1-20 of 971 results for subject:Defence
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.258 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.008 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Defence
- We searched for
- subject_t:Defence OR subject_t:"National defence" OR subject_ses:90842
Type
-
Early day motions (3)
+
Members' contributions (897)
-
Business questions (13)
-
Oral answers to questions (40)
+
Oral questions (58)
-
Prime Minister's questions (14)
-
Topical questions (12)
-
Proceeding contributions (799)
+
Parliamentary committees (12)
+
Committee proceedings (2)
-
Select Committee oral evidence (2)
-
Select Committee reports (7)
-
Select Committee reports (Government responses) (2)
-
Select Committee written evidence (1)
+
Parliamentary papers (14)
-
Command papers (3)
-
Consultation papers (1)
-
House of Commons papers (10)
-
House of Lords papers (1)
+
Parliamentary proceedings (22)
+
Debates (8)
-
Adjournment debates (2)
+
Committee proceedings (2)
-
Select Committee oral evidence (2)
+
Monarch's speech debates (2)
-
Queen's speech debates (2)
-
Opposition days (1)
+
Statements (14)
+
Oral statements (6)
-
Ministerial statements (6)
-
Written statements (8)
+
Parliamentary questions (107)
-
Business questions (13)
+
Oral questions (58)
-
Prime Minister's questions (14)
-
Topical questions (12)
-
Written questions (36)
House
Session
More
2009-10 (971)
Year
Department
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
Defence (971)
More
Publisher
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he plans to increase the level of defence spending on the Falkland Islands.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he plans to increase the level of defence spending on the Falkland Islands.
Asked by
Andrew Rosindell
(Conservative)
Answered by
Bob Ainsworth
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
24 March 2010
For answer on
29 March 2010
Answered on
6 April 2010
We keep the level of defence spending on the Falkland Islands under regular review to ensure that it remains appropriate to fund the tasks required.
Subjects
Defence; Falkland Islands
Date
6 April 2010
Reference
508 c1205W; 324892
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department incurred in (a) equipment expenditure, (b) non-equipment expenditure, (c) service personnel costs and (d) civil personnel costs in Scotland in (i) 2007-08, (ii) 2008-09 and (iii) 2009-10.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department incurred in (a) equipment expenditure, (b) non-equipment expenditure, (c) service personnel costs and (d) civil personnel costs in Scotland in (i) 2007-08, (ii) 2008-09 and (iii) 2009-10.
Asked by
Angus Robertson
(Scottish National Party)
Answered by
Bob Ainsworth
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
24 March 2010
For answer on
29 March 2010
Answered on
6 April 2010
[holding answer 29 March 2010]: Estimated direct Ministry of Defence (MOD) expenditure for Scotland in the categories requested for the years where data are available are presented in the following table:
Since 2008 the MOD has not collected estimates of regional expenditure on equipment, non-equipment, or personnel costs as they do not directly support policy making or operations. The last estimates for 2007-08 were published in UK Defence Statistics in September 2009. As a result, the complex analysis required to produce the underlying regional expenditure data is no longer performed. Information for a comparable time series beyond 2007-08 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
| 2007-08 current prices (£ million) | |
| (a) Equipment expenditure | 510 |
| (b) Non Equipment expenditure | 280 |
| (c) Service personnel costs | 590 |
| (d) Civilian personnel costs | 190 |
| Notes: | |
| 1. Figures are rounded to the nearest £10 million. | |
| 2. Figures relate to expenditure in the whole Scottish Government office region rather than to any individual military or civilian establishments. | |
| 3. Indirect expenditure, such as subcontracted work, is not reflected in the figures. | |
| 4. Personnel costs exclude contributions made by MOD to the Armed Forces Pensions Scheme and War Pensions Scheme. |
Subjects
Defence; Scotland
Date
6 April 2010
Reference
508 c1199-200W; 324959
House
House of Commons
Type
House of Commons papers; Select Committee reports (Government responses);
Parliamentary committees
Committee
Defence Committee
Subjects
Armed forces; Defence; Deployment; Defence equipment; Training; Reviews; Afghanistan; NATO
Commons Library location
CS 873
Date
6 April 2010
Reference
HC 536 2009-10
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the real term change was in the defence budget for (a) 2004-05 and (b) 2006-07 compared with the previous year.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the real term change was in the defence budget for (a) 2004-05 and (b) 2006-07 compared with the previous year.
Asked by
Peter Bone
(Conservative)
Answered by
Bob Ainsworth
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
23 March 2010
For answer on
25 March 2010
Answered on
30 March 2010
In 2004-05 there was a real term increase on the previous year of 0.72 per cent. (2003-04 £29.08 billion up to £29.29 billion).In 2006-07 there was a real term increase on the previous year of 0.87 per cent. (2005-06 £29.97 billion up to £30.23 billion).These figures were calculated using the 'near cash' element of the Defence budget as laid out in the spending review settlements, and converted to 2008-09 prices using the HM Treasury GDP deflator.These figures do not include the net additional cost of military operations, which are not met from the Defence core budget, but funded from the Reserve.
Subjects
Defence; Finance
Date
30 March 2010
Reference
508 c871W; 324627
House
House of Commons
My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Defence (Quentin Davies) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement. The Government have accepted the findings of the Review Board for Government Contracts as detailed in their report of the 2010 General Review of the Profit Formula for Non-Competitive Government...
My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Defence (Quentin Davies) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement. The Government have accepted the findings of the Review Board for Government Contracts as detailed in their report of the 2010 General Review of the Profit Formula for Non-Competitive Government...
Member
Baroness Taylor of Bolton
(Labour)
Department
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written statements
Subjects
Contracts; Defence; Procurement; Profits; Review Board for Government Contracts
Date
30 March 2010
Reference
718 c202WS
House
House of Lords
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer from the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Banbury of 17 March 2010, Official Report, column 869, on what date he was briefed that defence spending had not risen in real terms in each year since 1997;...
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer from the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Banbury of 17 March 2010, Official Report, column 869, on what date he was briefed that defence spending had not risen in real terms in each year since 1997;...
Asked by
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom
(Conservative)
Answered by
Bob Ainsworth
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
25 March 2010
For answer on
30 March 2010
Answered on
30 March 2010
The briefings that I have received on this issue as Secretary of State have stated that there has been a sustained increase in the Defence budget since 1997, and that every spending review since that date has provided for a real terms rise in core defence spending over the period it covered.
Subjects
Defence; Finance
Date
30 March 2010
Reference
508 c871W; 325077
House
House of Commons
The Government have accepted the findings of the review board for Government contracts as detailed in their report of the 2010 general review of the profit formula for non-competitive Government contracts. The board's recommendations will be implemented in accordance with arrangements subsequently agreed with the industry side and recorded in...
The Government have accepted the findings of the review board for Government contracts as detailed in their report of the 2010 general review of the profit formula for non-competitive Government contracts. The board's recommendations will be implemented in accordance with arrangements subsequently agreed with the industry side and recorded in...
Member
Lord Davies of Stamford
(Labour)
Department
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written statements
Subjects
Contracts; Defence; Procurement; Profits; Review Board for Government Contracts
Date
30 March 2010
Reference
508 c97-8WS
House
House of Commons
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which financial years defence spending decreased in real terms in comparison with the previous year between 1997 and 2009.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in which financial years defence spending decreased in real terms in comparison with the previous year between 1997 and 2009.
Asked by
Lord Robathan
(Conservative)
Answered by
Bob Ainsworth
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Written questions
Status
Answered
Tabled on
23 March 2010
For answer on
29 March 2010
Answered on
29 March 2010
Every spending review since 1997 has awarded Defence a real terms rise over the period it covered and defence spending in cash terms has risen every year since 1997.Defence spending declined in real terms in 1997-98, 1999-2000, 2004-05 and 2006-07. However, in cash terms defence spending has risen every year since 1997.These figures include the costs of operations, which vary significantly from year to year, and are funded from the Reserve. The Treasury has met every request for Urgent Operational Requirements for our operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Subjects
Defence; Finance
Date
29 March 2010
Reference
508 c636W; 324463
House
House of Commons
No, I do not, and I refer to the substance of the answer by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the Chilcot inquiry—no one has been able to say otherwise. Every request that was made in regard to urgent operational requirements was met, and in every spending round while my right hon. Friend was Chancellor of the Exchequer, there was a real-terms increase in the defence budget. When those things are taken together, they add up to almost £1 billion a year.
No, I do not, and I refer to the substance of the answer by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the Chilcot inquiry—no one has been able to say otherwise. Every request that was made in regard to urgent operational requirements was met, and in every spending round while my right hon. Friend was Chancellor of the Exchequer, there was a real-terms increase in the defence budget. When those things are taken together, they add up to almost £1 billion a year.
