| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
20 Mar 2007 : Column 749W—continued
In addition, ACGS occupies substitute single service accommodation rented from a private landlord at a cost to the MOD of £1,434.38 per month.
All service personnel living in accommodation personally pay charges appropriate to the size and condition of the property they occupy, deducted at source from their salaries.
The houses occupied by the Adjutant General and CinC Land are rented properties. The house occupied by CGS is leased from the Crown estate. The MOD has not therefore assessed the market value of these properties.
The house occupied by GOC NI is owned by the MOD and is located within a barracks behind the wire. The current asset register value for the house is £66,306 but this does not represent the market value. No assessment of market value has been carried out.
Army: Manpower
Mr. Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many members of the armed forces are assigned to the household of the (a) Adjutant General and (b) Chief of the General Staff; [118180]
(2) how many members of the armed forces are assigned to the households of members of the Army Board. [118183]
Derek Twigg: The Army Board consists of the Secretary of State for Defence, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the Minister of State for Defence Equipment and Support, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the Chief of the General Staff, the Second Permanent Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Commander in Chief Land Command, Adjutant General, Assistant Chief of the General Staff, the Director General of Land Equipment, Master General of the Ordnance and General Officer Commanding (Northern Ireland).
Of the 12 members of the Army Board, four have members of the armed forces assigned to their households; the Chief of the General Staff has two, Commander in Chief Land has two, the Adjutant General has one, and the General Officer Commanding (Northern Ireland) has two.
These figures do not include drivers or any other position related staff.
Army: Northern Ireland
Mr. Donaldson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether (a) general service soldiers, (b) full-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment Home Service, (c) part-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment Home Service, (d) full-time soldiers who served with the Ulster Defence Regiment and (e) part-time soldiers who served with the Ulster Defence Regiment are automatically entitled to be members of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. [128628]
Derek Twigg
[holding answer 19 March 2007]: General service soldiers and full-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment Home Service are automatically entitled to be members of one of the Armed Forces Pension Schemes. Full-time soldiers who served with the Ulster Defence Regiment had an automatic entitlement to be
members of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme 1975 (AFPS 75). Part-time members of the Royal Irish Home Service are not entitled to be members of one of the Armed Forces Pension Schemes. Similarly, part-time soldiers who served with the Ulster Defence Regiment were not entitled to be members of the AFPS 75 Scheme.
The policy in relation to the non-pensionable status of part-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment is currently being challenged through an industrial tribunal.
Mr. Donaldson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether (a) general service soldiers, (b) full-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment Home Service, (c) part-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment Home Service, (d) full-time soldiers who served with the Ulster Defence Regiment and (e) part-time soldiers who served with the Ulster Defence Regiment contribute directly from their pay into the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. [128629]
Derek Twigg [holding answer 19 March 2007]: None of these groups make a contribution from their pay into the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. When setting pay levels for all personnel up to Brigadier and equivalents, the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB) looks at a range of factors in their consideration of overall pay comparability. Pension is just one of these factors. The AFPRB then makes an adjustment to comparator earnings to reflect the value of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) benefits compared with the pension benefits of comparator employees.
Mr. Donaldson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what benefits have been provided since 1977 by the Armed Forces Pension Scheme to (a) general service soldiers, (b) full-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment Home Service, (c) part-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment Home Service, (d) full-time soldiers who served with the Ulster Defence Regiment and (e) part-time soldiers who served with the Ulster Defence Regiment and the (i) widows, (ii) widowers and (iii) children of such soldiers. [128631]
Derek Twigg [holding answer 19 March 2007]: The Army Pensions Warrant 1977 contains details of all the pension benefits provided under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme 1975 (AFPS 75). SI 438/2005 and SI 717/2006 (Amendment) contain details of all the pension benefits provided under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme 2005 (AFPS 05). These have already been placed in the Library. However, part-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment Home Service, part-time soldiers who served with the Ulster Defence Regiment and their dependants are not entitled to pensions under the Armed Forces Pension Schemes.
The policy in relation to the non-pensionable status of part-time members of the Royal Irish Regiment is being challenged through an industrial tribunal.
Cluster Munitions
Mr. Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the outcomes of the Oslo conference on cluster munitions were; how his Department plans to implement the agreement reached at the conference; and if he will make a statement. [124539]
Mr. Ingram: The UK supported the Oslo Declaration, committing us to work towards a new legally binding instrument on certain types of cluster munition that cause unacceptable harm to civilians. The UK's interpretative statement at Oslo explains how this fits with our national policy. We will continue to pursue the intent agreed at Oslo with all the users and producers through the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) and other relevant forums.
Mr. Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what he expects the effects of the outcome of the Oslo conference on cluster munitions to be on the Government's maintenance of stockpiles of (a) dumb and (b) not-dumb cluster munitions; and if he will make a statement. [124540]
Dr. Kumar: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's policy is on the use of the UK's stockpiled cluster bombs, following the Oslo conference, broken down by type of cluster bomb. [127194]
Mr. Ingram: On 4 December 2006 we stated in a Written Ministerial Statement the UK position on cluster munitions and that we would withdraw dumb variants by the middle of the next decade. On 15 December, in debate in the House of Lords, we explained that we were examining the possibility of bringing this date forward. We have now completed our assessment and, as we stated in a Written Ministerial Statement on 20 March 2007, we will now withdraw our two dumb cluster munition variants, the RBL755 and MLRS M26, with immediate effect. We shall retain our other cluster munition, the ERBS M85, which we do not deem to be a dumb cluster munition.
Mr. Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 23 February 2007, Official Report, column 960W, on bombs, what he expects the effects of the outcome of the Oslo conference on cluster munitions to be on the Government's procurement of the (a) guided multiple launch rocket system and (b) the Brimstone advanced anti-armour weapon; and if he will make a statement. [124541]
Mr. Ingram: The outcome of the Oslo conference will not affect procurement of the guided multiple launch rocket system and the Brimstone advanced anti-armour weapon.
Defence Export Services Organisation
Norman Lamb: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 23 February 2007, Official Report, column 960W, on the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO), which individuals were sent a copy of the March 2004 DESO staff directory and were not employees of defence industry companies. [128396]
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 19 March 2007]: It is not our normal practice to disclose the names of individuals with whom we have communicated in the course of departmental business. We consider such information to be personal data, which the individuals concerned can reasonably expect that we would neither publish nor otherwise disclose to a third party.
Norman Lamb: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many copies of the 2005 edition of the Defence Export Services Organisation staff directory were distributed to individuals outside his Department; and what categories of people were given copies of the directory. [128397]
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 19 March 2007]: The information requested forms part of a witness statement submitted by the Ministry of Defence to the Information Tribunal, which will next month hear a case under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 concerning the staff directory of the Defence Export Services Organisation. I will write to the hon. Member after the tribunal has delivered its decision and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.
Departments: Appeals
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many independent bodies existed to hear appeals on decisions made by his Department and its executive agencies in (a) 1997-98, (b) 2001-02 and (c) 2005-06; and how many there have been in 2006-07 to date. [121702]
Derek Twigg: There are two independent bodies whose function is to hear appeals on decisions made by the Ministry of Defence. The Reserve Forces Appeals Tribunal, created in 1997, hears appeals against call-out for service, or against the level of financial assistance to be provided after call-out, lodged by reservists or their employers. The Advisory Committee on Conscientious Objectors, established in 1970, hears (but does not decide) appeals from service personnel whose application to retire or to resign a commission on the grounds of conscience has not been accepted by the service authorities.
Departments: Complaints
Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many complaints were received by his Department and its executive agencies in (a) 1997-98, (b) 2001-02 and (c) 2005-06; and how many have been received in 2006-07 to date; [121701]
(2) how many staff worked in dedicated complaints units in his Department and its executive agencies in (a) 1997-98, (b) 2001-02 and (c) 2005-06; and how many have done so in 2006-07 to date. [121703]
Derek Twigg: The Ministry of Defence does not keep a central record of complaints, and to gather this data would involve disproportionate cost.
Complaints are generally dealt with by subject-matter experts alongside other correspondence on the same subject. There are, however, two teams whose main role is dealing with complaints. One handles internal reviews of responses to FOI requests, and subsequent appeals to the Information Commissioner and the Information Tribunal. Before the FOI Act came fully into force in January 2005, similar work was carried out under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The second team deals with complaints about service flying in the lower airspace. The strengths of these teams are shown in the following table.
| Strength in full-time equivalent staff of complaints teams | ||||
| Team | 1997-98 | 2001-02 | 2005-06 | 2006-07 |
Departments: Hilsea
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what basis his Department has asked for a compliant bid from potential developers for the redundant Ministry of Defence site at Matapan Road, Hilsea; and if he will make a statement. [127448]
Derek Twigg: Formal tenders are an appropriate method of selling surplus public sector assets because they create a level playing field for all prospective purchasers. They provide transparency and certainty of bids and so avoid the potential difficulties sometimes associated with informal negotiations. In this case the site had the benefit of outline planning permission and agreed SI 06 contributions and thus was suitable for sale by formal tender. It was advertised through Defence Estates’ marketing agents, Drivers Jonas.
The bidding guidelines and legal conditions of sale made it clear that, in order to be compliant, all bids were to be submitted on the appropriate ‘Form of Offer’ with a 10 per cent. deposit and on an unconditional basis only. Moreover, the conditions of sale stated that the Ministry of Defence reserved the right to disregard any tender which was not submitted in accordance with the conditions of sale including any marked subject to contract.
Ex-servicemen
Dr. Murrison: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when a veterans’ card will be available; what the attributes of the proposed veterans’ card are; why there has been a delay in producing a veterans’ card; and what companies and organisations he has met to discuss the production of the card. [119235]
Derek Twigg: The Department has received recent approaches from two companies—EDS and Forces Online—proposing the introduction of a veterans’ card. I have met with EDS and officials have met with both companies to explore the possible benefits. We have separately consulted ex-service organisations to seek their views on the merits of such a card; their clear conclusion was that there was no significant tangible benefit to be had from a card and that the idea was not therefore worth pursuing. In the light of these discussions, we have no current plans to introduce a veterans’ card but will keep the matter under review.
Mr. Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance his Department provides to ensure that skills and qualifications obtained by personnel during their period in the armed forces can be utilised and applied in civilian life; and if he will take steps to improve the assistance available to ex-service personnel in this regard. [127362]
Derek Twigg:
The provision of opportunities for service personnel to gain nationally recognised civilian
qualifications is an important component of the MOD’s Personnel Strategy and is detailed in “Defence Policy for the Accreditation of Education, Training and Experience”, which aims to have military training, education and experience, where appropriate, accredited against nationally recognised qualifications. Furthermore, the priorities set in this policy are aligned with those in the Government’s National Skills Strategy, focusing particularly on qualifications in literacy and numeracy and in wider employability skills, such as NVQs and Apprenticeships, but also accreditation leading to higher education qualifications, including Foundation Degrees.
Although the attainment of the operational requirement remains the primary goal of military training, accreditation to civilian qualifications has an obvious benefit to recruiting, retention and resettlement. The success of this policy is such that, in the last financial year, personnel in the armed services gained:
in excess of 11,000 NVQs or other Level 2 qualifications;
over 8,000 apprenticeships at either Levels 2 or 3;
and 500 completed Foundation Degrees.
In addition, staff are constantly seeking further opportunities with Awarding Bodies to extend the linkage of military training, education and experience to appropriate civilian qualifications.
However, it is more difficult for Awarding Bodies to validate, in terms of quality assurance and syllabus content, military training and education that was undertaken by serving and ex-serving personnel a number of years ago and thus provide retrospective accreditation opportunities. For those who have left the services with no or very low level qualifications, there are opportunities with local colleges and training providers to gain civilian qualifications funded through schemes such as the Learning and Skills Council’s “Train to Gain”.
Financial assistance is also provided to support service personnel in gaining nationally-recognised qualifications for their own personal development through the Armed Forces Learning Credits Schemes. First, under the Standard Learning Credit Scheme, service personnel are eligible to claim from public funds 80 per cent. of course fees, up to a maximum of £175 per financial year. Secondly, the Enhanced Learning Credit (ELC) Scheme (introduced in 2004) provides larger scale support to pay for higher level academic and vocational learning at Level 3 or above on the National Qualifications Framework. The claim limit is also 80 per cent. of the annual fee (the claimant making a minimum 20 per cent. personal contribution to demonstrate their commitment). Individuals can draw down a maximum of £1,000 per annum on three occasions after serving four years from registration, and this rises to £2,000 per annum having served eight years after registration. Since the introduction of the ELC Scheme, over 225,000 personnel have registered with 16,500 claims made. While the majority of those registered have not yet made a claim, many of the claims are made in the last two years of service and are used alongside individuals’ resettlement provision. Moreover, claims under the ELC Scheme can be made up to 10 years after leaving the armed forces.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |