HC Deb 13 March 1984 vol 56 cc127-8W
Mr. Pavitt

asked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if International Military Services receives commissions from manufacturers and exporters of arms; and if he will publish in the Official Report the profit which has been credited to his Department in each of the last five years;

(2) when the premises previously occupied by International Military Services at 35 Great Smith street became available for sale with vacant possession; what is his estimate of the cost to his Department for each month whilst vacant; why these offices are now surplus to requirements; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Pattie

International Military Services Limited is a private limited liability company, incorporated under the Companies Acts, and wholly owned by the Ministry of Defence. In contracting for defence exports it adheres to Government policies and to guidelines issued by the Ministry of Defence which have been made available to Parliament.

IMS usually acts in the role of prime contractor in sales to overseas Governments and its profits, as for any commercial company are represented by the difference between the sale value and costs of the goods and services which it provides. Reference to "commission" is therefore inappropriate.

The company's published profit before tax in the years 1979 to 1982 was:

£ million
1979 6.5
1980 8.7
1981 8.7
1982 13.5

The company has continued to trade profitably and its statutory accounts for the year ended 31 December 1983 are presently in course of preparation. Upon completion of the audit requirements under the Companies Acts, these accounts will be deposited with the Companies Registrar and be available for public inspection in the usual way.

IMS Limited's connection with the property at 35 Great Smith street has been set out in answers to previous questions on this subject in the Official Report. [22 March 1982, c. 277, and 20 December 1983, c. 127.]

The company completed its staff relocation, on schedule, by the end of 1983 and is now enjoying the benefit of the consequent reduction in overheads. The landlord has been advised that IMS is prepared to terminate its lease, thus permitting the property to be sold, as an alternative to re-letting. As stated in my earlier response, it would not be appropriate to disclose IMS' financial commitments under the head lease.