Author: admin

  • Mike Crockart – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture Media and Sport

    Mike Crockart – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Culture Media and Sport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Mike Crockart on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, when the roundtables on nuisance calls and texts met; and when the next roundtable will meet.

    Mr Edward Vaizey

    The roundtable on nuisance calls and texts last met on 23 September 2013 and since then we have worked with stakeholders to finalise our Nuisance Calls Action Plan, which was published on 30 March of this year. The next roundtable meeting is being arranged and will be confirmed soon subject to diary commitments.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Jeremy Corbyn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jeremy Corbyn on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, which US establishments were visited by personnel from the Atomic Weapons Establishment under the terms of the US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement in 2013; and how many staff visited each such establishment.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Jeremy Corbyn – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jeremy Corbyn on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what facility rekit projects have taken place at the Atomic Weapons Establishment under the scope of the Nuclear Weapons Capability Sustainment Project; and what the cost of each such project was.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    The term rekit is used by the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) to mean the replacement or modernisation of process plant and /or equipment within an existing facility, including upgrading of building services. The following is a list of major facility rekits that have or are taking place at AWE. There are also a number of more minor rekits underway which are not listed.

    Depleted Uranium Upgrade
    Beryllium Facility
    Plutonium Capability Programme (A90)
    Enriched Uranium Facility (A45)
    Explosive storage and processing Facility
    Salts Sustainment
    Facility for assembly/disassembly of Warhead

    The information relating to individual rekit costs for each facility for the years 2003 to date is not centrally held and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  • Caroline Lucas – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Caroline Lucas – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, for what reasons a review of the scope of Project Pegasus is being undertaken at the Atomic Weapons Establishment; and what changes he expects to be made to the scope of the project as a result of the review.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    Pegasus is the replacement highly enriched uranium component manufacturing and storage facility, and forms part of the Government’s programme of investment in the Atomic Weapons Establishment sites.

    In accordance with normal industry best practice, the project is under regular review to ensure that the facility will meet the Ministry of Defence’s requirements while also achieving the optimum balance of performance, cost and schedule. No changes to the approved scope of the project have been made.

  • Alison Seabeck – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Alison Seabeck – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Alison Seabeck on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many parliamentary questions tabled to his Department in the last parliamentary Session did not receive a substantive answer by the time of the 2014 prorogation; and when each such question was first tabled.

    Anna Soubry

    One question tabled to the Ministry of Defence in the last Parliamentary session did not receive a substantive reply by the time of the 2014 prorogation.

    The tabling date for this question was 14 March 2014.

  • Caroline Lucas – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Caroline Lucas – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Caroline Lucas on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what plans he has for reviewing the conduct of and representation on Local Liaison Committees for defence nuclear sites.

    Mr Philip Dunne

    There are no plans for the Ministry of Defence to review the conduct of, nor representation at, Local Liaison Committees relating to Defence nuclear sites. The operation of such committees is a matter for agreement between the individual site operator (the Licensee and/or Authorisee) and the appropriate local authorities.

  • Kevan Jones – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Kevan Jones – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevan Jones on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to the National Audit Office report, Army 2020, HC 263, published on 11 June 2014, page eight, when Ministers in his Department first established that reserves cost around 87 per cent of the cost of regulars when mobilised.

    Anna Soubry

    The figures used by the NAO in paragraph 11 of their report, Army 2020, HC 263, published on 11 June 2014, were taken from Future Reserves 2020: The Independent Commission to Review the United Kingdom’s Reserve Forces. I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 97. This involved considerable work to develop a Regular: Reserve Cost Comparison Model.

  • Tom Watson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Tom Watson – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Watson on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether UK aircraft have flown outside Afghan airspace in support of NATO International Security Assistance Force missions in Afghanistan.

    Mr Mark Francois

    To support the UK’s contribution to the NATO ISAF mission in Afghanistan UK military aircraft regularly transit to and from Afghanistan through non Afghan airspace .There has not been any employment of armed UK aircraft outside of the borders of Afghanistan in support of ISAF.

  • Kevan Jones – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Kevan Jones – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevan Jones on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to the National Audit Office report, Army 2020, HC 263, published on 11 June 2014, page eight, if he will provide a breakdown of the costings used to work out that reserves cost around 87 per cent of the costs of regulars when mobilised.

    Anna Soubry

    The figures used by the NAO in paragraph 11 of their report, Army 2020, HC 263, published on 11 June 2014, were taken from Future Reserves 2020: The Independent Commission to Review the United Kingdom’s Reserve Forces. I refer the hon. Member to paragraph 97. This involved considerable work to develop a Regular: Reserve Cost Comparison Model.

  • Kevan Jones – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    Kevan Jones – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Ministry of Defence

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Kevan Jones on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to the National Audit Office report, Army 2020, HC 263, published on 11 June 2014, page 30, if he will provide a breakdown of the extra £70 million in costs that will be borne by his Department for the decision to revert to a hosting environment provided by Capita as part of the Recruiting Partnering Project.

    Anna Soubry

    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Philip Hammond) set out on 14 January 2014 (Official Report, column 716) the cost of Capita providing a new Information Technology platform as part of the Recruiting Partnering Project. At the time, these costs were expected to be around £47.7 million directly linked to the change of hosting provision. Since this statement, the £47.7 million has reduced to £42.9 million.

    As previously stated by the Secretary of State on 14 January, there has been an additional cost of around £1 million per month to run the Capita system. This includes costs for additional manpower.

    The Recruiting Partnering Project remains within the overall agreed cost of £1.360 billion.