| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8 Nov 2004 : Column 548W—continued
Chile (Rover Class Tanker)
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with (a) the Chilean Government, (b) the Chilean navy and (c) others concerning the transfer of a Rover class tanker to Chile. [194682]
8 Nov 2004 : Column 549W
Mr. Ingram: In response to an approach from the Head of the Chilean Naval Mission in London in July 2003 concerning the availability for sale of RFA Rover Class and other naval ship types, the Ministry of Defence's Disposal Services Agency (DSA) informed him that, in line with current plans, no Rover Class tankers would be decommissioned from service until later in the decade. This issue was subsequently raised by the Chilean Navy in September 2004. There have been no discussions with any other parties.
Departmental Expenditure Limit
Mr. Keith Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's cash Departmental Expenditure Limit is for the current financial year. [196464]
Mr. Ingram: The Ministry of Defence has been set Departmental Expenditure Limits for Resource and Capital expenditure only. However, the Department's programme this year is expected to remain within a 'cash equivalent' (Resource DEL plus Capital DEL less anticipated depreciation and Cost of Capital costs) of £26.5 billion as set out in "Spending Review 2004, New Public Spending Plans 2005–08" (HM Treasury July 2004. Cm 6237) and, subject to any changes voted in Supplementary Estimates within the total cash figure voted by Parliament in Main Estimates (HC 466, April 2004) of £28.6 billion.
Departmental Secondments
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff in his Department and its agencies were seconded from the (a) private and (b) academic sector in each of the last three years. [175364]
Mr. Caplin: The information requested is set out in the following table:
| Financial year | Private sector | Academic sector |
|---|---|---|
| 2003–04 | 24 | 1 |
| 2002–03 | 14 | 0 |
| 2001–02 | 3 | 0 |
EU Battlegroups
Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 28 October 2004, Official Report, column 1367W, on EU battlegroups, who has command of a battlegroup once it has been deployed; and to whom the commander will be directly responsible. [196213]
Mr. Hoon:
Any deployed EU battlegroup would have a force commander and an operation commander. The force commander would be determined on a case-by-case basis. For a battlegroup operating under the Berlin Plus arrangements, the operation commander would be DSACEUR. For a battlegroup not operating under the Berlin Plus arrangements, the operation commander would be determined on a case-by-case basis. We would expect them to be drawn from the nation or nations making the major troop contributions to the battlegroup concerned.
8 Nov 2004 : Column 550W
As with all EU operations, the political control of a battlegroup mission, including any decisions appointing commanders, would rest with the 25 member states, acting by unanimity through the Political and Security Committee (PSC). The force commander of a deployed battlegroup would be directly responsible to the operation commander, who would be directly responsible to the PSC.
Iraq (Depleted Uranium)
Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the letter written by his Department's legal adviser to the legal secretary to the Law Officers dated 12 March 2003, in respect of the legal position on taking military action against Iraq, to which reference is made in paragraph 382, page 95, of the Butler Committee Report on intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, HC898. [185191]
Mr. Hoon: The correspondence to which paragraph 382 of the Butler Committee Report refers was considered by the Committee, and is covered by legal professional privilege. I am withholding the letter under Exemptions 2 and 4 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
Military Personnel (Commonwealth)
Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentages of the (a) Guards, (b) Scottish, (c) Queen's, (d) King's, (e) Prince of Wales's and (f) Light divisions are comprised of personnel from Commonwealth countries. [196218]
Mr. Caplin: The following table shows the percentages of the personnel from Commonwealth countries in (a) Guards, (b) Scottish, (c) Queens, (d) Kings, (e) Prince of Wales and (f) Light divisions. Figures relate to Regular Army trained officers and soldiers as at 1 September 2004.
| (27)Commonwealth percentage | |
|---|---|
| Footguards | 2.3 |
| Scots divisions | 5.9 |
| Queens divisions | 8.9 |
| Kings divisions | 5.2 |
| Prince of Wales divisions | 5.2 |
| Light divisions | 7.5 |
(27) Excluding UK
Missile Defence
Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the written statement of 12 October 2004, Official Report, columns 9–10WS, on missile defence, what the (a) names and (b) qualifications are of the United Kingdom appointments to the (i) Executive Steering Committee and (ii) Senior Management Committee of the joint US/UK Ballistic Missile Defence programme. [195412]
Mr. Hoon:
The United Kingdom is represented on the Executive Steering Committee by the Ministry of Defence's Chief Scientific Advisor, Professor Roy Anderson, whose qualifications are available on the MOD website. The name of the UK's representative on the Senior Management Committee is being withheld in accordance with Exemption 12 to the Code of Practice
8 Nov 2004 : Column 551W
on Access to Government Information, as are details of their qualifications. No specific qualifications are stipulated for these appointments, which are made on the basis of the individuals' current posts, experience and technical expertise.
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he expects that the United Kingdom will receive funding from the United States for arrangements provided for the facilitation of its missile defence programme; what the latest estimate is of what it would cost the United Kingdom to have the missile defence programme cover defence of the UK mainland; and if he will make a statement. [196401]
Mr. Hoon: I do not expect to receive funding for the new arrangements at RAF Fylingdales, since the United States have borne the full cost of upgrading the radar for missile defence purposes. The only other arrangements with the US in the missile defence field cover cooperative research and development programmes, for which there is no agreed budget with the US. Under the terms of the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Annex MOU, announced to the House on 12 October, Official Report, columns 9–10WS, any such funding will be agreed on a project-by-project basis; to date there are no agreed projects. Regarding costs for the protection of the United Kingdom, the Government have taken no decisions about the need for such protection, nor the architecture and systems required. Since costs would be very dependent on these factors, as well as on the level of involvement that might be agreed with allies, it is not possible to give an estimate.
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Government have received a request in connection with the stationing of missiles as part of the United States' Missile Defence Programme; and if he will make a statement. [196402]
Mr. Hoon: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 28 October 2004, Official Report, column 1372W, to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell).
Nuclear Materials Transport
Mr. Chaytor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department is providing military support to the BNFL ships due to transport weapons grade plutonium from Charleston to Cherbourg; and if he will make a statement. [190097]
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 11 October 2004]: The Ministry of Defence did not provide support to the BNFL ships transporting plutonium from the USA to France.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |