| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
21 May 2003 : Column 782W—continued
Correspondence
Mr. Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Medical Research Council to respond to the approach by the Ministry of Defence's Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit, as referred to in his letter of 2 May to Robert G. Wood Smith and Partners. [114862]
Dr. Moonie: The Gulf Veterans' Illnesses Unit received advice from the Medical Research Council on 20 May 2003 and will write to Robert G. Wood-Smith and Partners by the end of May 2003.
HMS Victory
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the annual cost has been of (a) crewing and (b) preserving and maintaining HMS Victory since 2000. [113856]
21 May 2003 : Column 783W
Mr. Ingram: The Ministry of Defence's annual costs for (a) crewing and (b) preserving and maintaining HMS Victory since 2000 are:
| Financial Year (£ million) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000–01 | 2001–02 | 2002–03 | ||
| Crewing | 1,072,000 | 1,148,000 | 1,137,000 | |
| Ticket Revenue | 1,058,694 | 1,018,047 | 1,022,025 | |
| Net Crew cost | 13,630 | 130,419 | 115,211 | |
| Preservation and maintenance | 856,000 | 555,000 | 631,000 | |
The crewing costs include all Naval personnel and civilian staff employed by MOD and are offset by revenue for ticket sales. The preservation and maintenance costs include restoration work aimed at improving the material state of the ship.
Iraq
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he received, from whom and when, between 1 January and 20 April, regarding the threat of looting of antiquities in Iraq; what his Department's response was; and if he will make a statement. [110613]
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 1 May 2003]: The Ministry of Defence was forwarded a letter to the Prime Minister on this issue from the All Party Parliamentary Group, dated 11 February. My hon. Friend the Minister of Defence Procurement (Lord Bach) responded to a Parliamentary Question on this subject from Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn on 26 March 2003, Official Report, column WA81. In addition, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Moonie) replied to a letter of 18 February from the British Council of Archaeology regarding the safeguarding of Iraq's cultural heritage.
Coalition commanders were aware of the risk of looting during the planning and conduct of operations in Iraq. They worked closely to minimise this by restoring law and order as quickly as possible. In addition, the United States and United Kingdom governments have worked together to take steps to help recover any artefacts that have been removed, including a US funded reward scheme for the safe return of antiquities.
Military Bases
Albert Owen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British military bases have been sold to the United States in each of the last 10 years; and whether leasehold arrangements are made for military bases. [114595]
Dr. Moonie: No British military bases have been sold to the United States, and neither have they been granted a lease to occupy any of the sites.
Naval Navigational Aids
Mr. Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list his Department's expenditure on naval navigational aids for each year over the last five years for (a) Northern Ireland, (b) England and Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) each military port in the UK. [114335]
21 May 2003 : Column 784W
Mr. Ingram: The future provision of Marine Services is the subject of a PPP/PFI Acquisition programme. To divulge details of current expenditure could prejudice the fairness of the competition, and the potential for gaining best value for money. I am therefore withholding this information under Exemption 7 of the Code of Access to Government Information (effective management and operations of the public service).
Mr. Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has to review the provision of navigational aids at naval installations in UK waters; [114339]
- (2) what studies have been conducted into the provision of naval navigational aids for (a) military ports and (b) other Ministry of Defence maritime installations in the UK; [114338]
(3) what discussions he has had with other Departments regarding the provision of naval navigational aids by providers other than the MOD; [114336]
(4) what consultations he has had with public and private sector bodies regarding the provision of navigational aids for military ports by other providers within the UK. [114337]
Mr. Ingram: No reviews are planned and no studies have been conducted into the provision of naval navigational aids. However, an Assessment Phase is currently being undertaken for a long term PPP/PFI Acquisition programme for the future provision of Marine Services. These services are currently provided by Serco Denholm, under a Government Owned-Contractor Operated (GOCO) arrangement and by the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service (RMAS), part of the Warship Support Agency. The RMAS are currently responsible for the laying/recovery and annual maintenance of some 205 navigational buoys around the coast of the British Isles. Under current plans, the design authority for navigational buoys and the supply of related mooring materials will also be transferred to the successful bidder.
Discussions took place with the General Lighthouse Authorities (GLA), Non-Departmental Public Bodies sponsored by the Department for Transport, in 2001 to determine whether there was scope for the GLA's to take over the maintenance and upkeep of Ministry of Defence United Kingdom navigational buoys. However, it was subsequently decided not to proceed as such an arrangement would provide little benefit to the MOD. No further discussions on this matter have taken place either with public or private sector bodies.
NHS Consultants (Compensation)
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Ministry of Defence is compensating NHS trusts for consultants now serving in the Gulf. [113900]
Dr. Moonie: All employers who have a reservist mobilised for permanent service may apply for financial assistance to cover costs to the business resulting from the call-out. These include the costs of the initial replacement of the employee, any on-going administration, and retraining the employee when he or she returns.
21 May 2003 : Column 785W
NHS Employees (Gulf Service)
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the contractors of NHS workers serving in the Gulf are being consulted about the length of their service. [113901]
Dr. Moonie : Employers are advised, at the time a Reservist is called-out, that they can expect their employee to be absent for a period of between six and eight months. This is obviously subject to operational requirements. Where possible, the Reserve Forces' and Cadets' Associations (RFCAs), in concert with the Regional Chains of Command, keep local employers of Reservists informed of the details.
Reserve Forces
Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions since May 1997 sponsored reserves have been called up; how many were called up each time and for what service; and if he will make a statement. [113252]
Dr. Moonie: The Royal Navy and the Army have only called out their sponsored reserves on one occasion, namely last March when 36 members of the Royal Naval sponsored reserves and two members of the Army sponsored reserves were called out to support operations in the Gulf. They all have been, or shortly will be, demobilised. Members of the RAF sponsored reserves have been called out on a regular basis since October 2000 but the exact occasions and numbers have not been recorded centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Currently, 18 members of the RAF sponsored reserves are called out for permanent service.
Dr. Murrison: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the bearing of reserve forces by service against requirement was in each year since 1990; and what the current bearing against requirement is. [113963]
Dr. Moonie: The information is set out in the following tables:
| Royal Naval Reserve | Territorial Army | Royal AuxiliaryAir Force | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1990 | 7,000 | 81,900 | 1,722 |
| 1991 | 7,000 | 82,800 | 1,773 |
| 1992 | 7,000 | 80,300 | 1,814 |
| 1993 | 5,600 | 68,700 | 1,765 |
| 1994 | 4,600 | 65,000 | 1,762 |
| 1995 | 3,700 | 59,900 | 1,318 |
| 1996 | 3,500 | 57,300 | 1,188 |
| 1997 | 3,600 | 57,600 | 1,361 |
| 1998 | 3,700 | 57,000 | 1,648 |
| 1999 | 3,800 | 51,800 | 1,724 |
| 2000 | 4,100 | 44,800 | 1,796 |
| 2001 | 4,100 | 41,500 | 1,665 |
| 2002 | 4,100 | 40,300 | 1,582 |
| 2003 | 3,183 | 39,011 | 1,602 |
Source:
DASA (Tri-Service)
21 May 2003 : Column 786W
| Royal Naval Reserve | Territorial Army | Royal AuxiliaryAir Force | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1990 | (5)— | 89,960 | (5)— |
| 1991 | (5)— | 95,068 | (5)— |
| 1992 | (5)— | 79,600 | (5)— |
| 1993 | (5)— | 79,871 | (5)— |
| 1994 | 3,500 | 75,624 | (5)— |
| 1995 | 3,500 | 63,950 | (5)— |
| 1996 | 3,500 | 59,000 | (5)— |
| 1997 | 3,580 | 72,179 | (5)— |
| 1998 | 3,580 | 65,000 | 2,288 |
| 1999 | 3,580 | 47,200 | 2,251 |
| 2000 | 3,580 | 41,024 | 2,235 |
| 2001 | 3,580 | 41,024 | 2,203 |
| 2002 | 3,580 | 41,024 | 2,194 |
| 2003 | 3,231 | 41,893 | 2,224 |
(5) Not available/applicable
Separate figures are not available for the Royal Marines Reserve. However, the current strength of the RMR is 852 against an establishment of 990.
Dr. Murrison: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many resignations from the reserve forces there have been since 1 January; and how many there were in each year since 1990. [113964]
Dr. Moonie: The information requested is not centrally held and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Dr. Murrison: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what recent assessment has been made of the reasons for Reserve Forces personnel choosing to resign; [113965]
- (2) what measures have been taken to reduce the number of resignations from the Reserve Forces. [113966]
Dr. Moonie: Although such information would be held at unit level, there has been no recent centralised assessment of the reasons why Reserve Forces personnel resign. However, there are currently no indications to suggest that the recent call-out of reservists to support Operation TELIC will result in an increased rate of resignation from the Reserve Forces.
As part of the follow-up work that normally accompanies large scale operations, we will be contacting reservists who served on Operation TELIC to identify any lessons that may be learned from their experience.
We shall also be reviewing the relevant legislation to ensure that there are appropriate financial safeguards for both reservists and their employers and that job security is provided.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |