1-16 of 16 results for subject:Defence
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.248 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.006 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Defence
- We searched for
- subject_t:Defence OR subject_t:"National defence" OR subject_ses:90842
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
Defence (16)
More
Publisher
Lords motion to consider. Agreed to on question.
Lords motion to consider. Agreed to on question.
Lead member
Earl of Minto
Answering member
Lord Tunnicliffe
Department
Ministry of Defence
Type
Debates on delegated legislation
Legislation
Single Source Contract (Amendment) Regulations 2024
Subjects
Contracts; Cost effectiveness; Defence; Procurement; Profits; Prices; Ministry of Defence; Regulation
Date
19 March 2024
Reference
837 cc36-43GC
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
House
House of Lords
Lords motion to take note of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Spring Budget 2023. (Part 1 of 2).
Lords motion to take note of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Spring Budget 2023. (Part 1 of 2).
Lead member
Baroness Penn
Answering member
Lord Tunnicliffe
Department
Treasury
Type
Debates
Subjects
Disability; Childcare; Alcoholic drinks; Defence; Business; Capital investment; Borrowing; Carbon capture and storage; Digital technology; Employment; Disqualification; Energy; Drugs; Excise duties; Innovation; Fuels; Employment schemes; Economic situation; Economic growth; Inflation; NHS; Workplace pensions; Nuclear power; Older people; Public expenditure; Meters; Prices; Medical equipment; Public finance; Public sector debt; Social security benefits; Regulation; Regional planning and development; Tax allowances; Taxation; Research; Swimming pools; Pre-payment; Work capability assessment; Care leavers; Energy price guarantee; Budget March 2023
Date
16 March 2023
Reference
828 cc1448-1471
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Lords motion to take note of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Spring Budget 2023. (Part 2 of 2).
Lords motion to take note of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s Spring Budget 2023. (Part 2 of 2).
Lead member
Baroness Penn
Answering member
Lord Tunnicliffe
Department
Treasury
Type
Debates
Subjects
Disability; Childcare; Alcoholic drinks; Defence; Business; Corporation tax; Capital investment; Borrowing; Carbon capture and storage; Digital technology; Employment; Disqualification; Energy; Drugs; Excise duties; Innovation; Fuels; Employment schemes; Economic situation; Economic growth; Inflation; NHS; Workplace pensions; Nuclear power; Older people; Public expenditure; Meters; Prices; Medical equipment; Public finance; Public sector debt; Social security benefits; Regulation; Regional planning and development; Tax allowances; Taxation; Research; Swimming pools; Pre-payment; Tax thresholds; Work capability assessment; Care leavers; Energy price guarantee; Budget March 2023
Date
16 March 2023
Reference
828 cc1475-1523
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Lords motion to take note of the Autumn Statement 2022. Agreed to on question.
Lords motion to take note of the Autumn Statement 2022. Agreed to on question.
Lead member
Baroness Penn
Answering member
Lord Tunnicliffe
Department
Treasury
Type
Debates
Subjects
Capital gains tax; Defence; Corporation tax; Capital investment; Development aid; Borrowing; Income tax; Energy; Innovation; Inheritance tax; Investment income; Fiscal policy; Economic growth; Inflation; NHS; National insurance contributions; Public expenditure; Business rates; Prices; Public finance; Public sector debt; Social security benefits; State retirement pensions; Schools; Tax allowances; Taxation; VAT; Research; Social services; Uprating; Autumn statement; Tax thresholds; Living wage
Date
29 November 2022
Reference
825 cc1700-1768
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Lords motion to take note of the spending review 2020. Agreed to on question.
Lords motion to take note of the spending review 2020. Agreed to on question.
Lead member
Lord Agnew of Oulton
Answering member
Lord Tunnicliffe
Department
Treasury
Type
Debates
Procedure
Hybrid proceedings
Subjects
Defence; Business; Capital investment; Development aid; Borrowing; Employment; Finance; Further education; Infrastructure; Disease control; Government assistance; Economic situation; NHS; Police; Pay; Local government finance; Prisons; Public sector; Public expenditure; Mental health services; Social services; Coronavirus; Public sector debt; Social security; Schools; Screening; Regional planning and development; Public finance; Brexit; Lifetime skills guarantee
Date
3 December 2020
Reference
808 cc211-252GC
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
House
House of Lords
Lords motion to take note of the seventieth anniversary of the founding of NATO and its continuing role in the United Kingdom's defence and security. Agreed to on question.
Lords motion to take note of the seventieth anniversary of the founding of NATO and its continuing role in the United Kingdom's defence and security. Agreed to on question.
Lead member
Earl Howe
Answering member
Lord Tunnicliffe
Department
Ministry of Defence
Type
Debates
Subjects
Armed forces; Defence; Anniversaries; Deployment; China; Finance; Procurement; USA; NATO; Russia; Turkey; EU defence policy
Date
2 April 2019
Reference
797 cc120-162
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Lords motion to consider. Agreed to on question.
Lords motion to consider. Agreed to on question.
Lead member
Earl Howe
Answering member
Lord Tunnicliffe
Department
Ministry of Defence
Type
Debates on delegated legislation
Legislation
Defence and Security Public Contracts (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Subjects
Contracts; Defence; National security; Procurement
Date
4 February 2019
Reference
795 cc340-8GC
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
House
House of Lords
Lords motion to take note of the forthcoming NATO Summit. Agreed to on question.
Lords motion to take note of the forthcoming NATO Summit. Agreed to on question.
Lead member
Baroness Goldie
Answering member
Lord Tunnicliffe
Department
Ministry of Defence; Select Committee on International Relations
Type
Debates; Debates on select committee reports
Notes
Debated with Lords motion to take note of the third report of the International Relations Committee on The NATO Summit 2018 (HL 143).
Subjects
Armed forces; Defence; Deployment; Defence equipment; Women; Finance; Iraq; Procurement; Modernisation; Training; USA; NATO; Russia; Turkey; EU defence policy; Electronic warfare; Military aid; Brexit; Hybrid warfare
Date
26 June 2018
Reference
792 cc108-158
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
Lords motion to consider. Agreed to on question.
Lords motion to consider. Agreed to on question.
Lead member
Baroness Jolly
Answering member
Lord Tunnicliffe
Department
Ministry of Defence
Type
Debates on delegated legislation
Subjects
Defence; Competition; Contracts for services; Procurement; Reform
Date
9 December 2014
Reference
757 cc463-473GC
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
House
House of Lords
Lords debate on motion to take note of the Strategic Defence and Security Review. Agreed to on question.
Lords debate on motion to take note of the Strategic Defence and Security Review. Agreed to on question.
Lead member
Lord Astor of Hever
Answering member
Lord Tunnicliffe
Department
Ministry of Defence
Type
Debates
Subjects
Armed forces; Decommissioning; Defence; Defence equipment; France; Nuclear weapons; Public expenditure; Peacekeeping operations; Procurement; Military aircraft; Military alliances; Ministry of Defence; Afghanistan; Aircraft carriers; Harrier aircraft; F-35 aircraft; Conflict prevention; A400M aircraft; Trident; Cuts; Nimrod aircraft; Tornado aircraft; Strategic Defence and Security Review; HMS Ark Royal
Date
12 November 2010
Reference
722 c393-508
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
House
House of Lords
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
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 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