| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
28 Jan 2008 : Column 33W—continued
| Site or address | Date sold | Price (£) |
Departmental Consultants
Sarah Teather: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultancy contracts his Department issued in each year since 2005; what the (a) value, (b) purpose and (c) contractor was in each case; and whether the consultant's report is publicly available in each case. [181888]
Derek Twigg: This information is not held centrally in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
However, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) on 25 October 2007, Official Report, columns 477-478W, where I stated that I had placed in the Library of the House a list of contracts signed by MOD with a net
value of more than £20,000 in financial year 2006-07 on management and business consultancy, finance and accountancy consultancy, corporate governance and audit consultancy, and public/private partnership and private finance initiative consultancy that passed through a centralised approval process. These figures do not contain spend by the MOD's trading funds or agencies or on other types of consultancy.
Information on organisations, including consultancy firms, paid £5 million or more by the MOD in each financial year is published in the UK Defence Statistics. Copies are also placed in the Library of the House.
Furthermore, details of the Department's spend on external assistance, of which consultancy is a part, has been reported to Ministers since 1995-96: summaries are again available in the Library.
Departmental Disclosure of Information
Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role he has in determining what information is classified and who is able to have access to classified information in his Department. [182345]
Des Browne: The Department follows Government policy on the classification of information and access to such information.
The value of information determines its classification. Only the originator of the information can apply a protective marking and this cannot be changed without the originator's consent.
In terms of access, the need to know principle applies—access is limited strictly to those who are security cleared to the appropriate level and who need such access to carry out their official duties.
Departmental ICT
Dr. Cable: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the (a) start date, (b) original planned completion date, (c) current expected completion date, (d) planned cost and (e) current estimated cost is for each information technology project being undertaken by his Department and its agencies; and if he will make a statement. [180566]
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: As at 21 November 2007, the Ministry of Defence identified around 1,100 information technology systems in service or in development, and the information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
However, I refer the hon. Member to the answer the then Minister for the Armed Forces my right hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathavan and Lesmahagow (Mr. Ingram) gave on 6 November 2006, Official Report, columns 809-10W, to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), which addressed the MOD’s five largest information technology projects at the time.
Departmental Land
Nick Ainger:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons his Department transferred 50 acres of land at East Blockhouse, Augle,
Pembrokeshire to QinetiQ on 27 March 2002; how much was received by his Department for the land; and what covenants (a) existed and (b) were placed on the land at the time of the transfer. [181865]
Derek Twigg: The land at Augle, formerly owned by the Ministry of Defence, was transferred on 1 July 2001 to QinetiQ as part of the operational estate of the former Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which was privatised on that date. Releasing individual valuations could adversely impact on potential disposal receipts should QinetiQ dispose of the site in the future. For information, the value of all property in the overall transaction as reported in the QinetiQ opening balance sheet was £342 million for land and buildings plus £98 million for surplus properties.
Regarding covenants, the sale would have transferred all those in the original conveyance of 1901 that were still applicable, together with those usually included in any property transaction. In addition there were certain specific covenants applying to all the sites included in the privatisation, including responsibility to repay a proportion of excess profits, over an agreed value and subject to a sliding scale, by way of clawback clause. There was also obligation to consider the Crichel Down rules in relation to any future disposal.
Nick Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of his Department’s compliance with the Crichel Down rules in the disposal of 50 acres of land at East Blockhouse, Augle, Pembrokeshire on 27 March 2002. [181866]
Des Browne: The Ministry of Defence transferred the former Augle site in Pembrokeshire to QinetiQ on 1 July 2001. The Crichel Down rules only apply to land acquired from 1935 onwards. As the site was acquired by the MOD in 1901, the rules did not apply. The transfer was also made under exemption 14 (6) of the 1992 version of the Crichel Down rules in use at that time.
It is understood that QinetiQ have subsequently sold the site as part of their rationalisation process.
Nick Ainger: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether a defence contractor to which his Department’s land has been transferred to is subject to the Crichel Down guidance when disposing of that land. [181867]
Des Browne: Where Government land is transferred to another body (for example a defence contractor) which is to take over some or all of the obligations of the Department that currently owns the land, the transfer itself does not constitute a disposal for the purposes of the Crichel Down rules. Likewise, disposals for the purposes of Private Finance Initiatives/Private Public Partnership projects do not fall within the rules and the position of any surplus land would then be subject to the PFI/PPP contract.
A defence contractor, having bought MOD land on the open market, would not be subject to the Crichel Down rules when disposing of that land.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |