| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
21 Nov 2002 : Column 212W—continued
Continuous Attitude Survey
Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel in the (a) Army, (b) RAF and (c) Royal Navy were sent the last Continuous Attitude Survey and encouraged to answer; what proportion of the service members in each service this represents; how his Department ensures that the sample group asked and who reply are representative of the services as a whole; what the differential response rate is in each service by rank; and if he will make a statement. [81106]
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 19 November 2002]: The number of personnel that were sent the last Continuous Attitude Survey (CAS) for each Service is as follows: Naval Service 2,000; Army 4,006 and RAF 2,000. The proportion of personnel this represented for each Service was 5.3 per cent., 3.9 per cent. and 4.1 per cent. respectively, based on Trained Strength figures for United Kingdom regulars as at 1 September 2002.
In the Naval Service the distribution of the CAS is now carried out through the chain of command rather than directly to the individuals and personnel are encouraged to answer by the offer of participation in a prize draw. The sample groups are entirely random and the sample is sufficient to produce statistically significant results across all ranks.
21 Nov 2002 : Column 213W
In the Army the Adjutant General writes a personal letter to all unit Commanding Officers asking them to encourage individuals to respond to the survey. The selection criterion works on a rolling basis using the last two digits of Service numbers. The overall population of respondents is large enough to have statistical confidence that the results can be extrapolated against the wider military population.
For the Royal Air Force a letter from the Chief of Staff Air Member for Personnel accompanies each survey encouraging individuals to take part and emphasising the importance placed on the survey. The survey is a rank-stratified random sample. This means that while the number of personnel at each rank to whom the form is issued is determined in advance, taking into account previous response rates, the individuals who actually receive the form are chosen at random, using the last three digits of their Service number. This results in a total sample that is fairly representative of RAF personnel in rank, branch/trade, gender and ethnic group.
The response rates as a percentage for each Service by rank are shown below:
| Rank | Per cent. |
|---|---|
| Lt Commander and above | 69 |
| Junior Officers | 67 |
| Senior Ratings ie. WOs, CPOs and POs | 55 |
| Junior Ratings ie. Able Rates and Leading Rates(1) | 37 |
Note
(1) For the Naval Service the above level of detail is all that can be provided in the time available.
| Rank | Per cent. |
|---|---|
| 2Lt/Lt | 56 |
| Capt | 64 |
| LtCol | 71 |
| Brig | 40 |
| L/Cpl | 40 |
| Sgt | 53 |
| WO2 | 62 |
| 2Lt/Lt | 56 |
| Maj | 84 |
| Col | 65 |
| Re | 29 |
| Cpl | 47 |
| SSgt | 68 |
| WO1 | 68 |
| Rank | Per cent. |
|---|---|
| Pit Off +Fg Off | 60 |
| Flt Lt | 75 |
| Sqn Ldr | 74 |
| Wg Cdr | 82 |
| Gp Capt | 70 |
| SAC = LAC | 47 |
| Jnr Tech | 55 |
| Cpl | 55 |
21 Nov 2002 : Column 214W
Defence Attaché
Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role and mandate of UK defence attachés posted overseas. [81107]
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 19 November 2002]: The principal role of defence attachés is to further the United Kingdom's defence diplomacy aims in the host country. There are six core attachés functions:
- Support to defence diplomacy.
Provision of operational military advice and assistance.
Provision of politico-military advice.
Support to defence intelligence.
Support to defence exports.
Representation and administrative support.
Attachés are appointed to the staff of the ambassador/high commissioner whose instructions and policies they are to follow. Under the direction of the ambassador/high commissioner, they undertake any duties that advance the interests of the United Kingdom.
Defence Logistics Organisation
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people have been employed by the Defence Logistics Organisation in each year since its creation. [80967]
Mr. Ingram: The requested information is shown in the table.
| Year | Services | Civilian | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| April 2000 | 8,429 | 30,303 | 38,732 |
| April 2001 | 7,406 | 25,219 | 32,625 |
| April 2002 | 7,628 | 22,644 | 30,272 |
Notes:
1. Figures are full-time equivalent i.e. part-time staff are counted as a proportion of full-time hours worked.
2. The DLO was created in April 2000. Since then, the Defence Aviation Repair Agency (1 April 2001) and the Army Base Repair Organisation (1 April 2002) have become trading funds. The Strengths of Defence Aviation Repair Agency as at 1 April 2001 (4,418 civilians and 721 service personnel) and ABRO as at 1 April 2002 (2,019) are reflected in the losses in the above table.