Answered by
Bob Ainsworth
(Labour)
Asked by
Tony Baldry
(Conservative)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Oral answers to questions
The Secretary of State might be aware that Lord Guthrie has recently observed that, because of the Prime Minister's attitude when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, the military wanted to do many things but was unable properly to fund the 1998 strategic defence review, which the Cabinet had approved. Does the Secretary of State think that Lord Guthrie's comments are fair criticism?
Subjects
Defence; Finance
Date
29 March 2010
Reference
508 c503
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
With Iran undertaking a major submarine-building programme, which military experts say could cause havoc in the Gulf, and Russia continuing its incursions into United Kingdom waters, why have the Government decided this week to scrap the Nimrod long-range maritime patrol aircraft? Who will provide the long-range search and rescue capability so lost from this week and who will protect our ships—at home and in the Gulf—now rendered vulnerable by Labour's cavalier approach to the defence of these islands?
With Iran undertaking a major submarine-building programme, which military experts say could cause havoc in the Gulf, and Russia continuing its incursions into United Kingdom waters, why have the Government decided this week to scrap the Nimrod long-range maritime patrol aircraft? Who will provide the long-range search and rescue capability so lost from this week and who will protect our ships—at home and in the Gulf—now rendered vulnerable by Labour's cavalier approach to the defence of these islands?
Asked by
Gerald Howarth
(Conservative)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
29 March 2010
On long-range search and rescue, the introduction of the MRA4 means that there will be substantially more capable aircraft than the MR2 in the RAF's fleet. In the period of transition until the MRA4 enters service we intend to use other assets, as available, in a long-range search and rescue role. The reason why we take the decisions that we do is because we are responsible for these budgets and for prioritising Afghanistan as our main effort. As we have repeatedly made clear, the Conservative party is not committed to spending one penny more on defence than this Government are—in fact, the reverse is true because the Conservatives are not even prepared to commit to next year's spending. Until they do so, their words are simply hollow.
Subjects
Defence; Iran
Date
29 March 2010
Reference
508 c498
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
We have not had to repay moneys granted to us for urgent operational requirements. [Interruption.] We have not had to do that in any year. The full costs of operations—not just urgent operational requirements—are paid from Treasury reserves which are in addition to our budget.
We have not had to repay moneys granted to us for urgent operational requirements. [Interruption.] We have not had to do that in any year. The full costs of operations—not just urgent operational requirements—are paid from Treasury reserves which are in addition to our budget.
Answered by
Bob Ainsworth
(Labour)
Asked by
Nick Harvey
(Liberal Democrat)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Oral answers to questions
Last week the Chancellor committed more than £4 billion from the Treasury reserve for operations in Afghanistan. Given the increasing number of urgent operational requirements driving equipment spending to its highest level yet, what discussions has the Ministry had with the Treasury about eventual recovery of UOR funding, and what effect will that have on the longer-term defence budget?
Subjects
Defence; Finance
Date
29 March 2010
Reference
508 c495
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
In the light of the agreement between Russia and the United States last weekend as part of the strategic arms reduction treaty, would this not be an appropriate time at which to reconsider the strategy of replacing the Trident nuclear missile system, which would both contribute to nuclear disarmament and save us all a great deal of money?
In the light of the agreement between Russia and the United States last weekend as part of the strategic arms reduction treaty, would this not be an appropriate time at which to reconsider the strategy of replacing the Trident nuclear missile system, which would both contribute to nuclear disarmament and save us all a great deal of money?
Asked by
Jeremy Corbyn
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
29 March 2010
My hon. Friend and I disagree in one fundamental respect. I believe in multilateral nuclear disarmament: I think that we should make every possible effort to bring about the reduction and, hopefully, the eventual elimination of nuclear arsenals throughout the world. I do not, however, believe in unilateral nuclear disarmament, and I do not believe that if we did as my hon. Friend suggests, we would add greatly to efforts to reduce nuclear armaments at this time.
Subjects
Defence; Finance
Date
29 March 2010
Reference
508 c495
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
If our troops had as much armour on their vehicles as the Secretary of State has in his defence of indefensible statistics, they would be very safe indeed. However, even if we include the money from the Treasury reserve, is it not a fact that, as a proportion of gross domestic product, defence expenditure has declined over the lifetime of this Government?
This is the last question that Opposition Front Benchers will be asking of Defence Ministers, so may I point out that, during this sitting, there have been twice as many Conservative Members present as Government Members, with a solitary three Lib Dems? Does not that show how the different parties rate the importance of defence?
