| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6 Nov 2006 : Column 822W—continued
This publicity was considered the most appropriate at the time the errors were established and during the review period. There are no plans to increase the level of awareness for Projects Haven and Scribe as we are confident that we have identified all those affected and
have made the necessary corrections plus interest and compensation payments where appropriate.
The criteria for the payment of compensation in Project Haven and Scribe was set out in written ministerial statements on 15 December 2003, Official Report, column 130WS, and 15 June 2004, Official Report, column 26WS, respectively.
In his written ministerial statement of 11 July 2006, Official Report, columns 60-61WS, my predecessor reported that some 5,500 pension awards under both projects had been corrected at a cost of £32.4 million plus some £18.2 million paid in compensation. Approximately 1,600 individuals whose pension or tax status was corrected did not receive compensation. There are a number of reasons why an individual may not have received compensation, for example, an individual's pension was recorded as “taxable”, however, as the value of the pension was below the tax threshold, they had not paid tax.
The Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency (AFPAA) was responsible for assessing the entitlement to compensation in each case according to the methodology set by the Department. There are no independent procedures in place to ensure that the individual's assessment is correct; however, AFPAA’s own internal project team undertook an audit on a proportion of the cases. The compensation methodology was available to all individuals and if an individual considers that this has not been followed AFPAA will investigate and provide a detailed breakdown of the compensation. Likewise where an individual has not received compensation and they consider that they should have, the appeal will be considered initially under the Department's statutory Internal Dispute Resolution procedures. Following this appeal route an individual may seek the services of the Occupational Pensions Advisory Service and the pensions ombudsman, both of whom are independent.
Proliferation Security Initiative
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in how many operations the Royal Navy took part in 2005 as part of the Proliferation Security Initiative; and in how many such operations it has taken part in 2006. [98558]
Des Browne: The Royal Navy has not taken part in any operations as part of the Proliferation Security Initiative in 2005 or 2006.
QinetiQ
Mr. Hancock:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps his Department has taken to ensure that former directors of QinetiQ now working for the
Investment Approvals Board have no conflict of interest relating to projects for which QinetiQ is bidding. [93372]
Mr. Ingram: None of the current members of the Ministry of Defence's Investment Approvals Board (IAB) are, or ever have been, directors of QinetiQ.
Service Personnel
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the full complement is of (a) doctors, (b) nurses and (c) dentists in the (i) Army, (ii) Royal Air Force and (iii) Royal Navy; how many are employed in each category; and if he will make a statement. [89623]
Derek Twigg: The two key outputs of the Defence Medical Services (DMS) are medical support to deployed operations, and the provision of health care to the armed forces to ensure that the maximum possible numbers of armed forces personnel are fit for purpose. The DMS will continue to deliver both outputs, working where appropriate with coalition partners, the NHS, private health care providers and the charity sector. The DMS have met all operational requirements placed on them. Medical support to deployed operations is absolutely vital and there is no question of British forces deploying on military operations without the appropriate medical support.
The current official, formally endorsed DMS manning requirement figures were drawn up as a consequence of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) in 1998. Since then, however, overall defence planning assumptions have changed and DMS manning requirement figures have evolved. In order to support the defence planning assumptions contained within Defence Strategic Guidance 03, the Defence Medical Capability (DMC) Phase 2 Study was carried out. The DMC study produced interim revised DMS manning requirement figures which more accurately reflect defence planning assumptions and have thus overtaken the SDR figures. Indeed, the Ministry of Defence has previously released elements of the interim revised manning requirements, in anticipation of a new definitive set of figures (as in a previous answer to the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean on 9 February 2006, Official Report, column 1402W).
However, the DMC figures are themselves only interim. The overall DMS manning requirement is currently under review against the strategic requirement, and the figures will change. I anticipate that new endorsed DMS manning requirement figures will be available later this year.
The following table show the manning levels as at July 2006 in the specialties of general medical practitioners, nurses and dental officers (requirement figures shown are the SDR figures and the DMC figures, but as explained, these are being revised):
Jim Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints about incorrect pay have been received from service personnel in each of the services in each year since 2001. [92809]
Derek Twigg: Prior to Joint Personnel Administration (JPA) rollout to the RAF on 20 March 2006, pay complaints were dealt with by the individual's unit human resources staff and details of the number of complaints received were not held centrally. This will continue to be the case for the Royal Navy and the Army until rollout on 23 October 2006 and March 2007 respectively.
As at 10 October 2006, 526 complaints had been received from RAF personnel via the centralised JPA complaints process about real or apparent problems with pay or the handling of a query.
Stress
Mark Pritchard: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much public funding was given to Combat Stress in 2005-06. [97095]
Derek Twigg: The MOD provided £2.3 million funding to Combat Stress in 2005-06. Funds are provided through the War Pensions Scheme’s discretionary power to meet the cost of any necessary expenses in respect of medical, surgical or rehabilitative treatment of ex-members of the armed forces that arise wholly or mainly as a result of disablement due to service before 6 April 2005 where it is not provided for under other UK legislation. This includes the individual costs of war pensioners undergoing “remedial treatment” at homes run by Combat Stress for conditions related to their individual pensioned disablement and of related expenses such as travel costs. In addition, Combat Stress receives separate funding from the Scottish Health Board for war pensioners treatment at Hollybush House.
Trident
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the originally planned lifespan of the Vanguard-class Trident submarines is (a) 25 and (b) 30 years. [98170]
Des Browne [holding answer 1 November 2006]: The Vanguard-class submarines were procured with a designed operational life of 25 years.
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when a decision will have to be made on whether or not to participate in the Trident D5 missile life extension programme; and what the estimated cost is of participating in the programme. [98560]
Des Browne [holding answer 31 October 2006]: It remains our intention that decisions on the future of the UK’s nuclear deterrent will be taken later this year, following which we will publish a White Paper. In this context, previously we have indicated in our response (published on 26 July 2006) to the First HCDC report on the Future of the UK’s Strategic Nuclear Deterrent, that one of the early decisions required relates to possible UK participation in the life extension programme for the Trident D5 missile. The estimated costs of the options available for maintaining our nuclear deterrent will be set out in the White Paper.
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what method will be used for the decommissioning of Trident; and over what time scale he expects the decommissioning to take place. [98726]
Des Browne [holding answer 1 November 2006]: Decommissioning of the current Trident system is still some way off. It is therefore too early to discuss the precise methods that will be used to decommission Trident and over what time scales this will take place. Officials are however investigating these as part of the work to prepare for decisions, which will be taken later this year, on the future of the United Kingdom’s nuclear deterrent.
UN Security Resolution 1325
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make an assessment of the feasibility of including a mandatory module on UN Security Council resolution 1325 in armed forces operational training and guidance; [98583]
(2) what steps have been taken by his Department to increase awareness of UN Security Council resolution 1325 throughout the armed forces; [98584]
(3) what measures are in place to promote among members of the armed forces recognition of the disproportionate impact of conflict on women and girls. [98585]
Mr. Ingram: The provisions of UNSCR 1325 are reflected in the training of UK service personnel in the Law of Armed Conflict and in the pre-deployment preparations. In addition, pre-deployment planning covers social and cultural issues, including specific gender issues that should be taken into account. The MOD has also commissioned an audit of the existing training provision, against both the resolution itself and the training outcomes identified in the UN’s own training package on the resolution. The results of the audit should allow us to show more clearly how training is compliant, while also helping us identify any further training needs.
Veterans
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what health services are being provided to veterans of the Falkland Islands war. [98030]
Derek Twigg: Health care for veterans of the Falkland Islands conflict who are still serving is provided by the Defence Medical Services. Once they leave the armed forces, responsibility passes to the NHS, as it does for all former UK-based service personnel. If a veteran is also a war pensioner then he or she will be entitled to priority NHS treatment for the accepted condition(s); priority is decided by the clinician in charge and is subject to clinical need. The Government also funds care provided by the Ex-Services Mental Welfare Society (Combat Stress) for those with an appropriate condition accepted as being caused or made worse by service.
Treasury
Climate Change
Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his timetable is for discussing the Stern review on the economics of climate change with (a) UK (i) business and (ii) environmental stakeholders and (b) the European Union and other international decision makers. [100144]
John Healey: The Chancellor will incorporate discussions of the review of the economics of climate change into his regular discussions with UK business, environmental stakeholders, the EU and international decision makers.
Departmental Estate
Mr. Francois: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much floor space his Department occupies. [98032]
John Healey [holding answer 30 October 2006]: The net internal area of 1 Horse Guards Road is 31,200 sq m. The building is occupied by staff of the Cabinet Office and the Office of Government Commerce as well as by the Treasury, and also provides support facilities shared with HMRC staff in 100 Parliament Street.
Departmental Expenditure
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 18 October 2006, Official Report, column 1256W, on gym facilities (HM Treasury), whether his Department subsidises the gymnasium. [97880]
John Healey: The Treasury provides accommodation for the gym in 1 Horse Guards Road. Running costs and equipment costs are met from membership subscriptions.
Departmental IT
Mr. Francois: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which IT contracts awarded by his Department in 2001-02 were subsequently abandoned; and what the value was of each such contract. [99386]
John Healey: I refer the hon. Member to the answerI gave to the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) on9 October 2006, Official Report, column 285W.
Mr. Prisk: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much his Department spent on IT consultants in each year since 2001; and how many of those consultants worked on web-facing projects. [97555]
John Healey: The information requested is not readily available as the Department’s financial systems do not separately record all amounts spent on consultancy for IT projects, or the element of consultancy that is given to web-facing projects.
Departmental Staff
Harry Cohen: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his Department will (a) carry out an age audit of its staff to establish an age profile of its work force, (b) negotiate an age management policy with trade unions and employees to eliminate age discrimination and retain older workers, (c) identify and support training needs and offer older staff flexible working to downshift towards retirement and (d) extend to over-fifties the right to request to work flexibly and the right to training with paid time off; and if he will make a statement. [96504]
John Healey: The Treasury carries out regular age audits of its staff and has established an age profile of its work force. All human resources policies are under review, in consultation with the trade unions, to ensure that they comply with the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006.
Mr. Francois: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many members of staff left his Department due to bullying, discrimination or harassment in the last 12 months. [97970]
John Healey: There is no record of any member of staff of the Treasury having left the Department in the last 12 months as a result of bullying, discrimination or harassment.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |