| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Scottish Infantry Battalions
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the (a) establishment and (b) current strength is of each of the regular Scottish infantry battalions; and if he will list each element of company strength serving in them. [32446]
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 1 February 2002]: The establishment and strength of the Scottish Infantry battalions, as at 1 January 2002, is detailed in the table. The figures include all attached Arms and also details the Scots Guards public duties company that serves away from the main body of the regiment.
11 Feb 2002 : Column 15W
Sierra Leone
Patrick Mercer: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the death of British soldiers in Sierre Leone on 27 January. [34411]
Mr. Ingram: Two British soldiers, Corporal Michael Phillips and Rifleman James Coman sustained fatal injuries when the Army Land Rover in which they were travelling was involved in a road traffic accident during the late evening of 27 January. Two other soldiers travelling in the vehicle sustained relatively minor injuries. All four soldiers were admitted to the United
11 Feb 2002 : Column 16W
Nations hospital in Freetown but, sadly, Corporal Phillips and Rifleman Coman were pronounced dead on arrival. All the soldiers were from lst Battalion, Royal Green Jackets. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I extend our deep condolences to the families of the dead soldiers.
The accident occurred about 10 kilometres east of Waterloo near the Benguema Training Centre. The soldiers were on duty at the time. No other vehicle is believed to have been involved. The accident is being investigated by the Special Investigation Branch of the Royal Military Police. A Board of Inquiry is also to be convened.
Correspondence
Mr. Swayne: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 January 2002, Official Report, column 319W, on the Reconnaissance Regiment, when he will write to the hon. Member for New Forest, West. [34699]
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 8 February 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 16 July 2001, Official Report, column 5W. We are re-addressing the options for the location of the 4th Armoured Reconnaissance Regiment and I will therefore write to both Members as soon as the position is clear. A copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
Warship Support Modernisation Project
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 January 2002, Official Report, column 961W, on the Warship Support Modernisation Project, whether an economic appraisal is being used to assess the value for money implication of the proposals; if value for money will be the overriding factor when he makes his decision; if the practice of comparing proposals on the basis of commercial implications is a new policy; and if he will make a statement. [33368]
Mr. Ingram: I confirm that an economic appraisal of the options has been carried out and that the decision on the way ahead will be made on the basis of best value for money. As part of that assessment, it is normal for all the implications of a decision, including the commercial implications, to be considered.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 January 2002, Official Report, column 961W, on the Warship Support Modernisation Project, if he will clarify what is meant by essential terms and conditions of service; whether it includes access to traditional shore-based benefits; and if he will make a statement. [33371]
Mr. Ingram: Royal Naval personnel involved in the partnering arrangements would remain Crown servants under their full current terms of service, without detriment to any applicable benefits. They would remain subject to the Naval Discipline Act and liable for operational duties, military training and other military tasks that may arise from time to time.
11 Feb 2002 : Column 17W
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 January 2002, Official Report, column 961W, on the Warship Support Modernisation Project, what level of premium, on an annualised hours basis, the Warship Support Agency expects to pay the companies in return for the work undertaken by the naval personnel seconded to them; and if he will make a statement. [33369]
Mr. Ingram: The Warship Support Agency would not pay any specific premium in respect of the naval service personnel annualised hours arrangements. The companies would pay for the hours at a rate commensurate with the local market rate.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 10 January 2002, Official Report, column 961W, on the Warship Support Modernisation Project, whether the normal process of post tender clarification includes the Warship Support Agency officials providing the sole bidder with details of the historical expenditure on contracts with other contractors; if the companies providing contract services were informed that this information had been provided to a third party; and if he will make a statement. [33370]
Mr. Ingram: It is normal for the nature of current outsourced work and composite historical spend to form part of the disclosure of information to bidders. Disclosure was under signed confidentiality agreements and the information was released in a manner that protects third party interests.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |