|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel were (a) very seriously wounded, (b) seriously wounded and (c) wounded in action in the recent and current tours of Afghanistan of the (i) 1st Battalion Royal Anglian, (ii) 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards, (iii) 1st Battalion Scots Guards, (iv) 1st Battalion Worcester and Sherwood Foresters and (v) 1st Battalion Royal Welsh. 
|Regiment||Wounded in action||Very seriously ill/seri ously ill|
The 1st Battalion the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment recently became the 2nd Battalion the Mercian Regiment (Worcesters and Foresters), and data have therefore been provided under the latter name.
The 1st Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment, the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards and the 2nd Battalion the Mercian Regiment (Worcesters and Foresters) were all deployed from April 2007. The 1st Battalion the Royal Welsh has been the Theatre Reserve Battalion since April 2007. Members of the 1st Battalion Scots Guards did not start to deploy until September 2007.
Data for those very seriously injured/wounded (VSI) or seriously injured/wounded (SI) have been aggregated for reasons of patient confidentiality. Data for those wounded in action (WIA) are collated differently, using field hospital admission data, and may or may not include those classed as VSI or SI.
Andrew Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) why the Army Recruiting and Training Division at Pewsey has not requested a submission or relevant medical notes from the GP of the constituent of the hon. Member for Thurrock who appealed in July against the decision to reject his application to join the Army; and if he will make a statement; 
(2) when the appeal submitted in July to the Army Recruiting and Training Division at Pewsey by the constituent of the hon. Member for Thurrock against the decision to reject his application to join the Army will be held; what the cause is of the delay in (a) advising the appellant and (b) convening the appeal; and if he will make a statement; 
(3) when Jodie Spreadbury of the Army Recruiting and Training Division at Pewsey expects to make a substantive reply to the letter of 12 September sent by the mother of the constituent of the hon. Member for Thurrock who has appealed against the decision to reject his application to join the Army; and if he will make a statement. 
Derek Twigg: Copies of a candidate's medical documents are only requested from their GP if required. In this case, the Medical Officer at the Army Development and Selection Centre, and the Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon already had copies of the candidate's medical notes including those from hospital records. These were sufficient as the diagnosis was not in dispute and a further copy of your constituent's medical documents was not required.
The delay in providing a response to your constituent, therefore, is regretted but the delay was caused by the need to ensure your constituent's case was thoroughly researched and all factors taken into account. Unfortunately, our inquiries have only just been completed. A substantive response to the hon. Member regarding his constituent's case was sent on 26 October.
Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) of 26 July 2007, Official Report, column 1247W, on the Atomic Weapons Establishment: sales, what criteria will be adopted to establish the acceptability of prospective purchasers; and which factors will be taken into account in the analysis of the acceptability of prospective purchasers. 
Mr. Bob Ainsworth [holding answer 24 October 2007]: The criteria for ensuring UK security in this matter are the same as those that we would employ in establishing whether we would place a contract with any company. Suitability is established through appropriate checks on corporate, financial and security matters. Security checks are carried out in accordance with the relevant requirements of Joint Service Publication (JSP) 440.
The factors that will be considered in the analysis of prospective purchasers will support our aims to ensure the protection of UK strategic interests and continued programme stability through the retention of the skills and capability that underpin the ability to manage the enduring performance of AWE plc. An exhaustive list of pre-determined factors is not available, primarily because some will arise as a consequence both of events and of the track record of the companies concerned. However, an ability to interact effectively with, and to complement the skills of, the existing consortium partners will be essential pre-requisites.
Robert Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases have been heard in each of the courtrooms at Bulford Courts Martial Centre since it was opened; and for what percentage of working time each courtroom has been unoccupied. 
Derek Twigg: Bulford Military Court Centre has two court rooms. Since it began sitting in September 2006, Courtroom 1 has heard 77 cases and has never been unoccupied during working time; Courtroom 2 has heard 38 cases and has been unoccupied for 40 per cent. of working time.
In assessing export licence applications, the Government do not differentiate between military equipment to be exported or re-exported from the UK. All UK export licence applications are rigorously assessed against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria, which includes, inter alia, a thorough consideration of the risk of diversion to undesirable end-users. Should it be judged that an export would contravene any of the Criteria, the application would be refused.
The Government do not control the re-export of military equipment once it has been exported from the UK. The control of military goods once they have been exported from the UK to a licensed end-user would require UK export controls to be enforced exterritorialy within another countrys jurisdiction. The Government are opposed to this approach, and believe that its current approach, based on a rigorous risk assessment at the pre-licensing stage, to be a more effective means of guarding against the risk of military equipment falling into the hands of an undesirable end-user. In addition it would be difficult to enforce extraterritorial controls once the goods have left UK jurisdiction.
|Financial year||£ million|
Mr. Benyon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many employees from the Defence Exports Service Organisation have (a) left voluntarily and (b) been made redundant since 25 July 2007. 
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: Between 25 July and 12 October 2007, 33 employees left the Defence Export Services Organisation (DESO). None of these was made redundant, and the majority left to take up another position in the Ministry of Defence or the armed forces, having served their tour of duty in DESO.
Mr. Benyon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he was informed of the Prime Ministers decision to close the Defence Exports Services Organisation and to move part of its remit to the Department for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform. 
Mr. Benyon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what formal consultations have taken place with union representatives concerning the decision to move responsibilities for defence exports from his Department to UK Trade and Investment. 
Mr. Benyon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether military staff will be seconded to UK Trade and Investment to support defence exports following the changes announced on 25 July. 
Mr. Benyon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultation took place with defence exporters prior to 25 July on the decision to move responsibility for defence exports from his Department to UK Trade and Investment. 
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I refer the hon. Member to the answer my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary (Des Browne) gave on 17 September 2007, Official Report, column 2172W, to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth).
Mr. Carswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what criteria his Department uses to determine which contractors submitting an expression of interest when bidding to supply an equipment programme are issued with a pre-qualification questionnaire; and if he will make a statement; 
Mr. Bob Ainsworth:
The Department conducts initial suitability assessments of suppliers who submit expressions of interest (E of I) based on supplier information and other available evidence. Often, this is
insufficient to make an objective evaluation and a pre-qualification questionnaire (PQQ), together with the non discriminatory criteria against which responses will be evaluated, is issued to prospective bidders. The evaluation of responses will determine eligibility against (A) a number of standard objective criteria including capability, quality, financial and legal status, organisation, and supply chain management and (B) project specific criteria pertinent to the particular requirement. Suppliers who submit an E of I and who are not invited to tender can request a de-brief.
Mr. Carswell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what proportion of offer prices quoted by contractors on DEFFORM 47s in the last two years were within (a) 10 per cent., (b) 6 per cent. and (c) 2 per cent. of the expenditure figure declared in the initial invitation to tender; 
(2) what proportion of offer prices on equipment programmes worth more than £100 million quoted by contractors on DEFFORM 47s since 2001 were within (a) 10 per cent., (b) 6 per cent. and (c) 2 per cent. of the expenditure figure declared in the initial invitation to tender; 
(4) if he will review the appropriateness of the process whereby his Department reveals to would-be contractors the budgeted expenditure figure or associated year-on-year financial profile when issuing invitations to tender. 
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: It is not normal departmental practice to provide would-be contractors with budgeted expenditure figures or associated year-on-year financial profiles when issuing an invitation to tender or invitation to negotiate.
However, within the MOD Defence Contracts Bulletin value banding information is provided to indicate the approximate value of individual requirements to be advertised as a guide to suppliers who may be considering whether to respond.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what departmental budget items have been reclassified, under Consolidated Budgeting Guidance, following Comprehensive Spending Review 2007 decisions; and what the (a) former and (b) new (i) classification and (ii) sum budgeted is in each case. 
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: As part of the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review settlement, the Ministry of Defence has introduced an Administration Budget within its overall resource expenditure. In accordance with the Consolidated Budgeting Guidance, this establishes a separate control total for administrative expenditure, against which savings of 5 per cent. per annum in real terms must be achieved between 2008-09 and 2010-11.
David T.C. Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) works of art and (b) paintings are contained in his Departments art collection; what the cost, including staff costs, of maintaining the collection was in 2006-07; what the estimated value of the collection is; and how much was spent by his Department on purchasing works of art in each of the last five years. 
Derek Twigg: There are some 1,050 items in the MOD art collection, of which 250 are antiques and the remainder works of art. The art includes 342 paintings. Other art includes watercolours and engravings, as well as some architectural drawings. Significant works are on long-term loan in various museums, in order to facilitate public access. The cost of maintaining the collection in 2006-07 was £141,000, of which £98,000 consisted of staff costs. The sum of £232,000 (excluding VAT) was spent on purchasing works of art in 2004-05, no other such expenditure was incurred during the last five years. It is not possible to provide an overall valuation for the collection; the unique nature of many items renders them invaluable, and other items, while of significant historical importance, are of very little intrinsic value.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|