|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many employees of (a) his Department and (b) agencies sponsored by his Department work in (i) London, (ii) areas benefiting from EU Objective 1 status, (iii) areas with Objective 2 status and (iv) other areas. 
Dr. Moonie [holding answer 19 November 2001]: Statistics on Ministry of Defence employees are not held in the format requested. Officials are currently compiling this information and I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
22 Jan 2002 : Column 728W
(b) Navy officers and (c) Army officers have sought early retirement in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. 
|Navy including Royal Marines||239||164|
|Navy including Royal Marines||221||(18)238|
|Navy including Royal Marines||245||(18)167|
(18) Exits may exceed applications in any year due to the time taken to process applications
Mr. Ingram: There are no plans to set up a cyber-warfare unit in the Ministry of Defence although structures already exist to co-ordinate the conduct of information operations which encompass existing military capabilities, such as those traditionally used for command and control warfare, as well as computer operations and emerging technologies.
Dr. Moonie: Prior to a company being invited to tender for a contract the Ministry of Defence will have satisfied itself of the company's financial strength. The checks involve obtaining a financial report containing a complete copy of the company's accounts and then carrying out reviews of items such as the balance sheet and operating cost statement.
22 Jan 2002 : Column 729W
Mr. Ingram: The lessons for the Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank (CR2) from Exercise Saif Sareea 2 will be fully evaluated, in the light of ongoing operational experience in a range of environments, before any decisions on changes to the global deployment capability of the CR2 are made.
Mr. Alan Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many visits of UK personnel to the US under the auspices of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement have occurred in each year since 1997. 
|Year||Number of visits|
Mr. Alan Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK personnel work in the United States under the auspices of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement; and in which US facility they are working. 
Dr. Moonie: There are four UK officials serving in the US under the auspices of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement (1958 MDA). All are located in the British Embassy, Washington DC. Their duties are to facilitate the conduct of bilateral business within the provisions of the MDA. In addition there are four staff on secondment from AWE Aldermaston in the US, to assist with the technical development of facilities of mutual interest. Two are stationed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, one is located at Sandia National Laboratory and one at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Mr. Alan Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many exchange of information and visit reports have been generated as a result of exchanges of information under the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement in each of the last five years. 
Dr. Moonie: Six exchanges of information by visit and reports (EIVRs) have been created within the last five years. In 1997 one on the subject of test monitoring was generated, which first met in 1998. In 1998 one was created on matters concerned with the contract to manage
22 Jan 2002 : Column 730W
the Atomic Weapons Establishment, which also met in that year. Four EIVRs covering the subjects of executive channel, miscellaneous visits, non-proliferation and arms control technology, and enhanced surveillance were created in 2001.
Mr. Alan Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK personnel work at the Nevada test site; and how many UK personnel have visited the Nevada test site in each of the last three years. 
|Year||Number of visits|
Dr. Tonge: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the outcomes of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Review Conference in December 2001, with particular reference to the issue of explosive remnants of war. 
Mr. Ingram: The Review Conference of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons agreed a detailed mandate for a Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) to discuss ways and means to address the issue of explosive remnants of war over the coming year. The GGE is also mandated to explore the issue of anti-vehicle mines. The Chairman-designate of the GGE will undertake consultations on possible options to improve compliance with the Convention. Interested states parties are invited to hold expert consultations on small calibre weapons and ammunition. The Review Conference agreed to convene a meeting of states parties to the Convention in December 2002 to follow up on these decisions.
Dr. Moonie: Individual training costs are not collected. Flight Lieutenant Adams' Initial Officer Training is estimated to have cost approximately £16,500 and his flying training of the order of £770,000 excluding his salary and allowances.
22 Jan 2002 : Column 731W
Dr. Moonie: In accordance with exemptions 8a and 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, personal data are not to be disclosed without the consent of the individual to whom the information applies. All personal data relating to Flight Lieutenant Adams' redress of complaint are in his possession and it is for him to determine whether and how they should be placed in the public domain.
Mr. Jack: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the reasons for no conclusion having been reached through process of redress initiated by Flight Lieutenant A. L. Adams. 
Dr. Moonie: Flight Lieutenant Adams voluntarily withdrew from fast-jet flying training in October 1999, and was subsequently restreamed to rotary wing training rather than his preference of multi-engine training. He initiated the process of redress in March 2000. His complaint was rejected by the Commander-in-Chief, Royal Air Force Personnel and Training Command in December 2000. Flight Lieutenant Adams subsequently asked for the matter to be considered by the Air Force Board. Under the procedures followed during the consideration of a redress of complaint, all appropriate documents are disclosed to the complainant, who is invited to comment, before they are submitted to the decision-maker. This inevitably prolongs the process, and Flight Lieutenant Adams has commented, as is his right, on four separate occasions since the relevant synopsis was first disclosed to him in March 2001. It was necessary to postpone a scheduled meeting of the Air Force Board in September in order to take account of his latest comments. The case is now under consideration by the Air Force Board, who have asked for further information on which Flight Lieutenant Adams has been invited to comment before his case can be considered further.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|