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what computer systems he plans to procure for the Defence Logistics Organisation. [80970]
Mr. Ingram: The Defence Logistic Organisation (DLO) intends to procure a number of computer systems in support of its role to decide, provide for, and deliver effective and integrated logistic support and information services to the front line and across the Department at best value for Defence. These include the Defence Electronic Commerce Service (DECS), Management of Materiel in Transit (MMiT) computer system, the Bulk Fuel Inventory Solution (BFIS), the Postal and Courier Electronic Records (PACER)
21 Nov 2002 : Column 215W
system. Other requirements may be generated by the wider end-to-end review of logistics processes including the DLO, front-line commands and industry.
Departmental Projects
Mr. Keith Simpson : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures he intends to follow so that the programme for the development of his Department's three sites at Northolt, Woolwich and Uxbridge will be largely self-funding. [82057]
Dr. Moonie: The Ministry of Defence is currently examining the procurement options available for the delivery of project 'MOD Estate London (MoDEL), which will offer best value.
Mr. Keith Simpson : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will make a further announcement about consultation and approval procedures in respect of his Department's three sites at Northolt, Woolwich and Uxbridge conditionally identified for development on 29 October; and what timescale and timetable he expects these projects to follow. [82058]
Dr. Moonie: The Ministry of Defence currently has a two gate approvals process for projects of this magnitude. The Business Case for the first gate (Initial Gate) should be prepared by the end of this year. The Business Case for the second gate (Main Gate) should be prepared towards the latter half of 2003.
The current programme for the project details that implementation of the proposals is scheduled to take place between 2004–09.
Consultation with all stakeholders with an interest in the Defence Estate within Greater London, and a specific interest in project MoDEL, has already begun. This consultation will continue throughout the Department's approvals process and the project's implementation.
Mr. Keith Simpson : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which areas of each of the three sites at Northolt, Woolwich and Uxbridge will be developed as announced by his Department on 29 October; and what the balance sheet value was at 31 March of (a) the land and (b) the buildings on each site. [82060]
Dr. Moonie: The Ministry of Defence is currently working with the relevant Local Authorities and other stakeholders to develop our proposals and to identify where on each of the Core Sites future development will take place.
The Balance Sheet value at the 1 April 2002 for the three Core Sites is as follows:
| Core sites | Land value | Building value |
|---|---|---|
| RAF Northolt | 70,000,000 | 28,281,400 |
| RAF Uxbridge | 55,000,000 | 22,863,973 |
| Woolwich station | (2)20,925,000 | (3)— |
(2) Provisional figure only, actual not currently available.
(3) Not currently available.
Devonport Dockyard
Mr. Burnett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who was responsible for the security of Devonport
21 Nov 2002 : Column 216W
Dockyard on Friday 15 November; if he will make a statement on a breach of security involving Trident nuclear submarines at Devonport Dockyard on 15 November; what consequential action his Department intends to take; what the state of alert was at Devonport on that day; what the state of security of the nuclear submarines was on that day; and what Royal Navy and other personnel were on the vessel on that day. [82278]
Mr. Ingram: The Naval Base Commander has overall responsibility for security of Devonport Naval Base. Devonport Management Ltd (DML), the owners of Devonport Dockyard and the nuclear licensed site, are responsible for the security of HMS VANGUARD and the refitting/refuelling facility where she is currently undergoing refit. The Naval Base and DML work closely together on security matters.
On the evening of 15 November two anti nuclear protesters gained access to HMS VANGUARD. The submarine, which has no weapons onboard, did not sustain any damage and safety was not compromised. A full inquiry into the incident is being conducted by a team comprising the Head of Security for the Defence Logistics Organisation, a senior MOD Police Officer and a MOD security specialist.
The state of alert at Devonport, and all UK military establishments, on 15 November was XBikini Black Special". Some additional security measures had also been put in place at Devonport in preparation for an anti nuclear demonstration that was expected to take place during the weekend of 16/17 November. VANGUARD'S security status is classified as 'Non Vital Property'. This reflects that there are no weapons on board and also the extensive work the submarine and her reactor are undergoing during refit. At the time of the incident twelve contractors were working within the submarine and three Royal Navy personnel from the submarine were on duty but not onboard.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |