|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
24. David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with colleagues in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform on UK Trade and Investments role in providing export services for UK weapons manufacturers; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: Defence Ministers have had regular discussions with colleagues in the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform about export services for UK defence manufacturers. Officials from both Departments are also in close contact to ensure that the change of responsibility, announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on 25 July is implemented effectively.
Paul Holmes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the operation of the joint personnel administration system; when he expects it to be fully operational; and if he will make a statement. 
Derek Twigg: The Joint Personnel Administration system has been successfully rolled out as planned to all three services and is now fully operational. It provides a stable, modern platform to support our services and a recent independent review by the Office of Government Commerce stated that while there was much to do to deliver the full vision and benefit potential, its implementation represented a significant achievement.
Linda Gilroy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what consideration his Department has given to basing the four Bay class landing ship dock (auxiliaries) alongside the Royal Navys other amphibious vessels at Devonport; 
Mr. Bob Ainsworth [holding answer 18 October 2007]: The Naval Base Review concluded that all three naval bases (Clyde, Devonport and Portsmouth) should be retained but optimised. The process of exploring the options for optimising the way the three naval bases individually and collectively provide support to the front line is under way. This work includes an assessment of the impact on the base porting of ships and submarines, and is expected to conclude in the coming months, with the aim of delivering the most effective support to the front line in the future.
Derek Twigg: The main reasons that service personnel give for leaving the armed forces are: the impact of service life on their personal and domestic lives; a lack of job satisfaction; and a change of career or future job opportunities outside the services.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to contribute his Department's funds towards the (a) capital cost and
(b) revenue expenditure of civilian hospitals and other civilian health service facilities and services provided by the national health service and used extensively by members of HM armed forces; and if he will make a statement. 
Derek Twigg: In England, the Department of Health provides funding to primary care trusts (PCTs) to meet their responsibilities. Revenue allocations are made to PCTs on the basis of the relative needs of their populations, to enable them to commission similar levels of health services for populations in similar need. With regard to the armed forces, service personnel are included in the secondary care elements of PCT revenue allocations and excluded from the primary care elements, as the latter services are provided by the Defence Medical Services.
Funding allocations to particular NHS trusts are based on information from the Office for National Statistics, which is used to determine the demographic (and hence health care) needs of each area. The devolved Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have similar arrangements for the allocation of funds for health care from their overall budgets.
The MOD pays the NHS for accelerated access to treatment for its personnel when this is required for operational reasons, under agreements between the MOD and individual NHS trusts. MOD also has specific arrangements with those NHS trusts that host Ministry of Defence Hospital Units, where military doctors and nurses work alongside NHS colleagues to gain clinical training and experience (to enable them to deliver a high standard of medical care on military deployments). The NHS as well as the MOD benefits from these placements, the costs of which are recovered by the MOD in respect of the work undertaken for the NHS that is contractually guaranteed to the trust concerned. Where the MOD requires any special facilities to be provided by an NHS trust for specifically military purposes, whether for military medical training and administration or for the care of military patients, the costs of such provision will again be recovered by the NHS trust concerned.
Derek Twigg: The extra funding takes the form of increased daily fee rates paid in respect of individual qualifying war pensioners who receive treatment at one of the Combat Stress homes. These payments are made using the power in the war pensions scheme(1) to pay expenses in respect of the medical, surgical or rehabilitative treatment of a former member of the armed forces that are the result of disablement due to service before 6 April 2005. In Scotland, costs are met by the Scottish Health Service.
(1)Article 21 of The Naval, Military and Air Forces Etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 2006
Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the United States Administration on options for United Kingdom involvement in the US National Missile Defense Programme; and whether the British Ambassador to the United States has played any part in such negotiations. 
Des Browne [holding answer 19 October 2007]: The Ministry of Defence continues to discuss ballistic missile defence issues with the US Administration, on a number of levels. It is not the practice of the Government to make public the details of all discussions with foreign governments as this would, or would be likely to, prejudice international relations.
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: All munitions undergo rigorous and comprehensive testing prior to entering service and are subject to regular in-service trials once they become part of the UK stockpile. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my predecessor gave on 20 April 2007, Official Report, column 800W, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith).
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which private consultancy firms (a) his Department and (b) agencies which report to his Department engaged in each of the last three years; which programmes or projects each firm worked on; and what the approximate cost to the Department or agency concerned was of each engagement. 
However, I am able to provide the MODs expenditure on private consultancy companies for the last two financial years and I have made these available in the Library of the House. The expenditure figures for financial year 2005-06 do not include expenditure on manpower substitution and the figures for financial year 2006-07 exclude both manpower substitution and technical consultancy.
Information on organisations, including consultancy firms, paid £5 million or more by the Department in each financial year is published in the UK Defence Statistics. Copies of this are also available in the House Library.
Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the spectrum charge paid by his Department in near cash terms was in each year from 1999-2000 to 2007-08; and what estimate he has made of the amount of the charge in each year from 2008-09 to 2010-11. 
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: Spectrum charges paid by the Ministry of Defence between financial years 1999 and 2000 and 2007 and 2008 are set out in the following table. The trend in fees reflects a number of factors, including the introduction of spectrum pricing and the implementation of the independent audit of spectrum holdings (the Cave review).
|Price paid (£ million)|
Figures rounded to the nearest 1000
Following the comprehensive spending review 2007, the MOD has entered into discussions with Ofcom over future spectrum fees. It would be inappropriate to release further information at this early stage of these discussions.
Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what representations his Department has received from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Ministers or officials on public access and countryside activities on his Department's land in (a) foot and mouth disease risk areas and (b) foot and mouth disease low risk areas; 
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people were employed by his Department on 1st January in each of the last five years; and how many of these staff were (a) permanent employees, (b) temporary staff and (c) contractors. 
|n/a = not available as data for RFAs and LECs cannot be split by permanent employees and temporary staff subsets.|
(1) Level 1 is defined as all departmental staff including RFAs but excluding LECs and trading fund personnel
(2) Level 0 is defined as all departmental staff at Level 1 plus LECs and trading fund personnel.
Information on contractors is not held centrally on the Department's Human Resource Management System (HRMS).
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|