§ 16. Mr. David ShawTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of his Department's policies on defence equipment purchasing on employment in the United Kingdom. [34913]
§ Mr. ArbuthnotConsideration of defence industrial factors, including employment implications, is a requirement of our central equipment procurement decision-making processes. My Department's policy of seeking best value for money, wherever possible through competition, has helped UK industry to remain competitive and successful both at home and abroad.
§ 21. Mr. RiddickTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of United Kingdom jobs reliant on the manufacture of defence equipment. [34919]
§ Mr. ArbuthnotI refer my hon. Friend to table 1.10 on page 12 of the 1995 edition of "UK Defence Statistics", a copy of which is in the Library. The 1996 edition of "UK Defence Statistics" will be published on 18 July 1996.
§ Mr. GeorgeTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of(a) the evidence submitted by his Department to the Review Board for Government Contracts on the inclusion of marketing the selling expenses in the overhead rate on non-competitive contracts, (b) the evidence submitted during the review board's consideration of this issue as part of its sixth general review (1990), (c) the evidence submitted to the working party established to consider this issue subsequent to the sixth general review and (d) the evidence submitted on this issue as part of the seventh general review (1993). [35860]
§ Mr. ArbuthnotThe "evidence" held by my Department comprises a large volume of file correspondence, letters, minutes, working notes and briefing material covering a four-year period of negotiations with the CBI. The background to these negotiations over the treatment of marketing and selling expenses in non-competitive contracts is described in the reports of the Review Board for Government Contracts covering the sixth (1990), seventh (1993) and eighth124W (1996) general reviews of the profit formula for non-competitive contracts. There is now a clearer understanding between the Department and the CBI over the treatment of marketing and selling expenses, in the context of the relevant Government accounting convention.
§ Sir Irvine PatnickTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the civilian technical advances which have been developed from defence contracts in the last five years. [35854]
§ Mr. ArbuthnotMost defence research and development contracts let by MOD contain conditions which vest the intellectual property rights in the contractor concerned. It follows that, for many firms, the major benefit of defence contracts is the garnering of general skills and capabilities. The Ministry of Defence keeps no central record of the applications of these general skills and capabilities and to gather this information would be disproportionately expensive.
However, in the last five years there have also been notable technical advances of a more specific nature from defence research developments funding. More than 200 exploitation agreements have been signed, examples of the technologies are:
- Flat panel loud speakers
- Acoustic filters (for mobile telephones)
- Fireman's helmet
- Frozen blood
- Fabric printing
- Radar reflectors for small craft
- Synthetic rubber
- Helmets for parachutists
- Treatment plant for polluted water
§ Rev. Martin SmythTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence what weighting is given to areas of high unemployment in the consideration of tenders for defence contracts. [35309]
§ Mr. ArbuthnotConsideration of defence industrial factors, including employment implications, is a requirement of our central equipment procurement decision-making processes. My Department's policy of seeking best value for money, wherever possible through competition, has helped UK industry to remain competitive and successful both at home and abroad.