| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
24 Nov 2005 : Column 2201W—continued
Defence Training
Mr. McFadden: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the consortia bidding for the future defence training contracts. [30648]
Mr. Touhig: No Defence Ministers have had discussions with the consortia bidding for the future defence training contracts.
The DTR programme leader and his team have, however, held a very open and consultative dialogue with bidders while they have prepared responses to the Department's invitations to negotiate. 2nd PUS, VCDS and Training Agency chief executives have also all met and held discussions with the bidders' senior CEOs and senior board members. In addition, the wider Ministry of Defence customer community have discussed the MOD's requirement with bidders and trade unions have also met with them.
Mr. McFadden: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make a decision regarding the future consolidation of defence training services. [30649]
Mr. Touhig: I anticipate making an announcement on the preferred solution for the Defence Training Rationalisation programme in late 2006.
Freedom of Information
Mr. Roger Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many freedom of information applications his Department has received; how many have taken more than 20 days to process; and how many of these gave rise to complaints about the time taken. [31209]
Mr. Touhig: The Freedom of Information Act came into force on 1 January 2005. By the end of the second quarter of 2005, that is by 30 June, the Ministry of Defence had received a total of 2,882 requests to disclose information under the Act. During the second quarter, 80 per cent. of requests for information were answered within the 20-day deadline and 83 per cent. within the 20-day deadline or with a permitted extension. 10 complaints concerning the lateness of the original response from the Ministry of Defence had been received by 30 June.
The Department for Constitutional Affairs is committed to publishing quarterly updates in relation to departmental performance under FOI, including information on both the volume and outcomes of requests. The bulletin for the second quarter was published on 30 September 2005 and can be found on the DCA website at http://www.foi.gov.uk/statsapr-jun05.htm and in the Library of the House. The next bulletin will be published before Christmas while an annual report will be published in early 2006.
24 Nov 2005 : Column 2202W
Future Army Structure
Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the timetable is for the implementation of the future Army structure. [31422]
John Reid: Following my predecessor's announcement on 16 December, Official Report, columns 1795–1800, the Army has been working to implement the changes under the future Army structure. This includes the re-rolling of 19 Mechanised Brigade into a Light Brigade. The majority of changes to the Army, including changes to the infantry, will be completed by 2008.
Iraq
Sir Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many insurgents have been (a) injured and (b) killed by UK forces in each month since March 2003. [28805]
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 15 November 2005]: The best record of insurgents killed and injured by the United Kingdom forces are the Significant Actions Reports filed by UK forces following incidents involving hostile forces. The table details the information drawn from this reporting for the period between June 2003 and September 2005. Due to the tempo of operations information on insurgent casualties was not collected centrally before June 2005.
The figures drawn from these reports are not an accurate estimate of Iraqi casualties caused by UK forces, and should not be taken as such. It is not always possible to make an accurate count of Iraqi casualties following hostile contacts. The figures reported are the subjective impression of troops involved in the incidents. There is no way of checking these impressions since UK forces do not risk their own lives to ascertain how many casualties they have caused hostile forces and Iraqi casualties are frequently withdrawn from the area. It is also not always possible to determine who caused the casualties. Sometimes insurgents are killed or injured by the fire of other insurgents, although this number is likely to be small.
(17)Incomplete data available.
24 Nov 2005 : Column 2203W
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions (a) he and (b) his predecessor has had with his US counterpart on operations in Iraq since January 2004; whether ammunition used has been discussed; and if he will make a statement. [30718]
John Reid [holding answer 21 November 2005]: Since January 2004, my predecessor and I have had a number of discussions with our United States counterpart about operations in Iraq. There have been no specific discussions about ammunition used.
Sir Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether personnel employed by private (a) military and (b) security companies contracted to his Department in Iraq are required to record incidents involving the injury or death of Iraqis; [28817]
(2) what legal immunities apply to individuals employed by private (a) military and (b) security companies contracted to his Department in Iraq; [28816]
(3) how many personnel are working for private (a) military and (b) security companies contracted to his Department in (i) Iraq and (ii) Multi-National Division South East in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [28815]
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 17 November 2005]: The Ministry of Defence does not contract any private military companies or private security companies in Iraq, and we hold neither employment records nor company policy documents for those which do operate there. Contractors working for Coalition nations are immune from Iraqi legal process only with respect to acts performed by them pursuant to the terms and conditions of a contract or sub-contract. Otherwise, they must respect all relevant Iraqi laws, including Coalition Provisional Authority order regulations, orders, memoranda and public notices.
Members' Visits
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 7 November 2005, to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), Official Report, column 101W, on Members' visits, if he will list the sites where requests to visit were refused. [29868]
Mr. Touhig: Members of Parliament were refused visits to the following sites:
Military Prosecuting Authorities
Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has for independent oversight of Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force prosecuting authorities once they merge; and if he will make a statement. [29567]
Mr. Touhig: The Army, Navy and Air Force prosecuting authorities are subject to the general superintendence of the Attorney-General. The Armed Forces Bill, to be introduced to Parliament shortly, will provide for the establishment of a single prosecuting authority for all three services, but the superintendence arrangements for the new authority will not change.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |