House of Commons Hansard Debates for 18 Apr 1995

Sport

Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what priority is given to sport in the armed forces; and what resources are committed to its promotion. [17558]

Mr. Soames: All three services strongly encourage their personnel to participate in sport; it is widely recognised that sport encourages physical fitness and contributes to military effectiveness by developing personal qualities such as courage, resilience, stamina, co-ordination, and team spirit. Sport is also enjoyable and it therefore makes a significant contribution to morale and esprit de corps, and is an important retention and recruitment factor. Resources for sport within the armed forces derive from various sources, including both public and non-public funding, and assistance from some of the major sporting associations; it is not, therefore, possible to quantify the resources, in terms of funding or manpower, devoted to the promotion of sport within the service environment.

Adventure Training

Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what priority is given to adventure training in the armed forces; and what resources are committed to its promotion. [17559]

Mr. Soames: The armed forces have long recognised the great value of adventurous training as a medium for developing qualities such as fitness, self reliance, initiative and endurance. All the services are committed to adventurous training as an integral part of personal and unit training. This was recognised by the House of Commons Defence Committee report in October last year on military training, ninth report.

Full details of the resources committed to adventurous training, much of which is conducted at unit level, could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, as quoted in the HCDC report cited £9.5 million was spent on operating costs for adventurous training centres in the financial year 1993 94, the last period for which this information is available, with 375 staff being employed on adventurous training at these centres.

Ships

Mr. Byers: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated present value of HMS Kent, HMS Jupiter and HMS Hermione; and what amounts have been spent on (a) maintenance and (b) refits of each ship in the last 10 years. [18849]

Mr. Soames: While my Department is attempting to sell these vessels any estimate of their value remains commercially confidential. Approximate known costs of major maintenance and refits carried out over the last 10 years are set out. Details of routine and operational maintenance and the costs of refit and maintenance work carried out before the royal dockyards passed into commercial management in April 1987 are no longer available.

Column 128


Vessel             |Major maintenance |Refits                               

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

HMS Kent           |£240,000          |None in the period                   

HMS Jupiter        |£13,000,000       |£8,000,000                           

HMS Hermione       |<1>£4,000,000     |£8,000,000                           

Note:                                                                       

<1> Excludes cost of a maintenance period undertaken in 1985 which is not   

available.

Public Interest Immunity Certificates

Mr. Byers: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many public interest immunity certificates were signed by himself or Ministers in his Department between April 1992 and July 1994; and if he will state for each certificate the date it was signed and the Minister responsible. [19225]

Mr. Freeman: I have nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Member for Oldham, West(Mr. Meacher) on 10 March 1994, Official Report , column 399 , for the period April 1992 to July 1994.

Rules and Regulations

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many rules and regulations he repealed in the first three months of 1995; and how many new rules and regulations were introduced in that period by way of statutory instruments, motions or orders. [19375]

Mr. Freeman: The MOD is not a regulator of business and did not repeal or introduce any rules or regulations with a significant impact on business in the first three months of 1995.

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what requirements there are for officials in his Department to introduce a compliance cost assessment for all rules and regulations coming before him and his Ministers; and how many compliance cost assessments have been issued in his Department in the first three months of this year. [19343]

Mr. Freeman: The permanent secretary has personal responsibility for overseeing the preparation of compliance cost assessments. Officials are required to follow the Department of Trade and Industry's advice contained in its booklet "Checking the Cost to Business A Guide to Compliance Cost Assessment" published in 1992. On 30 March 1995, the MOD published draft proposals for new reserve forces legislation. The document explained the need for a compliance cost assessment, described the costs that will need to be estimated and invited employers willing to help with this work to come forward. No completed CCAs were issued by MOD in the first three months of 1995.

Gifts

Mr. Alton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 3 April, Official Report, column 970, on how many occasions since 1979 any Minister or relative of a Minister has accepted any financial gift, payment or commission associated with proposed or completed sales of arms to overseas Governments. [19476]

Mr. Freeman: I am not aware of any such financial gift, payment or commission contrary to the procedures set down for Ministers and their families.

Column 129

Western European Armaments Group

Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect membership of the Western European Armaments Group will have on the costs of European procurement collaborations. [17541]

Mr. Freeman [holding answer 3 April 1995]: The title of the Western European Armaments Group was adopted following the transfer of the functions of the former Independent European Programme Group to the WEU in

Column 130

December 1992. The group is the main forum for European co-operation in research, development and production of defence equipment and the United Kingdom has been a member since its establishment in 1976. The United Kingdom shares with other European nations constraints on our defence budget. We must constantly seek value for money in all aspects of our work and, in the area of equipment procurement, we have recognised for many years that co-operation with our European neighbours can be a most effective method by which we can achieve this aim.

Home Page