Welsh Questions, today 02 Nov, HANSARD SOURCE (temporary link - today's business)

Welsh Regiments

8. Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab): What recent discussions he has had with the Ministry of Defence on the merger of Welsh regiments; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): The intention to merge the Royal Welch Fusiliers and the Royal Regiment of Wales was announced in July 2004, with a view to implementation by 2008.

Albert Owen: I understand that discussions on the important detail of badge insignia are ongoing and very positive. A wide range of people have been involved in the decisions. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that any future reorganisation or reconfiguration of Welsh regiments involves an input from Welsh Members of Parliament before the Army Board makes its recommendations, so that the expression of a wide range of opinions can prevent a repetition of the debacle over names?

Mr. Hain: I shall be happy to take up the matter. I understand that individual regiments have been involved in determining dress regulations for the new regiments. As my hon. Friend says, the discussions are ongoing and I cannot comment further, but his point is valid. I am sure that he will join me in congratulating all the Welsh soldiers who are serving abroad and doing a first-class job.

Bill Wiggin (Leominster) (Con): Why did the Secretary of State not help? The Welsh Assembly refused to support Ty Gwyn, a unique post-traumatic stress disorder unit for veterans, which needed £75,000 to continue its important work. There is a waiting list of ex-servicemen who need to use Ty Gwyn. Why is it that the Welsh Assembly can buy a 32-acre rainforest site in Ecuador, but cannot support a nursing home for ex-servicemen in Wales?

Mr. Hain: In view of your earlier suggestion, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that my hon. Friend take the matter up with the Welsh Assembly Government.

This is the sticky for all Westminster/Hansard reporting.

This is chiefly Hackle's bit, and will be used to post Hansard reports.

All starting posts to this sticky, should include PROWORD Westminster in the heading.

Commentary is invited, but keep it serious, literate and well thought out.

Regards

PTP

The Welsh Assembly refused to support Ty Gwyn, a unique post-traumatic stress disorder unit for veterans

Interesting. One could equally ask why the government continually fails to provide adequate resources for the treatment of PTSD in service and ex-service personnel in the first place, for example by making an annual grant to Combat Stress.

Ty Gwyn is a private clinic; why should the Welsh Assembly fund a commercial enterprise? As far as I know, they'll take anyone who can pay, not just veterans.

Thanks, PTP

Current Affairs enthusiasts will have noticed a few threads started by me recently with the 'Westminster' branding, from now on to be placed in this thread, and we will see how it goes.

ARRSE has rightly been lifting stuff from Hansard since long before I joined. Frequently there is something in Hansard about subjects of hot debate here; sometimes there is even something new. We got a lot from Hansard in the heady days when we were building up our 'service voting' campaign. Occasionally we even achieved the perfect loop of something being said here, picked up by a polly and raised in parliament, being reported back here and the polly getting to hear our reaction. This has happened in both Houses - they should really get an ARRSE printout with the day's Order Paper

I think this can be very good for our community, and for our country's democracy. Parliament is often ably covered by the media, but their coverage is limited in time and space, and they may not spot the significance of something as quickly as some ARRSErs.

This is not an anti-Government exercise at all. Most of the 'Westminster' coverage so far has either been politically neutral, or has given Defence Ministers the chance to explain themselves direct to the people who matter - the forces community. This can only be a good thing. If, as happened recently, ARRSErs spot a problem with official information about some burning issue like the Iraq Medal - well, it can only be a good thing if those who draft such answers get to realize that 'those who know' are looking very closely over their shoulders. I happen to believe there would be much better understanding of the MoD's position on some issues if there was less ready recourse to weasel words in parliamentary answers.

This thread is of course open to all to either post something direct from Hansard, or to comment on something already posted. Note that although this is a single-thread sticky, I suggest anybody starting a new subject should indicate what it is by editing the 'Subject' heading - as I have in this post.

Significantly, Hansard transcripts are now available more quickly than they used to be - even on the same day for unedited debates, so you can be way ahead of the print media if you pick up something of interest. But it is not absolutely time-critical - feel free to post something several days late if it is still of interest and hasn't already been picked up.

I will come back another time with useful links, but they are easy enough to find by googling Commons Hansard or Lords Hansard. Include the Hansard link when posting. Finally, I imagine none of this affects your discretion whether to post Parliamentary stuff in this thread or in some other existing thread if more appropriate, and I will continue to post "service voting" items in the relevant thread.

hackle

We had a short exchange in the Lords on Monday on how the NATO force generation for the enlarged Afghanistan mission will be done. A statement is expected shortly, but the exchange can be seen at Lords Hansard

Commons Written Answers, 2 Nov 05

Correspondence

Mike Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to improve the Department's performance in replying to hon. Members' correspondence.

Mr. Touhig: Every effort is made to handle all correspondence effectively and efficiently.

All correspondence from hon. Members and Peers is handled in accordance with the principles set out in 'Handling Correspondence from members of parliament, members of the House of Lords, MEPs and Members of Devolved Assemblies: Guidance for Departments'. The same principles apply when handling correspondence from members of the public.

The Ministry of Defence plans to introduce a new intranet-based toolkit to better track and handle all correspondence in 2006. This should enable us to better monitor our performance and help early identification of problems and delays...

How about asking questions about how £10 Million of taxpayers money was spent hounding innocent soldiers? Also questions need to be asked regarding the $1000 per day payment to prosecution witnesses. In this case the payments clearly were intended to pervert the course of justice. The recent spate of prosecutions clearly have a political motive behind them.

Commons Written Answers - 2 Nov 05

Medals

Mr. Todd: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average waiting period before an application for a 1939–45 medal is dealt with was in 2004–05; and if he will make a statement. [21130]

Mr. Touhig: Applications for World War II medals are currently being processed within 12 months of receipt. However, applications for the terminally ill and veterans who are over 90 years of age are given priority and processed immediately. Towards the end of this calendar year, by which time the bulk of Suez Canal Zone Medal applications will have been assessed, more resources will become available to meet the continuing demand for World War II medals.

I have included this because there have been ARRSE threads about applying for 1939-45 medals. Also, interesting to compare the claimed 12 months processing time to the claimed 3 months processing time for Iraq medals - wonder what the real figure is?

As usual there were answers on a host of other Defence subjects. I will include one more:

Territorial Army

Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many infantry Territorial Army privates have served in Iraq since March 2003; and what proportion they are of the total Territorial Army contribution.

Mr. Touhig: Since March 2003 some 1,275 infantry Territorial Army (TA) privates have served in Iraq in an infantry role, which represents approximately 12 per cent. of the total TA contribution. This figure does not include members of the TA who have an infantry cap badge but were deployed in a non infantry role, as individual reinforcements. Information relating to these individuals could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

Missing Weapons

Mr. Crabb: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Army (a) handguns and (b) rifles went missing in the UK during the last year for which figures are available;

(2) how many missing Army handguns and rifles were recovered in the last year for which figures are available.

Mr. Ingram [holding answer 25 October 2005]: The information requested for the period 26 October 2004 to 15 October 2005 is detailed in the following table:
Date loss reported Weapon Type Recovered
26 October 2004 2X9 mm Pistols 0
15 April 2005 1XRifle 0
28 April 2005 2X9 mm Pistols 0
21 July 2005 3X.22 Rifles 0
6 October 2005 1XRifle 0
15 October 2005 1XPistol 1

Total [Missing] 10 [Reovered] 1

HANSARD SOURCE - Commons Written Answers, 1 Nov

No Manning control since April 2002. I wonder why

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../29/nmod29.xml

what is the date of the article???

Manning Control Reviews
Mrs. Humble: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has sought a legal opinion on the compatibility of administrative discharge as a result of Manning Control reviews with (a) the Employment Rights Act 1996, (b) other employment legislation and (c) European law. [21536]

Mr. Touhig [holding answer 25 October 2005]: I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

Mrs. Humble: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what manning control reviews have been conducted in each of the last five years. [21537]

Mr. Touhig [holding answer 25 October 2005]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given on 27 November 2002, Official Report, column 333W and 3 March 2004, Official Report, column 961W, to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch).

There have been no discharges as a result of manning control point review since April 2002.

Mrs. Humble: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidance he has issued on the conduct of manning control reviews; when the last occasion was on which such a review was the subject of a direction in daily orders; and if he will place copies of such (a) guidance and (b) directions in the Library. [21538]

Mr. Touhig [holding answer 25 October 2005]: I will write to my hon. Friend and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.