|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Simon Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence from which overseas countries military personnel were trained in the United Kingdom in (a) 2000 and (b) 2001; and if he will indicate in each case how many personnel were trained. 
1 Mar 2002 : Column 1648W
personnel were trained from 101 countries. A full breakdown of the numbers trained, by country, is as follows:
|Country||1 January to 31 December 2000||1 January to 31 December 2001|
|Antigua and Barbuda||1|||
|Papua New Guinea||1|||
|St. Kitts and Nevis||1|||
|Trinidad and Tobago||2||3|
|United Arab Emirates||83||95|
|United States of America||126||163|
1 Mar 2002 : Column 1649W
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Case of Morris v. the United Kingdom; and what plans he has to bring forward legislation to make changes to service law in response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. 
Mr. Ingram: The European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the case of Morris v. the United Kingdom on 26 February. The court noted that the changes to the court martial system made by the Armed Forces Act 1996 have gone a long way to meeting the concerns expressed in the Findlay case. However, it found that there had been a violation of article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which concerns the right to a fair hearing, as regards some aspects of Mr. Morris's trial by court martial in 1997.
1 Mar 2002 : Column 1650W
The court was concerned about the potential for undue external influence over certain members of the court martial panel; and about the procedures for involving non-judicial authorities in the review of court martial findings and sentences. We are assessing the implications of the court's judgment for the future conduct of courts martial and whether any changes that may be necessary require the legislation to be amended. Army and Royal Air Force courts martial that are imminently scheduled are being postponed, but for the time being trials in the Royal Navy are continuing in view of the nature of the regulations in that service concerning the position of court martial members.
I shall make an announcement as soon as our assessment of the implications of the judgment has been completed. However, we do not consider that the judgment fundamentally affects the court martial system, which we intend to retain as an effective and fair means of administering discipline and justice in our armed forces.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that the Royal Navy does not impose a two tier system of high and low pay banding based on Pay 2000 JE for the Rating Corp; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Ingram: A two tier system of high and low pay ranges was introduced for Royal Navy ratings (and also for soldiers and airmen) with effect from 1 April 2001 as part of Pay 2000, the new pay structure for the armed forces. Job Evaluation underpins the allocation of trades to one of the two pay ranges. Pay 2000 was devised in close collaboration with the single services and was the subject of a high profile and extensive communications programme throughout the armed forces.
Mr. Ingram: On current plans HMS Sheffield will be withdrawn from service towards the end of this decade. In the shorter term she will be reduced to a low readiness state, commensurate with force levels endorsed within the Strategic Defence Review, from November 2002 until September 2004.
Mr. Ingram: HMS Exeter has not breached the Harmony guidelines. She has been deployed for a total of 12 months in the past three years and has spent 48 per cent. of her time in her base port of Portsmouth during the last two years. Harmony guidelines state that ships should spend a minimum of 40 per cent. of their time in their base port over a two-year period, and that total deployed time over a three-year period should not exceed 18 months.