All 4 Debates between Angus Robertson and Mark Francois

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Angus Robertson and Mark Francois
Monday 4th November 2013

(10 years, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mark Francois Portrait Mr Francois
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

That will, indeed, be one of the issues we look at in some detail in the context of the next SDSR. As my right hon. Friend is the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence, he will be well aware that there were serious problems with the previous programme, because it was way over budget and, unfortunately, technically did not ultimately work. Perhaps I may remind the House who was in government for most of the time that that programme was running; it was not us.

Angus Robertson Portrait Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
- Hansard - -

To reinforce the point made by the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the UK’s armed forces are unique among those in northern Europe in having not a single fixed-wing maritime patrol aircraft. Given the time scale that the Minister has talked about for this review, what is the earliest date by which the UK may have maritime patrol aircraft?

Mark Francois Portrait Mr Francois
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As I have explained to the House, we will be looking at this in the context of the next strategic defence and security review. The hon. Gentleman asks me for early dates, so perhaps he can share with the House the earliest date by which the Scottish nationalists will tell us how they will afford the defence programme that they envisage. We are all dead keen to know.

Armed Forces: Redundancy

Debate between Angus Robertson and Mark Francois
Wednesday 11th September 2013

(10 years, 8 months ago)

Ministerial Corrections
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angus Robertson Portrait Angus Robertson
- Hansard - -

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many redundancy letters in each tranche have been delivered to personnel stationed at (a) RAF Lossiemouth, (b) RAF Leuchars, (c) HMNB Clyde, (d) RM Condor, (e) Headquarters 2nd Division, (f) Headquarters 51 Brigade, (g) Redford Barracks, (h) Dreghorn Barracks, (i) Kinloss Barracks, (j) Fort George Barracks, (k) Glencorse Barracks, (l) Crombie Defence Munitions Centre, (m) Beith Defence Munitions Centre, (n) Glen Douglas Defence Munitions Centre, (o) HMS Gannet, (p) Royal Naval Armament Depot Coulport, (q) MOD Hebrides Ranges, (r) British Underwater Training and Evaluation Centre, (s) Loch Ewe Fuel Depot, (t) Garelochead Defence Fuel Depot, (u) HMS Caledonia, (v) Rosyth Defence Estate and (w) West Freugh Training Ranges.

[Official Report, 1 July 2013, Vol. 565, c. 399-400W.]

Letter of correction from Mark Francois:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) on 1 July 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

Mark Francois Portrait Mr Francois
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The information requested about numbers of redundancy letters is set out in the following table:

Number

Location

Tranche 1

Tranche 2

Tranche 3

RAF Lossiemouth

40

50

0

RAF Leuchars

30

20

HMNB Clyde

20

0

RM Condor

20

0

HQ 2 Div

0

0

0

HQ 51 Bde

10

10

Redford Barracks (Bks)

10

30

Dreghorn Bks

20

30

Kinloss Bks

70

20

70

Fort George Bks

10

30

Glencorse Bks

10

20

Crombie Defence Munitions Centre (DMC)

0

0

0

Beith DMC

0

0

0

Glen Douglas DMC

0

0

0

HMS Gannet

0

0

0

RN Armament Depot Coulport

0

0

0

MOD Hebrides Ranges

0

0

0

British Underwater Training and Evaluation Centre

0

0

0

Loch Ewe Fuel Depot (FD)

0

0

0

Garelochead Defence FD

0

0

0

HMS Caledonia

0

0

Rosyth Defence Estate

0

0

0

West Freugh Training Ranges

0

0

0

— = less than 5.

Note:

When rounding to the nearest 10, numbers ending in “5” have been rounded to the nearest multiple of 20 to prevent systematic bias.



Neither the post nor the location in which individuals are serving are taken into account by armed forces redundancy selection boards. The selection of an individual for redundancy cannot be assumed to imply that the post they occupy on the date of notification is no longer required. In addition, service personnel move between posts and locations regularly, and the location at which they will be serving on their exit date may be different from that at which they were notified. For these reasons, neither the geographical distribution nor the units within which individuals were serving when notified for redundancy are a valid basis for assumptions about the longer term disposition of future military posts.

The correct answer should have been:

Armed Forces Redundancies

Debate between Angus Robertson and Mark Francois
Tuesday 22nd January 2013

(11 years, 4 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.

Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

Angus Robertson Portrait Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
- Hansard - -

Service personnel numbers in Scotland are at a record low of 11,000. Will the Minister confirm whether that will go down yet further? Only last year the Ministry of Defence said that between 6,500 and 7,000 troops would return from Germany, that a new barracks would be built at Kirknewton and that there would be new training areas in the borders. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are going back on all those commitments?

Mark Francois Portrait Mr Francois
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

For the purposes of this process, Scottish personnel will be treated in much the same way as personnel throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe the House thinks that is right; so do I.

Defence Personnel

Debate between Angus Robertson and Mark Francois
Thursday 6th December 2012

(11 years, 5 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Angus Robertson Portrait Angus Robertson
- Hansard - -

Forgive me, but I want to make some progress. I know that other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen wish to speak.

It is helpful, when talking about the level of commitment to the defence footprint in Scotland, to be reminded of the facts. Only four infantry battalions are based in Scotland. The Scottish-recruited infantry is now smaller than the infantry of the Irish Republic. Further to the infantry battalions, we have 39 Engineer Regiment in the newly renamed Kinloss barracks. It is important to note that manning levels there are 41% lower than the previous RAF establishment total and that no regular Army units are based in Scotland in the following and important categories: artillery, armour, signals, logistics, air corps, intelligence and special forces. There are no military training establishments in Scotland, which means no military academy, no engineering schools, no Army training regiments, no infantry training centres and no senior strategic military command.

Even at this late stage, as the Government go through what they planned to announce in the basing review, which is exceptionally important to service personnel, I appeal to them not to go back on their commitments. Only a year ago, promises were made, and they should be kept. On a related note, the covenant has mentioned. I agree that everything should be done to deliver on it. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston pointed out, however, a large number of policy areas relating to the covenant are devolved. I observe that the Minister with responsibility for liaising with devolved Administrations has yet to speak to the Scottish Government since taking office. Having been asked for a meeting by the Scottish Government, he has yet to reply and make it happen.

Mark Francois Portrait Mr Francois
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Angus Robertson Portrait Angus Robertson
- Hansard - -

I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why that might be the case.

Mark Francois Portrait Mr Francois
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am responsible for my diary, and I met Keith Brown, MSP, who is the transport and veterans Minister in the Scottish Government, some weeks ago. He is an ex-Royal Marine. It is fair to say that we had a constructive meeting. I have met the person in the Scottish Government responsible for the issue I am responsible for in the UK Government, so to try and imply that the UK Government are not in a dialogue with these people is incorrect.

Angus Robertson Portrait Angus Robertson
- Hansard - -

“These people” being the Minister and the Scottish Government. I am pleased that the Minister has met Keith Brown; I am just pointing out that the UK MOD Minister responsible for relations with the devolved Administrations has not followed his lead. Perhaps he might encourage him to do so.

I hope that the Government do not go back on their commitments at this late stage. I do not believe that any sovereign Scottish Government of any mainstream hue would manage defence in the way the UK Government have done, with disproportionate cuts to manpower, spending and basing. It is time to make better defence decisions in Scotland. The Scottish National party has committed to uniform personnel levels of 15,000 in Scotland—4,000 more than the 11,000 the UK currently has based there—but we will only be able to do that after a yes vote in the 2014 independence referendum. I look forward to that greatly.