---

Sierra Leone

Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many troops returning to the United Kingdom from deployment in Sierra Leone have been diagnosed as having signs of malaria since 12 June; how many UK troops have been so diagnosed in the last five years; and in which overseas deployments they had served. [126996]

Dr. Moonie [holding answer 21 June 2000]: As of 21 June 2000, a total of 48 confirmed cases of malaria and one suspected case have been recorded among Service personnel deployed to Sierra Leone. According to the Ministry of Defence data on hospital admissions, which includes admissions to RAF medical centres for more than 48 hours and to sick bays in RN ships, 47 Service personnel were diagnosed as suffering from malaria between 1 January 1995 and 17 January 2000. (This is the latest date for which records are immediately available, other than for the Sierra Leone deployment). Those personnel had served overseas in a total of 40 countries (as listed) prior to their diagnosis. Some personnel are likely to have contracted malaria while on holiday overseas.

Australia


Bahrain


Barbados


Belize


Belgium


Brunei


Canada

Cameroon


Croatia


Cyprus


Falkland Islands


Fiji


Germany


Gibraltar


Ghana


Hong Kong

26 Jun 2000 : Column: 412W

Hungary


Indonesia


Italy


Ivory Coast


Jamaica


Kenya


Morocco


Namibia


Nepal


New Zealand

Norway


Portugal


Puerto Rico

Senegal

Sierra Leone


South Africa


Spain


St. Helena


Sudan

Turkey


United Arab Emirates


United States of America


Yugoslavia


Zaire.

Procurement Fraud

Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 24 May 2000, Official Report, column 563W, on procurement fraud, if he will state (a) against which contracts the three cases are being investigated, which were recorded against 1999-2000, stating which project within that contract is affected and (b) contracts for which the values were stated for (i) 1995-96, (ii) 1997-98 and (iii) 1998-99 were found to have been affected by fraud and from which specific area of that contract; and if he will make a statement. [126685]

Dr. Moonie [holding answer 22 June 2000]: The three contracts reported for 1999-2000 are the subject of current Ministry of Defence Police investigations and it would be inappropriate to comment further at present. None of the three contracts relate to major procurement projects. For 1995-96 the value was stated against various jobbing orders for works at a Naval Air Station and involved the corruption of a Crown Servant by a contractor. For 1997-98 the value was stated against a suspicion that a Crown Servant had submitted false Travel and Subsistence claims with the help of a firm holding a contract for resettlement training. For 1998-99 the value was stated against a PFI consultancy contract and involved an overpayment, since recovered, arising from genuine error by the contractor.

Theft

Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate his Department has made of the cost to its budget in relation to theft in each year since 1995-96; how many prosecutions in each year were brought against (a) military personnel, (b) civilian personnel and (c) others on charges of theft of MoD

26 Jun 2000 : Column: 413W

property, stating in each case the amount involved and the outcome of the prosecution; and if he will make a statement. [126687]

Dr. Moonie [holding answer 22 June 2000]: The reported estimated annual costs of theft for the financial years 1995-96 to 1999-2000 inclusive are as follows:

1995-96: £173,329


1996-97: £231,033


1997-98: £491,215


1998-99: £141,141


1999-2000: £149,891.

No abatement is made for subsequent recoveries. These figures relate to a combination of suspected and proven thefts with estimated values refined from time to time as investigations, sometimes lasting a year or more, reach a conclusion. Those cases currently brought to a conclusion involve a range of outcomes and include prosecutions resulting in custodial sentences, dismissal, fines or probation as defined by the Treasury. The reported figures for these prosecutions brought against MOD staff are as set out:

1995-96

There were five prosecutions involving civilians and one involving military personnel. Three civilians were fined £796 each and given community service following a theft valued at £1,592. Another civilian was dismissed, after a court case, for a theft valued at £8,300 while another received a five-day suspension without pay following a theft of unknown value. The military case resulted in a prosecution at Magistrates Court and a fine, followed by dismissal, for a case valued at £294.

1996-97

There were two prosecutions involving civilians and five involving military personnel. A civilian was fined £350 and dismissed following a theft where all property was recovered. In another civilian case a police caution was issued following a theft of unknown value. The military cases involved one theft valued at £1,500 resulting in probation for one year, a theft valued at £5,781 resulting in a verdict of gross negligence and a fine of £735, a theft valued at £2,721 resulting in a fine of £300, summary trial resulting in a fine of £300 for a theft valued at £60, and a fine of £25 for a theft of unknown value.

1997-98

There were three prosecutions involving civilians and four involving military personnel. Two civilians received custodial sentences following a theft valued at £320,000. Another civilian received a police caution for a case valued at £61.

The military cases involved a case of eight months detention and dismissal for a case valued at £195, a theft valued at £190 leading to seven days detention plus stoppages of £17.50, a sentence of seven years imprisonment for a case where the value is not known but involved the theft of explosives, and a theft valued at £8,000 resulting in discharge from the service and 240 hours community service.

1998-99

There was one prosecution involving a civilian and another involving a military person. The civilian case was valued at £3,000 and resulted in 12 months probation plus community service. The military case involved a charge of handling stolen goods valued at £10,000 and the payment of compensation valued at £283.

1999-2000

There are no prosecutions currently reported for this year.

Contracts

Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list (a) the original in-service date, (b) the

26 Jun 2000 : Column: 414W

current in-service date, (c) the actual or estimated cost, (d) the years of peak expenditure, (e) the expenditure in (d), (f) the date of the initial gate, (g) the date of the main gate and (h) the prime contractor for the projects (i) BOWMAN, (ii) COBRA, (iii) FET, (iv) HARRV, (v) MRAV, (vi) Phoenix, (vii) Shielder and (viii) UK Attack Helicopter; [127707]

(2) if he will list (a) the original in-service date, (b) the current in-service date, (c) the actual or estimated cost, (d) the years of peak expenditure, (e) the expenditure in (d), (f) the date of the initial gate, (g) the date of the main gate and (h) the prime contractor for the projects (i) ASRAAM, (ii) ASTOR, (iii) BVRAAM, (iv) Brimstone, (v) Eurofighter, (vi) FCBA, (vii) FGBAD, (viii) FOAS, (ix) FSTA, (x) Hercules Rolling Replacement Tranche 2, (xi) Merlin HM Mk1, (xii) Merlin HC Mk3, (xiii) Nimrod MRA-4, (xiv) STSA, (xv) CASOM and (xvi) SABR; [127708]

(3) if he will list (a) the original in-service date, (b) the current in-service date, (c) the actual or estimated cost, (d) the years of peak expenditure, (e) the expenditure in (d), (f) the date of the initial gate, (g) the date of the main gate and (h) the prime contractor for the projects (i) Astute Class Submarines, (ii) CV(F), (iii) FASGW, (iv) FCBA, (v) LPD(R) and (vi) MCMU. [127706]

Dr. Moonie: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

British Aerospace

Mr. Coaker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what discussions he plans to have with British Aerospace about its plans for its defence manufacturing capability, with particular reference to the consolidated site option for the Royal Ordnance Factory, Nottingham; [127589]

(2) what recent representations he has received with respect to job losses at British Aerospace; [127592]

(3) what assessment he has made of the impact of the recent announcement of job losses by British Aerospace on manufacturing capability in the defence industry; [127590]

(4) what assessment he has made of the effect of the recent announcement of job losses by British Aerospace on the Royal Ordnance Factory in Nottingham; and if he will make a statement. [127591]

Dr. Moonie [holding answer 23 June 2000]: The future of the Royal Ordnance site at Nottingham is ultimately a matter for BAe Systems. However the decision on its future has still not been finalised and will not be so until the end of June following discussions between the Trade Unions and BAe Systems.

---