| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
23 Jun 2005 : Column 1146W—continued
International Criminal Court
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the application of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 to UK service personnel; and what his Department's policy is regarding bringing prosecutions under (a) this Act and (b) other military and civil law. [5160]
Mr. Ingram: It is an offence under the International Criminal Court Act 2001 to commit genocide, a crime against humanity, or a war crime. This applies to any person subject to UK Service jurisdiction, by any UK national, and by any UK resident. UK criminal courts and courts martial have jurisdiction over service personnel for offences under the Act.
Decisions on the prosecution of persons subject to UK service jurisdiction for any criminal offence are matters for the relevant independent prosecuting authorities.
Iraq
Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many agency medical staff have been employed in Iraq since 1 June 2004; and at what cost. [4664]
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 14 June 2005]: 11 agency medical staff have been employed by the MOD in Iraq since 1 June 2004 through two separate contracts. The total value of these two contracts to the Ministry of Defence since 1 June 2004 is £600,573. This figure includes agency staff that have been employed in other theatres of operation; to further breakdown this figure would breach commercial confidentiality.
Joint Combat Aircraft
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the in-service date is for the Joint Combat Aircraft. [3885]
Mr. Ingram:
In-service dates for projects are not set until the main investment decision which is made when we have a clear understanding of the risks, contracting arrangements and robust estimates of cost and time. In the case of the Joint Combat Aircraft this will be the manufacture Main Gate decision point. Our internal planning assumptions are based on an ISD of 2014.
23 Jun 2005 : Column 1147W
Minehunter Submarines
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the recovery of remote-controlled minehunter submarines in respect of (a) retrieval by the Royal Navy and (b) salvage payments to civilians who recover such units. [5557]
Mr. Ingram: The policy relating to the recovery of Royal Navy remote controlled mine hunting submersibles is the same as that for any other item of Royal Navy property lost at sea.
A cost/benefit assessment is carried out, covering issues such as public safety, environmental impact, technical probability of successful recovery, security, operational requirements and the cost of replacing the item. Depending on the outcome of this assessment, a salvage operation may be undertaken.
Salvage payments to civilians, other than those employed by the Ministry of Defence, who recover such items are generally dealt with in accordance with the guidelines set out in the London Salvage Convention 1989.
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many remote-controlled minehunter submarines have been lost by the Royal Navy in each year since 1997; and what the cost has been. [5558]
Mr. Ingram: This information is not held centrally. However, records indicate that since 1997, remote-control mine disposal systems have been used on over 9,500 occasions by the Royal Navy. During this time, five systems have been reported as lost in the course of operations: one in 1998, one in 2003, one in 2004 and a further two in 2005. Two were permanently lost with replacement costs totalling some £778,000. Salvage payments for recovered units over the period amount to just over £50,000.
Ministerial Meetings
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many hon. Members have requested meetings with him since his appointment; and if he will list those he has met. [6615]
John Reid: Together with my ministerial colleagues, I have met many right hon. and hon. Members in the course of my duties as Secretary of State for Defence.
Naval Contingency Plans
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his contingency provisions are for each class of naval ship, in the event that any are unexpectedly put out of commission and need replacing; and if he will make a statement. [6012]
Mr. Ingram: No provision is made specifically for ship loss. In such an event, the requirement for a replacement ship would be considered alongside competing priorities for resources.
Newquay Airport
Mr. Rogerson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will arrange a meeting with the hon.
23 Jun 2005 : Column 1148W
Member for North Cornwall and ministerial colleagues from the Department for Transport to discuss the future of Newquay Airport. [6217]
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 21 June 2005]: I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
North Atlantic Council
Mr. Ancram: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts following the meeting of the North Atlantic Council on 24 May; and if he will make a statement. [5906]
John Reid: I met many of my EU counterparts at the NATO ministerial meeting on 9–10 June, which discussed Darfur among other matters. In addition I have had general discussions with a number of my EU colleagues in recent weeks, including about Darfur.
Personnel and Training Command
Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements will be made for other service units located at RAF Innsworth following the relocation of Personnel and Training Command to RAF High Wycombe. [6218]
Mr. Ingram: The RAF Innsworth site is home to an element of the Armed Forces Personnel Administrative Agency (AFPAA). AFPAA is conducting a separate investment appraisal into the options for their relocation from Innsworth. The result of this will not be known until at least the end of this year.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the ability of RAF High Wycombe to accommodate Personnel and Training Command staff; and what estimate has been made of the cost of changes needed to accommodate those personnel. [6244]
Mr. Ingram: A comprehensive study and investment appraisal has been carried out to assess the efficiencies and effectiveness of collocation which included the provision of office accommodation. The cost of changes required to working accommodation has been estimated at £2.6 million.
Race Relations (Amendment) Act
Keith Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what percentage of staff in his Department have received training on the general and specific duties of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, broken down by (a) ethnicity and (b) grade. [3543]
Mr. Touhig:
It is mandatory for all staff (both civilian and service) to attend Equality and Diversity training when they join the department and at regular intervals while in the department. The content of this training reflects the terms of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. Details are shown in the department's Race Equality Scheme annual publications at: http://www.mod.uk/issues/racial_equality/index.html
23 Jun 2005 : Column 1149W
5,430 civilian staff attended the equality and diversity, equality and diversity for new managers and refresher training courses during the year 2004–05. The following tables show the breakdown by grade and ethnicity.
Notes:
1. Numbers are rounded individually and rounded totals may not be the sum of rounded values.
2. The percentage is of the average strength in that category during the year 2004–05.
3. Civilians from Trading Funds have been excluded from this table.
Notes:
1. Numbers are rounded individually and rounded totals may not be the sum of rounded values.
2. The percentage of total is of the average strength in that category during the year 2004–05.
3. Civilians from Trading Funds have been excluded from this table. Figures for Service personnel are not held centrally and cannot be collated without incurring disproportionate cost.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |