| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
DEFENCE
Bosnia
Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of Britain's contribution to the Bosnian implementation force operation are reservists.[14579]
Mr. Soames [holding answer 9 February 1996]: Some 3.6 per cent. of Britain's contribution to the IFOR operation are reservists.
Ministry of Defence Police
Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what basis the amount that the Royal Ordnance paid his Department for the services of the Ministry of Defence police is classified as commercially sensitive information; and if he will make a statement. [15212]
Mr. Soames [Pursuant to his reply 17 January 1996, Official Report, column 580]: The financial aspects of contractual arrangements concerning the supply of goods or services to or from my Department are regarded as commercially confidential. Details of the amounts paid by Royal Ordnance plc for the services of the Ministry of Defence police are no exception.
Offset Agreements
Mr. Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements his Department makes to monitor offset agreements and ensure compliance. [15947]
Mr. Arbuthnot: Companies with offset obligations are required to submit reports to my Department every six months, detailing relevant contracts awarded to UK defence industry during the reporting period. A full audit of these reports is conducted in order to establish the validity of the claims and to ensure that the companies are complying with the terms and conditions of their offset commitment.
Scott Inquiry
Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the assessment made by his expert advisory group on whether export licences should have been granted to Matrix Churchill for equipment subject to examination by Lord Justice Scott's inquiry. [15966]
Mr. Arbuthnot: This matter is dealt with by Sir Richard Scott's report. Sir Richard intends to publish in due course copies of those documents that he considers are relevant to the text of his report.
Mr. Alan Williams:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on external legal advice for Ministers and civil servants in relation to the Scott inquiry and report since the period covered by his answer of 15 January, Official Report, column 734. [15901]
20 Feb 1996 : Column: 79
Mr. Arbuthnot:
The value of legal services charged by the Treasury Solicitor's Department in respect of Ministers and officials since the period covered by my previous answer is £255.
Mr. Gordon Prentice:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what considerations he will take into account in deciding whether to replace the royal yacht; and if he will make a statement. [15955]
Mr. Tony Banks:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who is responsible for considering a replacement for the royal yacht Britannia. [15899]
Mr. Soames
[holding answer 19 February 1996]: The Government as a whole are considering the question of a replacement for Britannia. All relevant factors will be taken into account in reaching a final decision, including the role a replacement yacht might play in representing the nation overseas and in promoting British exports. An announcement will be made in due course.
Mr. Morgan:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 12 February, Official Report, column 445, if he will specify the sanctions and method for monitoring, follow-up and investigation of contractors not following such guidance. [15995]
Mr. Soames:
My Department has no procedures in respect of contractors failing to act as described in my earlier answer, a circumstance which I find hard to envisage.
Mr. Llew Smith:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent of 13 May 1993, Official Report, column 527, relating to munitions shipments. [16007]
Mr. Soames
[holding answer 19 February 1996]: I have nothing to add to the reply given on 13 May 1993.
Mrs. Roche:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to ensure that his Department identifies the size of its suppliers by the number of their employees. [15605]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
I have no plans to do so. As my answer on 19 December 1995, Official Report, column 1108, indicated, size is not a discriminatory factor when we award a contract. Collecting data from our suppliers on the number of staff they employed would place an unnecessary regulatory burden on companies while serving no useful purpose from my Department's point of view.
Mr. Elletson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on the review of the number and location of Army careers information offices. [16383]
20 Feb 1996 : Column: 80
Mr. Soames:
The review of the requirement for Army careers information offices has now been completed. It has been decided that 36 offices that were due for closure during the current financial year should remain open. Additionally, five new offices will be opened in areas where recruiting has been buoyant in the past. These offices will remain open for a initial period of one year to allow time for the recruiting initiative with the jobcentres, launched last month, to settle down.
Mr. Alison:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on his Department's consideration of the recommendations in the report of Sir Michael Bett's independent review of armed forces' career and manpower structures and terms and conditions of service. [16384]
Mr. Soames:
In the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Arundel on 26 June, Official Report, column 503, I described the detailed work set in train on Sir Michael Bett's report. Good progress is being made and it remains our intention to complete this work in time to make a definitive announcement in the summer.
In some areas, we have already reached conclusions. To meet the first and fundamental recommendation that a services personnel board should be created, a management group chaired by the Chief of the Defence Staff, has been established. This group will include an external member with relevant experience. The group is developing a personal strategy which will help shape future terms and conditions of service. The group has endorsed guidelines to apply to individual areas of personnel policy, which are now being promulgated, and a copy of which is being placed in the Library.
The initial stages of detailed work have concentrated on career and rank structures, the balance between mobility and stability, policies on accompanied and unaccompanied service and related issues. The rank structure must be driven by operational considerations, including the need for continuity of command in the face of casualties. Account also needs to be taken of the increasingly multinational nature of operations and the need therefore for the UK rank structure to fit together with that of other countries. In the light of these considerations, we have decided not to implement the full package of changes proposed. In the case of officers, promotions to five star rank in peacetime will cease and other minor changes will be made: for other ranks some streamlining is planned. In both cases, the possibility of further changes will be kept under review in the light of the introduction of new arrangements for job evaluation and pay. We agree on the importance of using the minimum number of ranks and layers in non-operational organisations.
We endorse the proposals for a more flexible pay system based on pay ranges, underpinned by improved job evaluation arrangements and involving a looser coupling of rank and pay. This is a particularly complex area and much detailed design work is now required. We have also endorsed in principle the recommendation that a tri-service agency should be established to manage personnel administration and pay delivery systems.
20 Feb 1996 : Column: 81
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |