|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions P. W. Pains Wessex have attended MOD-organised sales and marketing events in the past two years; and what was the nature of their attendance. 
Mr. Ingram: I understand that P. W. Defence Ltd. was formed last September from the amalgamation of several subsidiaries of the Chemring Group plc. Delegates from the company attended the Ministry of Defence's Export Services Organisation's symposium for defence exporters held in March 2002.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what extra capability the £600 million of UK specific requirement for the Joint Strike Fighter will provide; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Ingram: The estimate of £600 million, which was announced in January 2001, will optimise the aircraft's capability for the United Kingdom environment. It represents the costs of providing and integrating certain UK weapons systems, to be selected in due course, securing the Joint Strike Fighter's compatibility with UK Command and Control arrangements and ensuring compliance with our safety and environmental requirements.
21 May 2002 : Column 167W
Mr. Ingram: Eurofighter's primary role is air superiority. Without a BVRAAM, it would be wholly reliant on short-range missiles in this role and would be disadvantaged in medium and beyond visual range engagements. We have therefore assessed that Eurofighter will require a BVRAAM capability. From the outset, it is planned that the aircraft will be cleared to carry and fire the Advanced Medium Range Air to Air Missile (AMRAAM). This capability will be enhanced by the acquisition of Meteor. Meteor's planned In-Service Date is 2012.
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 20 May 2002]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Moonie) on 30 April 2002, Official Report, column 745W. We are now considering the results of this review, including the implications for delivery dates, and will make an announcement shortly.
Mr. Ingram: Two off-the-shelf medium range anti- tank guided weapon systems are being evaluated to replace the capability which Medium Range Trigat was expected to deliver for use by Light Forces and Mechanised Infantry: Javelin offered by a joint venture between Raytheon and Lockheed Martin and supported by the US Government; and Spike offered by MBDA.
As part of the evaluation the Ministry of Defence is conducting a commercial competition between the two equipments, and as such I am withholding details of the costs in accordance with Exemption 13 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 20 May 2002]: I assume that the question concerns a case before the European Court of Human Rights, but we do not immediately recognise a Lewis case. I answered a question from the hon. Member on 1 March about that court's judgment in the case of Mr. Morris, Official Report, column 1624W, and it may be this to which he is now referring.
Hitherto there have been no quantifiable financial consequences for the Ministry of Defence as a result of this case, apart from legal fees and the award by the court of a proportion of Mr. Morris's costs.
21 May 2002 : Column 168W
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 20 May 2002]: HMS Ocean has experienced some minor technical difficulties during her current deployment. These were associated with the propulsion system, air conditioning and chilled water plant, the side ramp and some other equipments and systems. Such difficulties are consistent with a deployment of this duration and nature. The majority have already been resolved and none has adversely affected HMS Ocean's ability to undertake her operational tasks at any stage of her deployment.
Mr. Hoon: We have always valued strategic stability between the United States and Russia, a stability to which the anti-ballistic missile treaty made a major contribution throughout the cold war. But it is important to recognise that the strategic context is changing and that it is stability we value rather than one particular means for achieving it. To this end we welcome the progress that the United States and Russia have made towards a new strategic framework, in particular their recent agreement on major reductions in nuclear weapons.
21 May 2002 : Column 169W
Mr. McNamara: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors are taken into account when determining which organisations investigate the circumstances of a death or serious injury of a member of Her Majesty's armed forces on his Department's property. 
Mr. Ingram: Jurisdiction for the investigation of incidents resulting in death or serious injury will vary depending upon the nature of the incident and whether it occurs in the United Kingdom, overseas or, in the case of the Royal Navy, on board ship. The rules governing jurisdiction are detailed in the Queen's Regulations for each service. In the case of a death in the United Kingdom, primacy for any investigation lies with the local civilian police force, who would usually be supported by the appropriate service police authority or Ministry of Defence police, and other agencies as required. For example, where a death is suspected to have been caused by an accident, an investigation could also be carried out by a service accident investigation team. Cause of death can only be concluded by Her Majesty's Coroner. A service Board of Inquiry would normally be carried out following the conclusion of any associated police investigations.
In cases of serious injury, factors such as the cause of injury, level of severity and any suspicion of criminality would determine whether the civilian police, Ministry of Defence police or service police authorities would investigate. Again, where serious injury is suspected to have been caused by an accident, the relevant service accident investigation team could also be involved. All of these factors would be considered in determining whether a service Board of Inquiry is required.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|