| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Battle of Britain
Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what funding he will make available for the maintenance of the RAF Battle of Britain Chapel and the associated Hurricane and Spitfire aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [106030]
Mr. Kilfoyle: Financial provision for the maintenance of the RAF Battle of Britain Chapel and its enclave is some £20-£30,000 annually. As regards the glass fibre replica Hurricane and Spitfire aircraft, it is currently Royal Air Force policy that no public funds should be spent on maintaining such display aircraft, commonly referred to as "Gate Guardians". Funding for the recent refurbishment of the Hurricane was raised privately. Similar funding for the Spitfire is in the process of being raised.
Royal Irish Regiment
Mr. McNamara:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (a) what representations he has received following publication of a group photograph of the Royal Irish Regiment in The Andersonstown News on 15 January, (b) where and on what date the photograph was taken, (c) how many soldiers and officers of each rank from battalions participated in the photograph, (d) what rank of soldier took the photograph, (e) what rank of officer supervised the photoshoot, (f) by what means the banner displayed in the photograph was obtained, (g) what transport arrangements were made to bring the banner into military barracks, (h) what was the purpose of the photograph, (i) where the film was developed and how many prints were (i) made, (ii) distributed and (iii) sold, (j) what disciplinary action has been taken consequent to the incident, (k) what assessment he has made of the impact of the incident on community relations and (l) what statement the Ministry has made to the press on the issue; and if he will make a statement. [106410]
24 Jan 2000 : Column: 68W
Mr. Spellar:
The circumstances surrounding the publication of a photograph of the Royal Irish Regiment in the Andersonstown News on 15 January 2000 are currently under investigation by the Special Investigations Branch, Royal Military Police. I will write to my hon. Friend when the investigation is complete and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
Mr. Rapson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the viability of using aircraft carriers moored in Portsmouth Harbour as prison ships. [106177]
Mr. Spellar:
My Department has not considered the viability of using aircraft carriers moored in Portsmouth Harbour as prison ships, nor has it been asked to.
Mr. Key:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his expenditure was on national recruitment advertising in (a) cinemas, (b) television, (c) radio, (d) print and (e) posters during each month since April 1999; and what his monthly budget is in each category for (i) January, (ii) February and (iii) March 2000. [106184]
Mr. Spellar:
The national recruitment advertising expenditure for the categories requested, in respect of the Naval Service and the RAF, broken down by month is as follows:
| £ | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cinema | Television | Radio | Posters | |||
| Naval Service | ||||||
| (actual) | ||||||
| April | -- | -- | ---- | 36,035 | -- | |
| May | 52,703 | 7,637 | -- | 189,532 | -- | |
| June | 105,406 | 8,336 | -- | 99,472 | -- | |
| July | 190,178 | 10,900 | 18,992 | 152,786 | 23,076 | |
| August | 188,140 | 4,350 | 16,373 | 265,428 | 25,859 | |
| September | 206,736 | 2,350 | 67,511 | 179,964 | -- | |
| October | 156,071 | -- | 8,248 | 128,865 | -- | |
| November | 158,109 | 1,316 | -- | 303,444 | -- | |
| December | -- | 17,625 | 15,000 | 91,355 | -- | |
| (planned) | ||||||
| January | 206,736 | 812,000 | -- | 97,259 | -- | |
| February | 206,736 | -- | -- | 184,866 | -- | |
| March | 105,406 | -- | -- | 163,876 | -- | |
| RAF | ||||||
| (actual) | ||||||
| April | -- | -- | -- | 40,428 | -- | |
| May | -- | -- | -- | 24,816 | -- | |
| June | 550,000 | -- | 425,385 | 33,164 | -- | |
| July | -- | -- | 3,000 | 212,341 | -- | |
| August | -- | -- | -- | 24,300 | 2,614 | |
| September | 40,938 | -- | -- | 251,216 | -- | |
| October | -- | -- | -- | 148,034 | -- | |
| November | -- | -- | -- | 137,319 | -- | |
| December | -- | -- | -- | 64,756 | -- | |
| (planned) | ||||||
| January | -- | -- | -- | 35,079 | -- | |
| February | -- | -- | -- | 50,000 | -- | |
| March | -- | 200,000 | -- | 43,610 | -- | |
The Army do not maintain records of recruit advertising spend on a monthly basis. The general pattern
24 Jan 2000 : Column: 69W
of advertising runs in cycles with the peaks occurring in April/May and September. The expenditure, inclusive of the Regular Army and the Territorial Army, broken down where possible, is as follows:
| £ | ||
|---|---|---|
| April- December 1999 | January- March 1999 | |
| Cinema | -- | -- |
| Television | 3,015,279 | 850,000 |
| Radio | 535,274 | 425,000 |
| 1,109,760 | 240,000 | |
| Posters | 138,431 | 40,000 |
The hon. Member may also wish to know that, in addition to the above expenditure, the Armed Forces spent about £267,000 on advertising via the Internet from April to December 1999, with a further forecast spend of £120,000 between January and March 2000.
Recruitment advertising expenditure for MOD civilians is not held in the form requested. However, the total forecast expenditure on national recruitment advertising for civilian recruitment for financial year 1999-2000 is £4.4 million.
Mr. Key:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the SA80 weapon system modifications proposed by Heckler and Koch in 1997; and if he has introduced a modification programme. [106182]
Mr. Duncan Smith:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if a modification programme for the SA80 weapon system was implemented following the proposals from Heckler and Koch referred to in the letter from the Minister for Defence Procurement to the Defence Committee of 2 June 1997; what estimate was submitted by Heckler and Koch of the cost of their proposals; and if the SA80s used in the Kosovo campaign were modified as a result of these proposals. [106173]
Mr. Kilfoyle:
The Design Authority for SA80, formerly Royal Ordnance but now Heckler and Koch UK (Ltd.), was tasked in 1996 to investigate the reliability of the SA80 weapon system. Heckler and Koch reported in 1998 that there might be underlying problems with the reliability of the system and presented their proposals for modifications. A contract was placed in mid-1998 with Heckler and Koch for the modification of 200 weapons to be used for trials to determine the effectiveness of these modifications. Deliveries of these modified weapons were made in January 1999. The MOD conducted user trials in hot and cold climatic conditions with a range of NATO ammunition types. The trials were completed in July 1999 and the formal Design Authority report was delivered to the MOD in late December 1999. The trials confirmed that, after modification, there were significant improvements in the reliability of both the SA80 rifle and Light Support Weapon. Urgent work is in hand to assess the wider implications of the Design Authority report, including the cost, and we expect to make a decision on any modification programme by the end of March 2000.
Mr. Key:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the SA80 weapon system remains suspended from the NATO Nominated Weapons List. [106183]
24 Jan 2000 : Column: 70W
Mr. Kilfoyle:
The SA80 weapon system remains suspended from the NATO Nominated Weapons List, the list of weapons for use in the testing of NATO approved ammunition types. This suspension in itself has no impact on the operational effectiveness of the weapon.
Mr. Dalyell:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral statement of 18 January 2000, Official Report, column 825W, to whom it was intended that the decontaminated plant and equipment disposed of from Nancekuke would be clearly identifiable. [106750]
Mr. Kilfoyle:
The locations where decontaminated plant and other materials were disposed of on the Nancekuke site were identified as a matter of good land management practice.
Mr. Dalyell:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral statement of 18 January 2000, Official Report, column 825W, whether the decontamination and disposal provisions at Nancekuke involved placing equipment used at Nancekuke in mine-shafts. [106749]
Mr. Kilfoyle:
Prior to the closure at Nancekuke, the chemical plant was decontaminated and dismantled. Obsolete plant and some scrap metal was disposed of in a disused quarry and in two old mineshafts on the site. As part of a regular land quality assessment, recent surface soil and water samples were analysed and showed no signs of contamination from toxic agents. We are currently consulting with representatives of local authorities, the Environment Agency for England and Wales and other interested parties, how to take forward the land quality assessment work.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |