|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Peter Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many applications to join the Army from Northern Ireland were rejected on national security grounds in (a) 200304 and (b) 200405. 
Mr. Touhig: During 2003 nine applications to join the Army from Northern Ireland were rejected on grounds of national security. The figure for rejected applications during 2004 was 39 and up until 21 July 2005 the figure was five.
The figures relate to applications from within Northern Ireland wishing to join the regular Army, including the General Service battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment (R IRISH), and the Home Service battalions of the R IRISH.
Mr. Peter Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many payments have been made in the last five years to members and former members of HM armed forces in compensation for ill-treatment, bullying or harassment experienced while serving; and what the total cost was in each year. 
Mr. Touhig: Compensation relating to common law and Employment Tribunal cases paid to members and former members of HM armed forces for ill-treatment, bullying or harassment experienced while serving and settled during the last five years are as follows:
|Financial year||No of cases||Amount paid (£)|
Mr. Touhig: In October 2004, the Ministry of Defence (MOD set up a team to conduct an extensive review of all military byelaws. An initial appraisal conducted across the defence estate identified in excess of 150 sites, where byelaws require review. A five-year rolling review programme, including priorities, has been drawn up. The Military Lands Act 1892 empowers the Secretary of State for Defence to make a new byelaw. The process takes approximately 18 months in each case. It is intended that the first proposed new byelaw stemming from the review will me made available for public consultation in September 2005. Subject to the outcome of the consultation process, the first new byelaw should come into force in spring 2006.
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all of his Department's facilities in the UK with staff of over 10 personnel, broken down by nation and region of the UK. 
Mr. Touhig: Information on civilian and military personnel is regularly published by DASA at Government Office Region level where it is believed the data is of sufficient quality. Individual defence facilities may hold data at a local level, but centralised systems are not able to provide a reliable breakdown to this level of detail.
UK Regular Forces Distribution across UK (TSP10) reports the number of military personnel by nation, government office region and local authority. A copy of which can be found in the Library of the House, showing data at 1 July 2004. UK Regular Forces Distribution across UK (TSP10) at 1 April 2005 will be available later this year.
|By Government Office Region|
|Yorkshire and The Humber||3,790|
|Royal Fleet Auxiliaries||2,350|
|Civilian Level 1||82,030|
|Trading Funds United Kingdom||10,590|
|Trading Funds Overseas||40|
|Trading Fund Unallocated(11)||150|
|Locally Engaged Civilians||15,660|
|Civilian Level 0||108,470|
Mr. Burrowes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Diana Elias, of Enfield Southgate, is eligible for a £10,000 award under the ex-gratia scheme for British groups interned by the Japanese during the Second World War. 
[holding answer 21 July 2005]: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has appealed the High Court decision of 7 July 2005 that the birthlink criteria used to determine the eligibility of civilian internees under the ex-gratia payment scheme for former Far East Prisoner of War and Civilian Internees resulted in unlawful indirect race discrimination. It was these birthlink criteria that Mrs Elias did not meet. Until the legal proceedings have been concluded and a lawful basis for the civilian element of the scheme established, the initial decision that Mrs Elias was ineligible for a £10,000 award remains the subject of review. I wish to see a proper
12 Sept 2005 : Column 2282W
resolution of the case quickly, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has agreed that the appeal is appropriate for expedition in the Court of Appeal lists given the advanced age of the claimant herself and of other former internees who have a direct interest in the outcome of the case.
Mr. Touhig [holding answer 21 July 2005]: Departmental information systems cannot provide a breakdown of War Disablement Claims by major disability" as this level of medical data is not available. It is however possible to provide information on the percentage disability awarded of first claims cleared each year since 200001, and this is given as follows:
|Awarded 20 per cent. + disability||2,485||2,590||2,065||1,840||1,720|
|Awarded 119 per cent. disability||3,900||4,375||3,370||3,295||3,450|
|Awarded 0 per cent. disability||2,910||2,705||2,315||1,935||1,590|
Mr. Ingram: The revised estimate of the procurement cost of FRES reflects the increase in the number of vehicles we plan to procure to around 3,500. Studies being conducted during the assessment phase are aimed at developing a series of options for meeting the requirement and the outcome of these studies will include information that will enable us to formulate reliable whole life cost estimates.
Mr. Henderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent by his Department and public bodies and agencies for which he is responsible on security contracts with Group 4 Securicor in 200405; and if he will list (a) the nature and location of services provided and (b) the start and end dates of such contracts. 
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 21 July 2005]: The Ministry of Defence paid Group 4 Securicor companies a total of £153,190 including VAT in the period 200405 for the provision of security and security-related services to various sites in England and Scotland. It would not be possible, without incurring disproportionate cost, to specify the detailed services provided under each contract, nor, for security reasons would I be prepared to give detailed information on security measures taken at individual sites. Locations and contract periods are given in the following table:
|Location||Contract Start||Contract End|
|Avon||December 1995||December 2005|
|Avon||July 1999||July 2006|
|Berkshire||July 2001||July 2005|
|Cheshire||April 1999||March 2005|
|Devon/Cornwall||August 2001||August 2006|
|Dorset||August 2000||August 2003(12)|
|Gloucestershire||February 2001||February 2005|
|Gloucestershire||September 2002||April 2005|
|Strathclyde||August 2000||July 2005|
|Surrey||August 2003||July 2004|
|Sussex||March 2001||April 2004|
|Sussex||April 2001||April 2004|
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|