HC Deb 06 February 1996 vol 271 cc120-1
2. Mr. Barry Jones

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to change his policies concerning market testing; and if he will make a statement. [12027]

Mr. Arbuthnot

The Government remain committed to market testing. The "Competing for Quality" initiative seeks efficiencies and best value for money through competition and private sector involvement. Our aim is to deliver defence support at the high level that our armed forces deserve, and at a cost that the taxpayer can afford.

Mr. Jones

Surely the Government will abandon market testing as an instrument of policy, because it involves such a high risk. Will the Minister please receive a deputation from RAF Sealand in my constituency, whose 1,500 staff are now very uneasy about the implications of market testing? Does he agree that RAF Sealand played a magnificent part in the Gulf and Falklands wars? Surely the in-house team bid should be accepted. RAF Sealand is the finest maintenance unit of its kind in the world, and it is a British strategic asset. Surely the Minister agrees with me.

Mr. Arbuthnot

I agree that RAF Sealand has performed a magnificent job over the years, and I will of course accept a deputation from the hon. Gentleman; but I must discourage him from asking us to abandon our approach on market testing, which has proved extremely successful. Over the past three or four years, it has saved us some £250 million annually—money that can be spent on other equipment for the armed forces. It has also brought us private sector expertise and improved quality, response times and delivery times. I am afraid that we will not abandon it.

Mr. Wilkinson

In implementing the "Competing for Quality" exercise, will my hon. Friend ensure that the armed forces retain a surge capability, so that maintenance facilities can be expanded at times of emergency or war? To that end, will he ensure that a fair number of the contractor personnel are members of the new sponsored reserves?

Mr. Arbuthnot

I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend on the first point: we are very conscious of its importance. As for the second point, it is a very interesting idea which I would like to pursue further.

Mr. Murphy

Will the Minister take his mind back to RAF St. Athan? Can he guarantee that market testing will never again result in the fiasco that occurred there when the former Airwork company botched repairs to Tornado aircraft? When will he give the House the full details of that sorry affair—and will he tell us whether the market testing exercise cost British taxpayers £30 million, £120 million or, as some claim, as much as £300 million?

Mr. Arbuthnot

This is bizarre. I should like to know whether the hon. Gentleman would abandon market testing in the unlikely event of his ever gaining power. If so, he would abandon the huge savings that we have achieved through market testing.

As for Airwork, the figures that the hon. Gentleman plucked out of the air—with an irresponsibility of which I had not previously thought him capable—are completely out of the question. We are pursuing a claim against Bricom of which we have made the company aware; I shall not disclose the amount of that claim, because it is commercially confidential. The aircraft are steadily coming back into service as British Aerospace returns them, and they are all well on the way to being properly repaired. The hon. Gentleman's irresponsibility astounds me.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

Where did wealth creation, the United Kingdom's manufacturing base and jobs in the United Kingdom feature in the Minister's response to the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy)?

Mr. Arbuthnot

That is a difficult question to answer, because the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) is clearly not interested in wealth creation. We know that, if a Labour Government came to power, they would want to cut defence spending. They cloak that intention with the suggestion that they want some sort of review, but we know that they are scared to reveal that they want to cut defence spending. That is why they have called for a fundamental spending review.