18 Apr 2006 : Column 1W
Written Answers to Questions
The following answers were received between Friday 31 March and Thursday 13 April 2006
DEFENCE
Air Accidents
Mr. Chope: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rights of appeal are available to parties to the Board of Inquiry into the USAF F-15 accident in Scotland on 26 March 2001. [62826]
Mr. Touhig: Normally the findings of a Board of Inquiry are not open to appeal and there is no statutory appeal mechanism within the Air Force Act 1955. However a person subject to air force law who thinks himself wronged in relation to any matter relating to his Service may, by virtue of section 180 Air Force Act 1955, submit a Redress of Complaint through the chain of command to the Air Force Board acting as the Defence Council. Any airman so affected, by the findings of a Board, could lodge such a Redress but the complaint must normally have been lodged within three months of the commission of the wrong complained of. A decision of the Air Force Board is susceptible to judicial review proceedings in the High Court.
Secondly, and extra-regulationally, if new and significant evidence became available, in relation to an accident, which might have a bearing on issues of causation, and at the sole discretion of the Convening Authority, it would be open to the Convening Authority to re-open the BOI for the Board to reconsider its findings in the light of any new and compelling evidence.
Mr. Chope: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the reason was for the amount of time taken for completion of the Board of Inquiry into the USAF F-15 accident on 26 March 2001. [62827]
Mr. Touhig: Completion of the Board of Inquiry was delayed awaiting the outcome of Court Martial proceedings and to allow the air traffic controller to fully exercise his rights under Queens Regulations 1269 to comment on the Board report.
Mr. Chope: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date briefing of the next-of-kin of the pilots on the contents of the Board of Inquiry into the USAF F-15 accident in Scotland on 26 March 2001 commenced; and upon what date it was completed. [62828]
Mr. Touhig: At the express request of the next of kin, no briefing was given but copies of the complete Board of Inquiry were passed to them through their solicitor in December 2005.
Army
Mr. Ancram:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many infantry (a) reserve forces,
18 Apr 2006 : Column 2W
(b) tanks, (c) armoured vehicles and (d) helicopters are (i) available to and (ii) deployable by the Army; and what the equivalent numbers were in 2000. [42630]
Mr. Ingram: The following tables set out both personnel and equipment available to the Army as at January 2006 and shows the figures for 2000. In principle the equipment and personnel could be deployed in the appropriate circumstances.
| Personnel | 2000 | 2006 |
|---|---|---|
| Regular Army Total Trained Infantry Strengths | 25,140 | 24,350 |
| Territorial Army (TA) Strengths | 45,590 | 37,500 |
| of which: | ||
| are OTC | 5,090 | 5,690 |
| of which: | ||
| are Mobilised TA personnel | 690 | 1,080 |
Notes:
1.Regular Army Trained Infantry Strengths include all trained officers and soldiers who are Infantry capbadged and exclude all personnel who are posted to the Infantry.
2.TA Strengths exclude NRPS and FTRS.
a.UKTAP (UK Trained Adult Personnel)—UKTAP includes those on Long Service List (LSL) engagement. UKTAP posts can be filled by Full Time Reserve Service, but the strength figures do not include FTRS. However, FTRS figures can be provided on request.
b.MTM—Manning and Training Margin. The MTM provides liability cover to prevent gaps being left in units when personnel become unavailable for certain manning and training reasons (DCI(A) 54/03).
3.Equipment includes only that equipment operated by Army personnel.
Army Training
Mr. Letwin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what army regulations determined the obligation of the army to complete basic training for servicemen referred to in his Department's answer of 7 June 2004, Official Report, column 215W. [61881]
Mr. Touhig [holding answer 28 March 2006]: The requirement for National Servicemen to complete basictraining was set out in the War Office booklet Regulations for National Service Men in the Army.
Capita Group
Chris Grayling:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much business his Department has placed with (a) Capita Group plc and (b) its subsidiaries in each of the last five years; what the total value is of outstanding contracts placed with Capita Group plc and its subsidiaries by his Department; for which current tenders issued by his Department (i) Capita Group plc and (ii) its subsidiaries have been invited to bid; and whether (A) Capita Group plc and (B) its
18 Apr 2006 : Column 3W
subsidiaries have seconded staff (1) temporarily and (2)on a longer-term basis to (X) his Department and (Y)its agencies. [61087]
Mr. Ingram: The following table provides the information requested on the value of business and outstanding contracts that the Ministry of Defence has with Capita Group plc and its subsidiaries for the last five financial years. Contract information has been taken from the centrally held Defence Bills Agency database and tender information from the MOD Defence Contract Bulletin (DCB) and The Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU). This centrally held data (which captures information on proposed contracts over approximately £100,000 in value) records no current invitations to tender with Capita Group plc or its subsidiaries.
On the question of secondments from Capita to the MOD, the MOD Interchange Programme sets out the broad policy direction for industry secondees but does not hold detailed personal information about secondees working in the MOD. Accordingly, while we can provide information concerning the reported total number of civilian staff seconded to MOD over the last three years, we are unable to identify whether the secondments are from Capita Group plc or its subsidiaries. This level of information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost from local budget holders across the MOD.
Note:
Column (d) does not give the value of outstanding payments due to the company; it gives, as requested, the value of contracts not yet complete. So, for example, the contract value of £7.5 million in 2002–03 has to date had payments of £3.6 million made against it.
James Brokenshire:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the value of contracts held by his Department with (a) Capita plc and (b) its subsidiaries was in the last three financial years; [61441]
18 Apr 2006 : Column 4W
(2) how many tenders (a) Capita plc and (b) its subsidiaries has submitted to his Department in each of the last three years; and how many tenders were successful; [61442]
(3) how many contracts his Department holds with (a) Capita plc and (b) its subsidiaries which have a potential duration of five years or more. [61443]
Mr. Ingram: The following tables provide the information requested on value and duration of contracts held by Ministry of Defence with the Capita Group Plc and its subsidiaries for the last three financial years, along with information about the numbers of tenders invited and the number of tenders won. There are no current contracts that have a potential duration of five years or more.
Contract information has been taken from the centrally held Defence Bills Agency database and tender information from the MOD Defence Contract Bulletin (DCB) and The Official Journal of the European Union (OJEU).
Where advertising in the DCB and the OJEU is not a requirement we have no central record of tenders invited and it would amount to disproportionate cost to collate such information.
| Financial Year | Tenders invited(1) | Contracts awarded |
|---|---|---|
| 2005–06 | 4 | 3 |
| 2004–05 | 8 | 5 |
| 2003–04 | 6 | 3 |
| Total | 18 | 11 |
(1)Source: DCB and OJEU
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |