| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
DEFENCE
Marine Services Organisation
Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the market testing of the Marine Services Organisation has been completed; and if he will make a statement. [18425]
Mr. Soames: Final proposals for the management of marine services support to the Department were received on 18 December 1995 from an in-house bid team drawn from the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service and from two private sector interests; a Denholm-SERCO consortium and the Ocean Group. These bids were evaluated accordingly to a pre-defined and publicised methodology.
Based on the results of this evaluation, it is intended to award the management of the moorings and buoys task and the naval armaments freighting task to the in-house bid team, the RMAS. The operation of the ports task--under which services are provided to the three main naval bases--will be awarded under a five-year contract to
28 Feb 1996 : Column: 534
Denholm-SERCO. This latter award followed the elimination of the in-house team for reasons of non-compliance with the management requirements of the task. RMAS personnel currently employed on ports activities will have the option of transferring to Denholm-SERCO under the terms of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. Existing RMAS vessels required by Denholm-SERCO will be leased to the company under commercial charter terms. The vesting date for the new management arrangements is currently scheduled for 8 July 1996.
All the proposals received envisaged a significant reduction in the number of vessels and posts required to undertake the tasks. The selected bids will entail a total reduction of some 500 posts--approximately 45 per cent. of the current work force--as well as some 35 per cent. fewer vessels. Consultation with the TU side on the TUPE implications of this decision and on any redundancy arrangements necessary will take place in the normal way.
The MOD will benefit from the efficiencies which the market test will introduce into all the current marine service activities. It is envisaged that the Department will save some £105 million over 10 years as a result of the measures announced today.
Lady Olga Maitland:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what decision he has made about the future occupancy of Elizabeth barracks, Pirbright. [18426]
Mr. Soames:
As announced by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 5 July 1994, Official Report, column 173, it had been intended to move the Gurkha battalion based at Church Crookham to Elizabeth barracks, Pirbright at the end of 1996. We have revised this plan in the light of the decision to replace one of the three Foot Guard battalions currently engaged on public duties by a line infantry battalion, so as to enable the Foot Guards battalion to increase the proportion of its effort employed on training for its operational roles.
The Foot Guards battalion concerned will continue to provide reinforcements for public duties on a surge basis, and it is therefore our intention that it should be based at Elizabeth barracks, Pirbright where it can fulfil this role and undertake effective operational training. The Gurkhas will move instead to Sir John Moore barracks at Shorncliffe in early 1999. Sir John Moore barracks will be modernised during the intervening period. We are confident that these moves make the most efficient use of the Army's resources, including the defence estate, and meet its operational priorities in the most effective way.
Mr. Coe:
To ask the Secretary of State for defence if he will make a statement about the type 23 frigate order. [18427]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
I am pleased to announce that an order will be placed shortly with Yarrow Shipbuilders Ltd. for a further batch of three type 23 frigates to enter service with the Royal Navy around the turn of the century.
28 Feb 1996 : Column: 535
We received bids from two shipyards: Yarrow Shipbuilders Ltd. and Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Ltd. Both companies submitted high-quality tenders, reflecting their longstanding and world-renowned expertise in the construction of modern warships. The prices offered by Yarrow Shipbuilders, however, were significantly lower.
Our decision has been reached on the basis of best value for money for the taxpayer. It does not in any way reflect adversely on the capabilities of Vosper Thornycroft as a builder of warships; indeed, it remains one of the foremost warshipbuilders in the world.
At the same time, however, the order reflects great credit on Yarrows, and will be good news for jobs not only in the Clyde area but for other communities throughout the UK who will benefit from subcontracts for weapons and other systems for the ships. The total value of this work will approach £400 million.
Mr. Barry Field:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total expenditure by his Department on the Isle of Wight in 1994-95 broken down by category. [16775]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
The information is not available in the form requested. However, there are no MOD establishments or employees, service or civilian, on the Isle of Wight. Sixteen defence contractors on the island received payments direct from MOD, totalling some £32 million in 1994-95; details of payments to individual firms are commercially confidential. Payments by defence prime contractors to their subcontractors are not included in the figure.
Mr. Cousins:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the present duties of Mr. Ian McDonald, former head of the defence export sales section. [17799]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
Mr. McDonald remains the head of the defence export services secretariat. The division provides the secretariat function for the Defence export services Organisation and is the focus for export licensing within my Department.
Mr. David Nicholson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures his Department takes to ensure that the security of Army camps and other MoD establishments against terrorist attack is fully taken into account when local authorities consider planning proposals in the near vicinity to such establishments. [17509]
Mr. Soames:
It is not our practice to discuss security measures. However, all measures deemed necessary take into account the local threat and are kept under constant review by establishments.
Where proposed developments require planning permission, local authorities are obliged by planning guidance to consult all adjoining landowners in both the private and public sector. Local authorities are also required to consult my Department about proposed
28 Feb 1996 : Column: 536
developments near certain essential defence establishments and installations--that is, airfields, explosive establishments and technical (radar/radio) sites.
Mr. Keen:
To ask the Secretary of state for Defence what procedures his Department follows to ensure that an individual applicant does not take up the appointment stated in a failed application made under the business appointment rules. [17668]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
Where a condition is imposed on a business appointment application, both the applicant and the prospective employer are informed in writing and it is made clear that the employment should not be taken up before the duration of the condition has lapsed.
Mr. Llwyd:
To ask the Secretary of state for Defence what is his current policy on the sale of (a) aircraft and (b) other armaments to Sri Lanka; and if he will make a statement. [17558]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
It is the Government's policy to support the sale of British defence equipment overseas where this is compatible with our political, strategic and security interests. All licence applications for the export of defence equipment are considered on a case-by-case basis in the light of established criteria, including the international guidelines to which we are committed.
Mr. Llew Smith:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what payments were made to which companies for the storage of ammunition at the central ammunition depot at Longtown from 7 to 16 June 1988. [17700]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
The Army stores its own ammunition and does not pay contractors; therefore, no payments were made to companies for the storage of ammunition at the central ammunition depot, Longtown between 7 and 16 June 1988.
Mr. Cousins:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in how many cases since 13 May 1985 company staff seconded to the Defence Export Services Organisation continued to have their salary and allowances paid by the original company; and what written guidelines to cover this situation have been issued. [17798]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
Nine staff have been seconded to DESO under MOD's interchange programme since May 1985.
Inward secondees remain the employees of their parent company. As such, the company continues to be responsible for payment of salary, pension contributions, company medical plan payments, earnings-related national insurance contribution, etcetera, in accordance with company rules. As part of the formal agreement between MOD and the company, the Department reimburses salary and other costs at the rate equivalent to the civil service grade held by the secondee.
28 Feb 1996 : Column: 537
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |