reference
486 c91W; 241118
House
House of Commons
Deposited by
Ministry of Defence
Type
Deposited papers
Author
Ministry of Defence; Defence Equipment & Support
Committed on
16 May 2008
Originated on
30 April 2007
Received on
16 May 2008
Subjects
Armed forces; Executive agencies; Civilians; Defence equipment; Mergers; Location; Staff; Defence Logistics Organisation; Defence Procurement Agency; Defence Equipment & Support
Date
16 May 2008
Reference
DEP2008-1285
House
House of Commons
asked Her Majesty's Government:What is the current position on the progress of the defence logistics transformation programme; and when this process is expected to be complete.
asked Her Majesty's Government:What is the current position on the progress of the defence logistics transformation programme; and when this process is expected to be complete.
Asked by
Lord Astor of Hever
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
21 February 2007
The defence logistics transformation programme continues to deliver significant benefits to the UK's Armed Forces. It is not only driving improvements in the effectiveness of the logistics support provided to the front line commands, but also reducing the costs associated with providing that support.
Against the Defence Logistics Organisation's (DLO’s) strategic goal of reducing output costs by 20 per cent, the programme had delivered audited savings of £755 million by the end of 2005-06. This enabled the DLO to exceed its strategic goal target by £100 million. In 2005-06, the programme also contributed a further £660 million of audited savings against an in-year efficiency target of £538 million.
The principles of logistics transformation instigated by the programme are becoming increasingly embedded throughout the MoD including the front line commands. They will also be at the heart of Defence Equipment and Support, the new integrated procurement and support organisation that forms in April 2007.
Subjects
Armed forces; Cost effectiveness; Defence equipment; Defence Logistics Organisation; Logistics
Date
21 February 2007
Reference
1957; 689 c242WA
House
House of Lords
asked Her Majesty's Government:What impact the merger of the Defence Logistics Organisation and the Defence Procurement Agency and resultant manpower reallocation is having on the Royal Navy’s fleet transformation process.
asked Her Majesty's Government:What impact the merger of the Defence Logistics Organisation and the Defence Procurement Agency and resultant manpower reallocation is having on the Royal Navy’s fleet transformation process.
Asked by
Lord Astor of Hever
(Conservative)
Answered by
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
19 February 2007
Any change in Defence Logistics Organisation and Defence Procurement Agency manpower as a result of their merger into the Defence Equipment and Support Organisation will have no impact on the Royal Navy’s fleet transformation process.
Subjects
Navy; Defence Logistics Organisation; Defence Procurement Agency
Date
19 February 2007
Reference
689 c199WA; 1835
House
House of Lords
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they have undertaken any assessment of the likely impact of the merger of the Defence Procurement Agency and the Defence Logistics Organisation on current procurement programmes; and what measures have been put in place to reduce any identified impacts.
asked Her Majesty's Government:Whether they have undertaken any assessment of the likely impact of the merger of the Defence Procurement Agency and the Defence Logistics Organisation on current procurement programmes; and what measures have been put in place to reduce any identified impacts.
Asked by
Lord Astor of Hever
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
22 January 2007
We keep under continuous review the impact of the merger on ongoing business. Support to operations and delivery of capability to the front line remains our top priority and is monitored closely by senior managers and at board level in the Defence Procurement Agency and the Defence Logistics Organisation.
Subjects
Defence; Procurement; Defence Logistics Organisation; Defence Procurement Agency
Date
22 January 2007
Reference
1127; 688 c198-9WA
House
House of Lords
asked Her Majesty's Government:What progress they have made since 3 July 2006 in identifying the core and non-core functions of the Defence Procurement Agency and the Defence Logistics Organisation in advance of the merger of the two organisations; and whether any targets towards the merger are outstanding to date.
asked Her Majesty's Government:What progress they have made since 3 July 2006 in identifying the core and non-core functions of the Defence Procurement Agency and the Defence Logistics Organisation in advance of the merger of the two organisations; and whether any targets towards the merger are outstanding to date.
Asked by
Lord Astor of Hever
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Answered on
22 January 2007
Plans are progressing to establish a fit-for-purpose integrated procurement and support organisation on 2 April 2007, which initially will take forward all the functions presently carried out by both organisations, and will be named Defence Equipment & Support. As part of the bedding down of the new organisation in 2007, further consideration will be given to the case for transferring non-core functions elsewhere. We are on track to meet the targets for merger set out in the Enabling Acquisition Change report.
Subjects
Defence; Procurement; Defence Logistics Organisation; Defence Procurement Agency
Date
22 January 2007
Reference
1130; 688 c199WA
House
House of Lords
My right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement. On 3 July 2006 (Official Report, cols. 27-8 WS) my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced the decision in principle to approve proposals to co-locate elements of...
My right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Adam Ingram) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement. On 3 July 2006 (Official Report, cols. 27-8 WS) my right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced the decision in principle to approve proposals to co-locate elements of...
Member
Lord Drayson
(Labour)
Department
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written statements
Subjects
Bristol; Defence equipment; Procurement; Location; Repairs and maintenance; Telford; Defence Logistics Organisation; Defence Procurement Agency; RAF Wyton; Andover; Caversfield
Date
10 October 2006
Reference
685 c42-3WS
House
House of Lords
On 3 July 2006, Official Report, columns 27-28WS my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the decision in principle to approve proposals to co-locate elements of the Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO) with the Defence Procurement Agency (DPA) in the Bristol/Bath area. He also announced that he had accepted...
On 3 July 2006, Official Report, columns 27-28WS my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the decision in principle to approve proposals to co-locate elements of the Defence Logistics Organisation (DLO) with the Defence Procurement Agency (DPA) in the Bristol/Bath area. He also announced that he had accepted...
Member
Adam Ingram
(Labour)
Department
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written statements
Subjects
Bristol; Defence equipment; Procurement; Location; Repairs and maintenance; Telford; Defence Logistics Organisation; Defence Procurement Agency; RAF Wyton; Andover; Caversfield
Date
10 October 2006
Reference
450 c13-4WS
House
House of Commons
Deposited by
Ministry of Defence
Type
Deposited papers
Author
Ministry of Defence
Committed on
18 September 2006
Received on
2 October 2006
Subjects
Infrastructure; Navy; Military bases; Reviews; Warships; Defence Logistics Organisation
Lords Library location
HINF 2006/1719
Date
18 September 2006
Reference
DEP 06/1722
House
House of Lords; House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his assessment is of the impact on costs of the merger of the Defence Logistics Organisation and the Defence Procurement Agency.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his assessment is of the impact on costs of the merger of the Defence Logistics Organisation and the Defence Procurement Agency.
Asked by
Lord Harper
(Conservative)
Answered by
Lord Browne of Ladyton
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
17 July 2006
For answer on
19 July 2006
Answered on
4 September 2006
The merger of the Defence Logistics Organisation and the Defence Procurement Agency will be subject to further detailed work over the coming months. However, it is not expected that the merger itself will involve significant additional costs beyond those arising from the proposal to collocate elements of the two organisations.
Subjects
Defence Logistics Organisation; Defence Procurement Agency
Date
4 September 2006
Reference
86991; 449 c1692W
House
House of Commons