If our troops had as much armour on their vehicles as the Secretary of State has in his defence of indefensible statistics, they would be very safe indeed. However, even if we include the money from the Treasury reserve, is it not a fact that, as a proportion of gross domestic product, defence expenditure has declined over the lifetime of this Government?
This is the last question that Opposition Front Benchers will be asking of Defence Ministers, so may I point out that, during this sitting, there have been twice as many Conservative Members present as Government Members, with a solitary three Lib Dems? Does not that show how the different parties rate the importance of defence?
Asked by
Julian Lewis
(Conservative)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
29 March 2010
I say to the hon. Gentleman quite genuinely that I am not dead certain about whether, after taking the urgent operational requirements into account, the fact that he cites is correct. The only thing that I would say to him is that, because of a Labour Government, the time that he mentions has been a period of unprecedented growth in GDP. [Interruption.]
Subjects
Defence; Finance
Date
29 March 2010
Reference
508 c503
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
There is a strong case for the missile shield, which is why the Government have supported the technology; the threat that the Secretary-General outlined, and to which my right hon. Friend refers, is one of the reasons for that.
There is a strong case for the missile shield, which is why the Government have supported the technology; the threat that the Secretary-General outlined, and to which my right hon. Friend refers, is one of the reasons for that.
Answered by
Bill Rammell
(Labour)
Asked by
Denis MacShane
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Oral answers to questions
Do the Government agree with the statement made at the weekend by the NATO Secretary-General, Mr. Anders Fogh Rasmussen, that Europe now needs to develop a missile shield system to protect against a future Iranian missile—one with or without nuclear warheads?
Subjects
Defence; Iran
Date
29 March 2010
Reference
508 c498
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
My hon. Friend and I disagree in one fundamental respect. I believe in multilateral nuclear disarmament: I think that we should make every possible effort to bring about the reduction and, hopefully, the eventual elimination of nuclear arsenals throughout the world. I do not, however, believe in unilateral nuclear disarmament, and I do not believe that if we did as my hon. Friend suggests, we would add greatly to efforts to reduce nuclear armaments at this time.
My hon. Friend and I disagree in one fundamental respect. I believe in multilateral nuclear disarmament: I think that we should make every possible effort to bring about the reduction and, hopefully, the eventual elimination of nuclear arsenals throughout the world. I do not, however, believe in unilateral nuclear disarmament, and I do not believe that if we did as my hon. Friend suggests, we would add greatly to efforts to reduce nuclear armaments at this time.
Answered by
Bob Ainsworth
(Labour)
Asked by
Jeremy Corbyn
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Oral answers to questions
In the light of the agreement between Russia and the United States last weekend as part of the strategic arms reduction treaty, would this not be an appropriate time at which to reconsider the strategy of replacing the Trident nuclear missile system, which would both contribute to nuclear disarmament and save us all a great deal of money?
Subjects
Defence; Finance
Date
29 March 2010
Reference
508 c495
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a contradiction between the arguments of those who say that not enough money is being spent on defence while also saying that the break clauses in the contract for the aircraft carriers must be examined? [Hon. Members: ““Ah!””] I note that my view is supported by Opposition Members.
May I also ask whether the Secretary of State has received any communications from either of the main Opposition parties stating whether they will support the Government's proposal to proceed with the next stage of the type 26 shipping order, and whether he thinks that the placing of that order was excellent, very excellent, or simply magnificent?
Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a contradiction between the arguments of those who say that not enough money is being spent on defence while also saying that the break clauses in the contract for the aircraft carriers must be examined? [Hon. Members: ““Ah!””] I note that my view is supported by Opposition Members.
May I also ask whether the Secretary of State has received any communications from either of the main Opposition parties stating whether they will support the Government's proposal to proceed with the next stage of the type 26 shipping order, and whether he thinks that the placing of that order was excellent, very excellent, or simply magnificent?
Asked by
Ian Davidson
(Labour; Co-operative Party)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Oral questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
29 March 2010
It is clear that there are dilemmas in the Conservative ranks, and that they run wider than just the carriers and naval capability. Conservative Members say on the one hand that we are behaving in a profligate manner and signing contracts unreasonably, and, on the other, say that we are underfunding defence. They cannot have their cake and eat it; they must come clean about their policies and proposals.
Subjects
Defence; Finance
Date
29 March 2010
Reference
508 c495-6
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
May I welcome the signing of the terms of business agreement with Babcock Marine last week, which confirms Devonport as the lead dockyard for warship maintenance? Given that role, will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that the sooner the carriers start to be assembled the better, not just for Devonport, so that it can receive further streams of warship maintenance work, but for the royal naval capability that it represents?
