"Options for Change" (Hansard, 13 May 1992)

Mr. O'Neill
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current assessment of the nature of the military threat from(a) Iraq, (b) Libya and (c) Iran; and what assessment of the potential military threats from each of these countries has taken place as a result of the "Options for Change" study.

§ Mr. Archie Hamilton
Iraq, Iran and Libya do not present a direct threat to the United Kingdom but all have the potential to put at risk peace and stability in the Mediterranean and the Gulf. We continue to monitor the risks of conflict in these areas. Following the restructuring of our armed forces, the United Kingdom will continue to have a national capability to deal with contingency operations outside the NATO area.

Mr. O'Neill
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communications there have been between his Department and(a) British Aerospace, (b) GEC, (c) Lucas Aerospace and (d) other defence contractors regarding the industrial and economic consequences of "Options for Change".

§ Mr. Aitken
Ministers and officials in my Department are frequently in communication with a wide range of defence contractors, including all those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, on the implications of changes to the defence programme.

Mr. O'Neill
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make it his policy to publish a statement detailing the anticipated effect of the "Options for Change" process on(a) the procurement budget and (b) the personnel budget.

§ Mr. Archie Hamilton
On current plans the defence budget is set to fall by around 5.5 per cent. in real terms between 1990–91 and 1994–95 (excluding direct Gulf costs and redundancy provision) as the new force structure is introduced. Current forecasts suggest that the move to the new force structure will also lead to a small increase in the proportion of the budget spent on equipment and a slight decrease in the proportion devoted to personnel costs.