|Previous Section||Home Page|
Grade |Number ----------------------------------------------------------------- Atomic control office (London)-(6 staff) Senior Executive Officer |1 Executive Officer |1 Administrative Officer |2 Administrative Assistant |1 Atomic co-ordinating office (Washington)-(5 staff) Unified Grade 6 |1 Unified Grade 7 |1 Executive Office |1 Administrative Officer |1 Personal Secretary |1
It should be noted that all staff employed in the atomic control office, London have additional duties as members of the assistant chief scientific adviser, nuclear's organisation.
Column 824co-ordinating offices in London and Washington; and out of which budget they are taken.
Mr. Freeman: Running costs of the atomic co-ordinating office, Washington, are £300,000, under the budget of the vice-chief of the defence staff. Running costs of the atomic control office, London, fall within the assistant chief scientific adviser, nuclear's intermediate higher level budget, and are not separately identified.
Mr. Freeman: The staff of ACO(L) and the administrative staff of ACO(W) are responsible for the transmission of information, documents and material, arrangements of visits and submission of clearances as required by the 1958 United States/United Kingdom mutual defence agreement. Professional staff of ACO(W) represent UK interests in technical and procurement matters pertaining to the UK defence nuclear programme by liaison with the United States Department of Defence, Department of Energy, and their contractors.
Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which (a) foreign Governments and (b) British companies were the source of the DESO administrative receipts shown in the supply estimates for 1993 94 under the headings vote 1, section ABC, vote 2 subhead A2 and vote 2 subhead H4 and H2(1).
Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the administrative expenses of the DESO shown in the supply estimates for 1986 87 and 1987 88 are a net figure; and what was the expenditure on an expenses and receipts basis.
Mr. Freeman: The receipts for administrative expenses shown in table 2 of the supply estimates 1994 95 are generated by fees paid by overseas customers to cover project management work undertaken on their behalf.
Column 825inclusive of redundancy, early retirement and relocation costs.
Mr. Freeman: Some 1,400 posts relocated to Glasgow as part of the dispersal programme by 1987, of which over 1,000 were filled by local recruitment. Records of the numbers and grades of staff relocated are not kept centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Mr. Freeman: Plans to collocate support staff throughout the United Kingdom where it is most sensible and cost-effective to do so are an integral part of the defence costs study. Among other things, present plans include moves of posts into as well as out of Glasgow. Although final costs are not yet known, they are expected to be outweighed significantly by the savings in running costs which will accrue.
Mr. Freeman: The numbers and grades of posts at present in Glasgow headquarters is set out below. The exact staffing of the Army personnel centre requires further work before it is finalised and it would not be possible at this time to say how the expected substantial increase in staff will affect these figures.
Number of non-industrial posts in Glasgow as at 31 December 1994 Grade |Numbers --------------------------------------- 5 |2 Naval Regional Officer |1 6 |4 7 |15 SEO |55 HEO |127 EO |200 Retired Officer 2 |10 AO |403 AA |171 Typing Manager |4 PS |7 Typist |47 Librarian |1 Assistant Librarian |1 Support Manager 2 |1 Support Manager 3 |7 Support Grade Band 1 |27 Support Grade Band 2 |65 CO3 |1 CO4 |4 Technical Grade 1 |1 Total |1,154 Note: Administration Grade numbers include Technical equivalents.
Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many employees of his Department are located in Scotland; and what that figure will be when the full effect of the defence costs study is implemented.
Mr. Freeman: As at 1 January 1995, more than 10,900 of my Department's 117,450 UK-based civilian staff were located in Scotland. Although these figures can be expected to reduce as a result of the defence costs study, the implementation of the study is not complete and its full effects cannot be judged at this stage.
Mr. Soames: No. The system of discipline in the armed forces, including courts martial, is provided for in the Service Discipline Acts approved by Parliament. The quinquennial Armed Forces Bills are an opportunity to review the Service Discipline Acts. The next such Bill is due to be introduced in the 1995 96 Session.
Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 31 January, Official Report , column 562 , what was the chemical composition of the chemical warfare agents which were stored at RAF Llandwrog.
Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the progress that has been made on the inquiry into the fatal accident involving a helicopter which crashed into Llanberis lake in August 1993; what changes in safety regulations have been made following the inquiry; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Soames: The board of inquiry process into the accident is continuing. RAF boards of inquiry are necessarily comprehensive and exhaustive to ensure all circumstances are investigated. The board has been protracted by the complex nature of the technical investigation carried out by the air accident investigation branch. In the meantime, a number of precautionary engineering inspections have been introduced. As explained in the letter from the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence of 13 August 1993, an advance copy of the military aircraft accident summary will be sent to the hon. Member as soon as it is available.
Mr. Andrew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the cost to his Department's budget in 1995 96 of implementing in full the recommendations of the Review Body on Armed Forces Pay, assuming no changes in staff numbers.
Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 10 February to the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir. P. Lloyd), Official Report , columns 465 67 , if he will publish in the Official Report , the full list of residences where significant failures of budgetary control were found; and if he will make a statement on the two occasions when wrong information was provided to Parliament.
Mr. Soames: The relevant information on residences where significant failures of budgetary control were found are contained in paragraphs 5 and 11 to16 of the paper on official service residences, which I have placed in the Library of the House.
The two occasions on which the House was provided with incorrect information on this subject were in the answers given by the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, first to the hon. Member on 9 February 1994, Official Report , columns 362 63 , which put the figure at some £250,000 and, subsequently to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) on 29 March, Official Report , column 732 , which gave a figure of around £260,000. In his answer to the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer) on 4 July 1994, Official Report , column 85 , the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces provided the revised figure of £387,000 and expressed his regret that an incorrect figure had been given in the preceding answer.
Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) of 10 February, Official Report , columns 465 67 , if he will provide a full breakdown of expenditure at the official residence known as Air house, Rheindahlen in Germany during the financial years 1991 92 and 1992 93.
2 £000s |1991-92|1992-93 -------------------------------------------------- Maintenance |34 |17 Improvement |6 |8 Furnishings and Equipment |33 |3 Security |115 |38 Utilities |17 |18 Total |205 |84
Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list the reasons that led him not to publish the full text of the KPMG Peat Marwick report into service accommodation for senior officers;
(2) pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Fareham, (Sir P. Lloyd), Official Report, columns 465 67, if he will specify the name of those people who were shown an advance copy of the KPMG Peat Marwick report into service accommodation; and what assurances of confidentiality were made to them;
(3) what assessment he has made of the legal implications in relation to the publication in full of the KPMG Peat Marwick report into official accommodation for senior officers; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Soames: The report by KPMG Peat Marwick on the outcome of its investigation into expenditure at Haymes Garth is a confidential report that was prepared for the use of senior management and Ministers, not for publication. That was the clear basis on which, as I explained in my reply of 27 January, Official Report, columns 445 46, those named in it were shown in confidence draft extracts to enable them to comment on the passages that dealt with their involvement. I have no intention either of naming the individuals concerned or of publishing the full report. The question of legal implications does not therefore arise.
Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if Mr. David Hart was shown an advance copy of the KPMG Peat Marwick report into service accommodation for senior officers; and what undertakings he was required to give in respect of the report; (2) on what occasions Mr. David Hart briefed journalists on the KPMG Peat Marwick report into service accommodation for senior personnel.
Mr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Sir Peter Cazelet will be provided with an unedited copy of the KPMG Peat Marwick report into official accommodation for senior personnel.
Mr. Soames: Sir Peter Cazalet has been provided with a copy of the Ministry of Defence paper on the maintenance of official service residences which was issued last week. The terms of his study, which cover the requirement to entertain and how this entertainment is to be carried out, do not require him to have further detailed knowledge of the KPMG Peat Marwick report.
Mr. Soames: Sir Peter Cazalet is generously undertaking his study into representational entertainment in the armed forces without reimbursement. Costs for travel and accommodation during the study for Sir Peter and for MoD officials accompanying him, amount to some £3,000.
Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to hold investigations into expenditure at official residences of senior officers which were not part of the audited sample in the KPMG Peat Marwick report.
Mr. Soames: Twelve residences, accounting for some 40 per cent. of expenditure in the relevant period, have been audited to evaluate systems and control. A comprehensive programme of measures to improve control over expenditure on official service residencies has been set in motion, but there are at present no plans for further audit work.
Mr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date his Department's attention was brought to the allegations concerning expenditure at the official residence known at (a) Haymes Garth and (b) Air house, Rheindallen.
Mr. Soames: The question of expenditure at Haymes Garth was raised in the summer of 1993--after completion of most of the work. The extent of the problem only became clear, however, when the results of an internal audit investigation started to become available in the spring of 1994. KPMG Peat Marwick was then commissioned to undertake a high-level independent external investigation. In parallel, a separate audit of expenditure on other official service residences was set in hand, and Air house was one of a sample of residences chosen for examination. The results of both investigations were reported to Parliament on 10 February 1995.
Mr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Fareham, (Sir P. Lloyd) of 10 February, Official Report columns 465 67, if he will specify the exact date on which he received the KPMG Peat Marwick report into service accommodation for senior officers.
Mr. Soames: My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I first received the report by KPMG Peat Marwick on the results of its investigation into expenditure at Haymes Garth on 16 December 1994.
Mr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the full terms and conditions of the early retirement settlement for Air Chief MarshalSir Andrew Wilson; and what is the total cost of the settlement including pension rights.
Mr. Soames: In accordance with standard regulations, precise details of individual pension benefits are confidential between my Department and the recipient. He will, however, receive the normal benefits of an officer of his rank who seeks voluntary retirement. The scale of retired pay for an Air Chief Marshal currently runs from £41,875 at 30 years' service to a maximum of £46,099 at 34 years' service. The terminal grant is three times the annual rate of retired pay.
Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will urgently make an assessment of the report, "The Military Utility of Landmines: Implications for Arms Control", published by the United States Department of Defence; and if he will publish his findings;
Column 830(2) for what reasons he has not made an assessment of the report published by the United States Department of Defence in June 1994 entitled the "Military Utility of Landmines: Implications for Arms Control".
Mr. Freeman: We have noted that the basic conclusion of this report- -which was carried out by the Institute for Defence Analyses--is that issues of military utility need not preclude further consideration of any form of land mine arms control. That is the United Kingdom's position: we are at the forefront of international efforts to introduce tighter restrictions on the use and export of anti-personnel land mines.
My Department intends to assess the report later in the year as part of its continuing review of our military requirements for land mines. Following completion of this review, I will consider what information might be published.
Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Ministry of Defence police have been deployed at Millbay docks recently during protests against live animal exports; and what cost; and for what purpose.
Mr. Soames: Up to 14 Ministry of Defence policemen have been deployed in the vicinity of Millbay docks during recent protests against live animal exports. Their purpose was to assist Devon and Cornwall police with particular regard to the protection of adjacent Ministry of Defence property. Provision for this was made from existing resources and no additional costs were incurred.
Mr. Hutton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will update the figures referred to in his answer of 5 February 1993, Official Report, columns 371 72, for the number of service personnel who have been discharged for drugs-related offences.
Mr. Soames: In 1992, 229 personnel were dismissed from the services following court martial, summary proceedings or civilian court conviction for importing, supplying or possessing drugs. Figures for 1993 and 1994 are not yet available. Updated figures for Army and Royal Air Force personnel discharged administratively for drug offences are as follows:
1992 93: 333
1993 94: 200
1994 95: 122 (to date)
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of Flag Officer Scotland, Northern England and Northern Ireland's operational headquarters based at the Maritime Headquarters, Pitreavie.
Mr. Freeman: A consultative document was issued on 21 October 1994 setting out proposals to transfer the operational headquarters of Flag Officer Scotland, Northern England and Northern Ireland from Pitreavie to Faslane. Having given careful consideration to all the views expressed on these proposals during the consultation period, I have decided to proceed with the relocation of FOSNNI's operational headquarters to Faslane by April 1996. This measure will save some £22 million over the next 10 years. Of the service and civilian posts affected some 70 service and 52 civilian posts will no longer be required. We will continue to consult with staff and the trade unions about the detailed implementation of the measure and its implications. The
Column 832move of FOSNNI's operational headquarters will entail the closure of the maritime headquarters at Pitreavie which is expected to become surplus to defence requirements. My officials have been in close contact with the Scottish Office and Fife Enterprise concerning the future development of the site, and I am pleased to be able to announce that the opportunity has arisen for MOD to make available to Fife Enterprise a 5.5 acre site to the south of the Pitreavie estate that is needed by the BSkyB company in connection with its inward investment project on an adjacent site. This area can be released in advance of the remainder of the Pitreavie site which will also be sold to Fife Enterprise, at open market rates, when MOD finally withdraws from Pitreavie in 1996.