RAF Sealand (Hansard, 29 October 1996)

§ 11. Mr. Barry Jones
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce a decision on RAF Sealand, Deeside, in respect of market testing. [358]

§ Mr. Arbuthnot
I expect to make an announcement on the market testing of RAF Sealand shortly.

§ Mr. Jones
I thank the Minister for the visit that he made and for his accessibility and that of his Department. Will he insist that the in-house bid is successful? May I remind him that great British companies such as British Aerospace, Siemens and Lucas back RAF Sealand's in-house bid? He might agree with me that the greatest fliers in the world should be supported by a military unit devoted to excellence and safety, and not by a company which is devoted to shareholders and profit.

§ Mr. Arbuthnot
As ever, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the work that he does for his constituency. I visited RAF Sealand at his invitation and had a most helpful and informative visit. I saw the work force of RAF Sealand and was most impressed by the work that they did. I shall take into account the points that the hon. Gentleman has made on a number of occasions, not least in the recent defence debate, and also the points that he has made when he has come to see me at the Ministry of Defence.

§ Mr. Murphy
Is it not about time that the Government dropped their obsession with market testing and realised that, while there is nothing wrong with being business like, our armed forces are not businesses? Why does he not accept my hon. Friend's pleas on behalf of RAF Sealand, which is going through this business exercise simply for the sake of it when all informed opinion tells us that the 1,600 people who work there operate the best establishment of its kind in this country?

§ Mr. Arbuthnot
The hon. Gentleman is implying that if there were ever a Labour Government, he would drop all commitment to competition. The "Competing for Quality" initiative saves us hundreds of millions of pounds. It gives us value for money. It means that money is available to us to spend on equipment and personnel which otherwise would not be available. It obtains value for money while at the same time preserving flexibility and responsiveness. Those are benefits that it would not be sensible to give up. The impression with which the hon. Gentleman leaves me is that the armed forces could not trust a Labour Government on defence.

§ Sir Archibald Hamilton
Does my hon. Friend think that the reluctance of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to accept the concept of market testing and the suggestion that the interests of shareholders and safety cannot be combined is a sign of old Labour or new Labour?

§ Mr. Arbuthnot
I do not think that it really matters. It is a sign of Labour. The problem is that we cannot trust Labour on defence. We know that under any Labour Government we would find a reduction in competition, a reduction in the defence industry of Britain and a reduction in the value for money available to our armed services. I simply repeat that we cannot trust Labour on defence.