May I welcome the signing of the terms of business agreement with Babcock Marine last week, which confirms Devonport as the lead dockyard for warship maintenance? Given that role, will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm that the sooner the carriers start to be assembled the better, not just for Devonport, so that it can receive further streams of warship maintenance work, but for the royal naval capability that it represents?
Asked by
Linda Gilroy
(Labour; Co-operative Party)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Topical questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
29 March 2010
I can assure my hon. Friend that under a Labour Government, the carrier programme is going full steam ahead. We are already working in five yards; work will start soon in the sixth and final yard in Birkenhead. We have made something like £1.2 billion-worth of subcontracts. The only thing that would endanger the carrier programme is the Tories, with the Notting Hill set at their head, who do not care at all about defence or anything about it, taking over the government of this country after the election.
Subjects
Defence; Procurement; Defence Storage and Distribution Agency
Date
29 March 2010
Reference
508 c504
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
It is clear that there are dilemmas in the Conservative ranks, and that they run wider than just the carriers and naval capability. Conservative Members say on the one hand that we are behaving in a profligate manner and signing contracts unreasonably, and, on the other, say that we are underfunding defence. They cannot have their cake and eat it; they must come clean about their policies and proposals.
It is clear that there are dilemmas in the Conservative ranks, and that they run wider than just the carriers and naval capability. Conservative Members say on the one hand that we are behaving in a profligate manner and signing contracts unreasonably, and, on the other, say that we are underfunding defence. They cannot have their cake and eat it; they must come clean about their policies and proposals.
Answered by
Bob Ainsworth
(Labour)
Asked by
Ian Davidson
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Oral answers to questions
Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a contradiction between the arguments of those who say that not enough money is being spent on defence while also saying that the break clauses in the contract for the aircraft carriers must be examined? [Hon. Members: ““Ah!””] I note that my view is supported by Opposition Members.
May I also ask whether the Secretary of State has received any communications from either of the main Opposition parties stating whether they will support the Government's proposal to proceed with the next stage of the type 26 shipping order, and whether he thinks that the placing of that order was excellent, very excellent, or simply magnificent?
Subjects
Defence; Finance
Date
29 March 2010
Reference
508 c495-6
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
I cannot go as far as that. The aim of our defence industrial strategy is to ensure that elements of defence supply are secured in this country when we consider that to be important to the maintaining of our sovereign capability, and to ensure that we are able to continue to produce those elements. What I will not do is sacrifice, on a wider basis, capability and value for money when to do so is not appropriate, and is not justified by a clear need for that sovereignty.
I cannot go as far as that. The aim of our defence industrial strategy is to ensure that elements of defence supply are secured in this country when we consider that to be important to the maintaining of our sovereign capability, and to ensure that we are able to continue to produce those elements. What I will not do is sacrifice, on a wider basis, capability and value for money when to do so is not appropriate, and is not justified by a clear need for that sovereignty.
Answered by
Bob Ainsworth
(Labour)
Asked by
Brian Jenkins
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Type
Oral answers to questions
When my right hon. Friend speaks of defence procurement, is he bearing in mind our defence industrial strategy? Can he promise the House that, as far as possible, we will always secure supply in this country in order to maintain our skills base and the sovereignty that we require?
Subjects
Defence; Finance
Date
29 March 2010
Reference
508 c494-5
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons
When I asked the Library about defence spending from 1997 to 2003, I was told that it had gone up by 17 per cent. in real terms—an extra £7 billion. Is not the responsibility for how that money is allocated really with our commanding officers and senior MOD bureaucrats rather than being something to be blamed on the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, whoever he was?
When I asked the Library about defence spending from 1997 to 2003, I was told that it had gone up by 17 per cent. in real terms—an extra £7 billion. Is not the responsibility for how that money is allocated really with our commanding officers and senior MOD bureaucrats rather than being something to be blamed on the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, whoever he was?
Asked by
Denis MacShane
(Labour)
Answering body
Ministry of Defence
Topical questions - Supplementary
Status
Answered
Answered on
29 March 2010
As I have said, and as we have repeated a number of times over the past hour but received no effective response, the defence budget has gone up by almost £1 billion on average per year—a substantial real-terms increase under the Labour Government, in marked contrast to what happened in the last couple of years of the Conservative Government who preceded us.
Subjects
Defence; Finance; Radiation exposure; Veterans
Date
29 March 2010
Reference
508 c508
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
House
House of Commons