| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Personnel Strategy
Mr. Keith Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out his Department's Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy. [74651]
Mr. Doug Henderson [holding answer 4 March 1999]: A key outcome of the Strategic Defence Review was a widespread recognition of the need for an Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy. We are currently developing this important strategy, which will be a major contribution to improving the joint environment in which the Armed Forces will increasingly work. We will keep the House fully informed as this work matures.
Special Advisers
Mr. Keith Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the meetings since May 1997 held with representatives of the British defence industry by each of his special advisers. [74642]
Mr. George Robertson
[holding answer 4 March 1999]: Both special advisers meet representatives of the British defence industry in the course of their duties.
15 Mar 1999 : Column: 505
Mr. Bernard Gray has particular responsibilities in relation to defence procurement and industrial policy and is therefore in day-to-day contact with a wide variety of industry representatives.
Mr. Cousins:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Swindon, South (Ms Drown) of 26 January 1999, Official Report, columns 173-74, if he will list the customer Governments which contributed to the cost of project offices for Government to Government programmes, stating in each case the size of receipts; and what the total receipts were in the three previous financial years. [76125]
Mr. Spellar:
The customer Governments which contributed to the cost of project offices for Government to Government defence programmes are those of Kuwait, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia. Details relating to the level of contributions made are confidential between Her Majesty's Government and the customer Governments concerned. I am therefore withholding that information under the provisions of Exemption 1 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
Mr. Salter:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with Hunting-Brae over replacing the Pangbourne pipeline with an evaporator following the enforcement notice served on AWE Aldermaston by the Environment Agency. [76018]
Mr. Spellar:
The Enforcement Notice served on 9 February made no reference to the Pangbourne pipeline. There is no requirement at present to replace it. However, AWE has for some years been examining the best environmental choices for all its discharges, which includes consideration of evaporators and absorbers and the MOD Compliance Office at Aldermaston have been involved in this work. If, at some point in the future, replacement is considered necessary, AWE, the Ministry of Defence and the Environment Agency will have to be satisfied that any alternative offers environmental advantages over the present system.
Mr. Salter:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the nuclear installations inspectorate's licence of AWE Aldermaston. [76020]
Mr. Spellar:
I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Mr. Sayeed:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to sign the Memorandum of Understanding in respect of Medium Range Trigat. [76063]
Mr. Spellar:
We are considering whether the UK will participate in the Industrialisation and Production Phase of the collaborative Medium Range TRIGAT programme.
Mr. Cox:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost in 1998 of maintaining the Falklands military garrison; and if he will make a statement. [76367]
15 Mar 1999 : Column: 506
Mr. Doug Henderson:
The outturn cost to the Ministry of Defence of the Falkland Islands Garrison in financial year 1998-99 is expected to be approximately £71 million. This figure relates to the costs incurred by the Commander British Forces Falkland Islands only. It does not include the costs of the RAF airbridge to the Falkland Islands, nor the cost of naval deployments to the South Atlantic. These costs fall to other budgets and are not separately identified.
Mr. Cox:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Ministerial visits made to Argentina in 1998. [76366]
Mr. George Robertson:
No Ministers from my Department visited Argentina in 1998.
Mr. Cox:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints were received concerning low-flying British military aircraft in 1998. [76266]
Mr. Spellar:
5,102 complaints and inquiries about aircraft operating within the UK Low-Flying System are recorded centrally as having been received by my Department in 1998. These records do not specify the nationality of the aircraft prompting the report and the number of British aircraft concerned could only be identified at disproportionate cost.
Mr. Maclean:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of replacing the Saudi Arabian JP233 system with Paveway 111 bombs; from which budget the money was drawn; at whose request and for what reason the replacement was required; and if he will make a statement. [76278]
Mr. George Robertson:
Under the provisions of the Ottawa Convention and the Landmines Act 1998, which came into force on 1 March 1999, the UK cannot continue to support the Saudi Arabian JP233 anti-airfield weapons, which were supplied by the UK under the Al Yamamah project. As explained in a Minute laid before Parliament on 4 February 1999, our offer to destroy Saudi JP233s, to provide 100 Paveway 3s as replacements, and to provide modifications and training to allow the Saudis to operate the new system underlines our commitment to the Ottawa Convention, while maintaining strong relations with a strategically important, friendly country. The estimated cost of these measures is £15-17 million, to be funded by the Ministry of Defence.
Mr. Salter:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on steps taken to curb the activities of neo-Nazi groups reported to have infiltrated sections of the British armed forces. [75987]
Mr. Doug Henderson
[holding answer 11 March 1999]: Since coming to office we have made very clear our policy on zero tolerance for racism in the Armed Forces. Our priority is for the development of an organisational culture which welcomes racial diversity.
15 Mar 1999 : Column: 507
Our policies, applied rigorously and reinforced by strong leadership from the Service Chiefs, are designed to ensure that racism is eliminated.
All personnel, of whatever rank, need to understand that there is no home or hiding place for racist attitudes or behaviour. This must be understood not only by serving personnel but also by potential recruits and society generally. The Armed Forces, as a major institution and public body, are taking a clear stand on this. Prejudice, when encountered, is being challenged. Those who transgress the high standards required are, and will continue to be, dealt with firmly. This will include discharge if appropriate.
It has long been the policy of the Armed Forces that Service life precludes membership of, or support for, groups or organisations whose purpose includes incitement to racial hatred and violence. All three Services already have in place regulations and instruction which give clear guidance to the Chain of Command on the rules, grounds and process governing membership of groups which is incompatible with Service life. This morning, each Service Chief has written to the Command Chain to remind them of the powers and procedures that are available to them and to ensure they are applied in all appropriate circumstances.
We are continuing to place a high priority on robust awareness training in equal opportunities. Racial equality is an integral part of this; and we have made it mandatory for all senior officers of Brigadier and equivalent level and above to receive such training. Training for remaining personnel has also been strengthened and is being kept under constant review to ensure our priorities are fully reflected and brought to the attention of all personnel at every opportunity.
Mr. Jim Cunningham:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what type of aircraft the Government expects to replace the Harrier jump-jet at the end of its service life. [76088]
Mr. Spellar:
As announced in the Strategic Defence Review, a Future Carrier-Borne Aircraft (FCBA) will replace the Royal Navy Sea Harrier and Royal Air Force Harrier from around 2012. A strong contender for FCBA is a variant of the US Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and the UK is currently participating in the Concept Demonstration Phase. We are also assessing a number of other options including a navalised Eurofighter, Rafale-M, F/A 18E/F and an Advanced Harrier variant.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |