Mr. Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the effects of the aircraft carrier programme on funding for other major defence procurement projects. 
Mr. Ingram: The Ministry of Defence's annual planning process reviews the affordability of all equipment projects and other defence expenditure. This process is not, however, a question of one programme versus another" but of how best our overall capability priorities can be matched to the resources available. The future carriers remain key elements of our equipment programme.
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of its personnel budget the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory spent in Scotland (a) in monetary terms and (b) as a percentage of the total personnel budget in (i) 200203 and (ii) 200304; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Ingram: In FY 200203 the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) spent £868,818 of its personnel budget in Scotland, this was 0.70 per cent. of the total Dstl personnel budget. In FY 200304 Dstl spent £863,586 which was 0.66 per cent. of the total personnel budget.
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of its personnel budget for each financial year since 199798 the Defence Intelligence and Security Centre spent in Scotland (a) in monetary terms and (b) as a percentage of the total personnel budget for that year; how many personnel were employed in Scotland in each case; and if he will make a statement. 
HMS Quorn is currently undergoing a scheduled period of upkeep at Rosyth, which is expected to complete in the summer, when she will return to full operational duty.
10 Feb 2005 : Column 1630W
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which (a) hon. Members and (b) former officers made representations to the Army Board making a decision on the new name for the Lancashire Regiment. 
Mr. Ingram: Last year, the Army considered how best to implement the move to larger regiments and the reduction of four infantry battalions. This involved a wide-ranging and detailed consultation exercise, with the infantry being invited to express their views on how the restructuring should be implemented. Colonels of individual regiments, a number of whom are retired officers, were directly involved in the consultation via the Colonels Commandants of the Divisions of Infantry (who count among their number former, as well as current, Service personnel). The latter were responsible for representing the views of their Divisions to Executive Committee of the Army Board (ECAB); each was invited to address the Committee in person in early December. The Chief of the General Staff also received a small number of letters from retired officers.
The outcome of the ECAB's deliberations, announced on 16 December by the Secretary of State for Defence, included the name of King's, Lancashire and Border Regiment for the new regiment. I am not aware of any hon. Members having made representations to the ECAB; though a number have, of course, expressed their views to Ministers by the usual means.
Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 11 January 2005, Official Report, column 376W, on ministerial visits, if he will list the dates of each return flight. 
Mr. Ingram: On the four occasions that the Secretary of State for Defence visited Iraq he flew out of Basra on 23 April 2003, 21 October 2003, 14 June 2004 and 8 December 2004. With the exception of the June 2004 flight, which returned to the United Kingdom, the Secretary of State flew from Basra to other destinations in the Middle East.
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what radar equipment (a) has recently been and (b) is planned to be transferred to RAF Machrihanish from other operating RAF bases; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Ingram: Rosyth Royal Dockyard has provided a significant element of Royal Navy surface ship refit work for many years and should continue to do so as we move towards a fully competitive programme. While no decisions have been made, Rosyth is one of four yards named in 2003 as having the potential to be involved in the construction and assembly of the new future aircraft carriers.
Mr. George Osborne: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many targets have been set in each year since 1997 by the Department; and, of these, which have been (a) met, (b) nearly met, (c) not met, (d) changed and (e) dropped. 
Mr. Ingram: Typhoon will represent a major improvement in UK air defence capability compared with the current Tornado F3. The introduction of Tranche 2 Typhoon in addition to the Tranche 1 aircraft will enable the F3 to be phased out by the end of decade.
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of its personnel budget the UK Hydrographic Office spent in Scotland in (a) monetary terms and (b) as a percentage of the total personnel budget in financial year (i) 200304 and (ii) 200203; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Caplin: In the financial year 200304 the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office spent £89,000 on personnel in Scotland compared to £78,000 in 200203. In both years this approximates to 0.3 per cent. of total UKHO personnel costs.
Hartlepool Partnership contributed a dossier to the Lyons Review of Public Sector Relocation on 12 September 2003. A submission was also received
10 Feb 2005 : Column 1632W
from Tees Valley Development Company representing the Tees Valley sub-region, which also covers Hartlepool.
Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister what applications were made to his office during January under the Freedom of Information Act 2000; what applications were turned down, and for what reasons; what the average cost of discovery and distribution of each such request was; and how many requests were answered within the statutory 20 day period. 
The Cabinet Office received 532 applications under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, during January 2005. Those requests for which a reply was due by Friday 4 February 2005, have received a response. The responses have included replies: providing the information requested in full or in part; indicating that the information is not held by the Department; declining to provide the information requested citing one or more exemptions; seeking to narrow down the request; or seeking more time for consideration of the public interest balance in favour of disclosure. It is not possible to give an average cost of discovery and distribution of each request.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|