DOCSLIB.ORG

The Scottish Government and Parliament As Expressed in the Motion Passed at the Conclusion of Stage 1

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Scottish Government and Parliament As Expressed in the Motion Passed at the Conclusion of Stage 1 Minister for Community Safety Fergus Ewing MSP ~ T: 0845 774 1741 The Scottish E: [email protected] Government Bill Aitken MSP Convener Justice Committee Scottish Parliament Edinburgh EH99 1SP Your ref: Our ref: 25 February 2009 DAMAGES (ASBESTOS-RELATED CONDITIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL I am writing to provide a reassessment of the financial implications of the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill, in accordance with the shared wishes of the Scottish Government and Parliament as expressed in the motion passed at the conclusion of Stage 1. The information should help to give reassurance that, as initially recommended by your Committee in its report of 13 October 2008, the Scottish Government has made every effort to reconsider the adequacy of the Financial Memorandum and to establish whether the UK Government will invoke the Statement of Funding Policy. I intend to arrange for the formal submission of a new Financial Memorandum, picking up the relevant points. Statement of Funding Policy (SFP) Let me address the SFP first. As you know from the correspondence that I shared with you in the autumn, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Justice, Bridget Prentice MP, had indicated that until such time as the UK Government has announced its approach to pleural plaques south of the border, it will not confirm its position on the SFP. Unfortunately, that announcement has not yet been made. It was to have been made in November, but was postponed with no firm timetable being set (as far as we are aware). A letter last month from Ms Prentice, in response to my letters of 9 October, 14 November and 7 January, simply indicated that, as had already been stated in a Westminster Hall debate in November, the announcement would be made "soon" and, until then, no indication - not even a contingent one - can be given as regards the SFP. In the circumstances, therefore, I am regrettably unable to provide new information about whether the UK Government will invoke the SFP. All I can do is restate that - for the reasons that were given in the earlier correspondence - it is quite legitimate to believe that UK Government Departments ought to St Andrew's House, Regent Road, Edinburgh EH13DG www.scotland.gov.uk continue to accept responsibility for the financial consequences of their asbestos-related liabilities, as they have in the past. Reassessment Process Turning to the overall financial implications of the Bill, I can assure you that the aim of the Scottish Government is to reach the most robust projections possible. Consequently, we shared the concern about the wide disparity in projections at Stage 1, as encapsulated in paragraph 5.5 of the written evidence of the Association of British Insurers (ABI) 1: "[The Scottish Government] suggests that the annual cost to defendants will be between £5.5m and £6.5m; figures from the UK Government suggest that the annual cost in Scotland would be between £76m and £607m, and the total cost in Scotland would be between £1.1bn and £8.6bn". That statement requires to be treated with some caution because, for example • as is evident from the table entitled "summary of additional costs arising from the Bill" at the conclusion of the Financial Memorandum, the annual figures of £5.5m and £6.5m related only to private sector defenders, and did not represent the Scottish Government's projection of the full annual costs associated with the Bill, which were rather higher; • the annual figures of £76m and £607m, and the total figures of £1.1bn and £8.6bn, do not appear in the UK Government's consultation paper but seem to reflect a calculation by the ABI, based on its contention that 30% of asbestos liabilities are in Scotland (paragraph B1 of the ABl's written evidence). Nevertheless, the disparity is still very significant and requires to be explored. Therefore, I enclose a paper which provides a reassessment of the financial implications, based on all the information now available to us. It may be helpful if I outline the process that we adopted to produce this. Essentially, I instructed officials to do 3 things: • the first was to look afresh at the data that were previously supplied to us, notably by stakeholders in response to our consultation exercise on the provisional Regulatory Impact Assessment in February-April 2008. (Members will be aware 2 that we have already published all of the non-confidential responses .) • the second was to review material that has come to light subsequently. This included the evidence that stakeholders gave to your Committee at Stage 1. It also included the consultation paper issued by the Ministry of Justice in July. (Though we have not been afforded formal access to all the responses that were received by the Ministry of Justice, we have considered those which we were able to track down because they were published on the internet by their authors.) It included too the consultation paper issued by the Northern Ireland Government in October. • the third was to seek out and consider new material. For example, as you suggested, we made direct contact with The Actuarial Profession to seek their views, speCifically those of its UK Asbestos Working Party. Their contribution is attached in an Annex to the enclosed paper. Also attached in that Annex is new correspondence from the AB!. The ABI identified a number of law firms thought to be involved in pursuing pleural plaques cases in Scotland, so officials wrote to each of them to seek information about the nature of their activity. I www.scottish.parliament.ukls3/committees/iustice/inquiries/damages/D8.ASI. pdf 2 www.scotiand.gov.uk/Publications/2008/09/Johnston- NEI -responsesl content St Andrew's House, Regent Road, Edinburgh EH13DG www.scotland.gov.uk I put on record that the Scottish Government is grateful for the co-operation received from a number of stakeholders - including supporters, opponents and neutrals as regards the merits of the Bill - in this endeavour. Unfortunately, we have not been provided with any information about the work that the Ministry of Justice have in hand to reassess the financial projections set out in their July consultation paper. Nor did they feel able to share factual information about the assumptions underlying their original projections. Revised Financial Estimates The enclosed paper notes that The Actuarial Profession has commented in relation to mesothelioma projections that "as information emerges on mesothelioma the range of potential outcomes is widening rather than the reverse." Our further work on pleural plaques has suggested something similar. However, as shown in the paper, we have been able to reach tentative conclusions about the order of magnitude of the Bill's financial implications with the headline figures - based on the assumptions and subject to the uncertainties described in the paper - being as follows: • the number of backed-up claims in Scotland could be between 690 and 1040, which will cost between £14.66m and £22.88m in total (the midpoint of which is £18.77m). This compares with a projection in June's Financial Memorandum of c. £20m. • if the peak year for claims is 2015, then in that year the number of new claims created in Scotland could be between 341 and 848, which will cost between £7.25m and £18.79m for that year (the midpoint of which is £13.02m). This compares with a projection in June's Financial Memorandum of c. £7m-£8m in 2015. • from the enactment of the legislation up to and including the anticipated peak year - and assuming that in 2009 claims will be created which, had it not been for the Appeal Court and House of Lords judgements, would otherwise have been created in 2006-2008 - the total number of new claims created in Scotland could be between 2826 and 5928, which will cost between £60.05m and £131.31m (the midpoint of which is £95.68m). In present value terms that equates to between £53.60m and £116.30m (the midpoint of which is £84.95m). No aggregate estimates for this period were provided in the Financial Memorandum. To the extent that our estimates are now higher than they were in June 2008, this is primarily the result of two factors. First, in light of new data and representations from the insurance industry, we now proceed on the basis that between 10% and 40% of claims in Scotland have historically been pursued by firms other than Thompsons (whereas we had originally worked from a single figure of 10%). Second, in light of new information and concerns about the validity of using projections of trends in future mesothelioma deaths as a proxy for trends in future pleural plaques claims, and while acknowledging the degree of uncertainty associated with it, we have explored an alternative approach to determining what the future rate of change might be. We have also made revisions in order to take account of the fact that not all claims are successful, and this has the effect of making the estimated costs lower than they would otherwise be. Although our overall estimates of the Bill's anticipated financial implications remain broadly of the same magnitude as those set out in June's Financial Memorandum, what this new exercise has done is: • enhance our confidence that the more extreme projections in some of the submissions made to the Justice Committee lack any real foundation; but St Andrew's House, Regent Road, Edinburgh EH1 3DG www.scotland.gov.uk DAMAGES (ASBESTOS-RELATED CONDITIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Actuarial Projections 1. The extent and consequences of conditions arising from exposure to asbestos have long been of concern, not least to the insurance and actuarial professions.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Future Carrier and Joint Combat Aircraft Programmes
    House of Commons Defence Committee Future Carrier and Joint Combat Aircraft Programmes Second Report of Session 2005–06 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 13 December 2005 HC 554 Published on 21 December 2005 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £15.50 The Defence Committee The Defence Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Ministry of Defence and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon James Arbuthnot MP (Conservative, North East Hampshire) (Chairman) Mr David S Borrow MP (Labour, South Ribble) Mr Colin Breed MP (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall) Derek Conway MP (Conservative, Old Bexley and Sidcup) Mr David Crausby MP (Labour, Bolton North East) Linda Gilroy MP (Labour, Plymouth Sutton) Mr David Hamilton MP (Labour, Midlothian) Mr Mike Hancock MP (Liberal Democrat, Portsmouth South) Mr Dai Havard MP (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) Mr Brian Jenkins MP (Labour, Tamworth) Mr Kevan Jones MP (Labour, Durham North) Robert Key MP (Conservative, Salisbury) John Smith MP (Labour, Vale of Glamorgan) Mr Desmond Swayne MP (Conservative, New Forest West) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at: www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/defence_committee.cfm A list of Reports of the Committee in the Present Parliament is at the back of this volume.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2018 Who We Are
    Annual Report 2018 Who we are At BAE Systems, our advanced defence technology protects people and national security, and keeps critical information and infrastructure secure. We search for new ways to provide our customers with a competitive edge across the air, maritime, Segmental land and cyber domains. 43 review We employ a skilled workforce of 85,800 people1 in more than 40 countries, and work closely with local partners to support economic development by transferring knowledge, How our skills and technology. 22 business works Further information can be found online by visiting baesystems.com 220 Shareholder information 1. Including share of equity accounted investments. Contents Strategic report Governance Financial statements Who we are Directors’ report Group accounts Our business at a glance 02 Chairman’s governance letter 72 Preparation 142 Strategic report Our key products and services 04 Directors’ duties 74 Consolidated income statement 144 Group financial highlights 06 Board governance 76 Consolidated statement Operational and strategic highlights 08 Board of directors 78 of comprehensive income 145 Chairman’s letter 10 Board information 80 Consolidated statement of changes in equity 145 Chief Executive’s review 13 Governance disclosures 81 Consolidated balance sheet 146 Group strategic framework 18 Audit Committee report 83 Consolidated cash flow statement 147 Our markets 19 Corporate Responsibility Committee report 87 Notes to the Group accounts 148 How our business works 22 Nominations Committee report 90 Our people 24
    [Show full text]
  • Anticipating Restructuring in the European Defense Industry
    ANTICIPATING RESTRUCTURING IN THE EUROPEAN DEFENSE INDUSTRY A study coordinated by BIPE with contributions from: Wilke, Maack & Partners - Wmp Consult (Germany), The Centre for Defence Economics, York University (UK), Institute for Management of Innovation and Technology (Sweden) ZT Konsulting (Poland) Authors: Professor Ola Bergstrom, Mr. Frédéric Bruggeman, Mr. Jerzy Ganczewski, Professor Keith Hartley, Mr. Dominique Sellier, Dr. Elisabeth Waelbroeck-Rocha, Dr Peter Wilke, Professor Dr. Herbert Wulf The consultant takes full responsibility for the views and the opinion expressed in this report. The report does not necessarily reflects the views of the European Commission for whom it was prepared and by whom it was financed. European Defence Industry Anticipating Restructuring Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................5 I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................9 II. DEVELOPMENT DURING THE PAST DECADE AND PRESENT INDUSTRY STRUCTURE ........................................11 1. Defining the defence industry............................................................................................................................... 11 2. Structure of the EU Defence Industry: the demand side.................................................................................... 12 2.1. Budgets................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • April 2011 Inside
    April 2011 Inside • 25 years of SIPS • In the beginning • Scheme membership fast facts • Show me the money • Changing times • Thanks to the team at the top • Crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s 25 years of SIPS On 6 April 2011 SIPS reaches its 25th anniversary and to celebrate this occasion we have produced this commemorative brochure. Much has happened during the last 25 years and the following articles show how SIPS has evolved over the years. We hope you’ll enjoy looking back on the last quarter century of SIPS. In the beginning On 6 April 1986, SIPS was established as a centralised SIPS began with the following participating companies: pension scheme. Any employer who was working in shipbuilding, ship repair, or allied industries could • AMARC (Training, Education & Safety) Limited join SIPS. The Scheme was designed to replace the • British Shipbuilders British Shipbuilders Pension Scheme which had been • Energy & Marine Industries plc established in 1981 so that, following privatisation, • Falmouth Ship Repair Limited employers could continue to provide a cost effective • Hadrian Trustees Limited pension arrangement. On 6 April 1986, Hadrian Trustees Limited was appointed as the Independent Trustee of • Hall Russell Limited the Scheme. A Trustee Board of 15 Trustee Directors • Vickers Shipbuilding & Engineering Limited was set up, comprising 7 Directors appointed by the • Vosper Ship Repairers Limited employers, 7 Directors nominated by the Confederation • Vosper Thornycroft (UK) Limited of Shipbuilding & Engineering Unions (CSEU), together with an independent Managing Director. This meant that Joining SIPS meant that the individual employers could the Scheme could truly represent and act in the best participate in their own stand-alone section within the interests of all members and beneficiaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2019 BAE Systems Plc Who We Are
    Annual Report 2019 BAE Systems plc Who we are At BAE Systems, we provide some of the world’s most advanced, technology-led defence, aerospace and security solutions. We employ a skilled workforce of 87,800 people1 in more than 40 countries. We help our customers to stay a step ahead when protecting people and national security, critical infrastructure and vital information. We also work closely with local partners to support economic development through the transfer of knowledge, skills and technology. Further information can be found online by visiting baesystems.com Shareholder 232 information 1. Including share of equity accounted investments. Strategic report Governance Who we are Directors’ report Strategic report Our business at a glance 02 Chairman’s governance letter 82 Our key products and services 04 Board governance 84 Group financial highlights 06 Board of directors 86 Board information 88 Governance disclosures 89 Audit Committee report 91 Governance Operational 08 key points Operational key points 08 84 Board Chairman’s letter 10 governance Chief Executive’s review 14 Corporate Responsibility Committee report 95 Group strategic framework 18 Nominations Committee report 99 Our markets 20 Remuneration Committee report 102 How our business works 24 Annual remuneration report at a glance 107 Our stakeholders 26 Financial statements Annual remuneration report 109 Companies Act Section 172 28 Directors’ remuneration policy 131 Sustainability 34 Statutory and other information 146 Group financial review 44 Guidance for 2020 52 Independent
    [Show full text]
  • ONR FOI Release
    2013/134632 MASTER REGISTER OF NUCLEAR SITE LICENCES: UPDATED APRIL 2015 (including licensing exemptions under NIA65 s.1(2)) Licence Numbering Abbreviations 1. The next available site licence number is issued: Att. – Attachment of licence condition(s) under sections 4(1), 4(3) and 4(4) of NIA65 (a) when a site is licensed for the first time, or V. – either: (b) when an existing licensed site is relicensed to a different corporate body. (a) a Variation under s.4(5) of NIA65 of the conditions attached to the licence or 2. Where a replacement licence is granted to the corporate body already holding the (b) a Variation granted under s.3(12) of NIA65 to exclude part of the site which the licence for that site, the new licence will carry the existing licence number but with the licensee no longer needs for prescribed activities and for which it has addition of an alphabetical suffix. For example licence 30 was succeeded by licence demonstrated ‘no danger’ from ionising radiations to the satisfaction of ONR. 30A, then licence 30B etc. etc. NUCLEAR SITE LICENCES: ENGLAND AND WALES LICENCE SITE TITLE AND LOCATION LICENSEE GRANTED IN FORCE REVOKED / NOTES NO: (Grid Reference) and Registered Office SURRENDERED 1 Merlin Reactor Associated Electrical Industries 25.03.60 01.04.60 31.12.63 Ltd Aldermaston Court, Aldermaston 33 Grosvenor Place Reading, Berkshire London SW1 2 Jason Reactor Hawker-Siddeley Nuclear Power 25.03.60 01.04.60 18.01.62 Company Ltd V1. 12.12.60 12.12.60 Sutton Lane, Langley V2.
    [Show full text]
  • Delivering Real Advantage
    BAE SYSTEMS plc Annual Report BAE SYSTEMS plc Annual Report 2005 6 Carlton Gardens London SW1Y 5AD United Kingdom Telephone +44 (0)1252 373232 Registered in England and Wales No. 1470151 Website details www.baesystems.com 2005 Bradley A3 In 2005 BAE Systems acquired United Defense, who have produced the Bradley Combat System for over 20 years. The Bradley family of vehicles is a key vehicle system for the US Army supporting a variety of missions. Delivering real advantage BAE SYSTEMS plc Annual Report BAE SYSTEMS plc Annual Report 2005 6 Carlton Gardens London SW1Y 5AD United Kingdom Telephone +44 (0)1252 373232 Registered in England and Wales No. 1470151 Website details www.baesystems.com 2005 Bradley A3 In 2005 BAE Systems acquired United Defense, who have produced the Bradley Combat System for over 20 years. The Bradley family of vehicles is a key vehicle system for the US Army supporting a variety of missions. Delivering real advantage Operating and financial review BAE Systems at a glance BAE Systems is the premier transatlantic defence and aerospace company delivering a full range of products and services for air,land and naval forces as well as advanced electronics, information technology solutions and customer support services. Electronics, Land & Armaments Programmes Customer Solutions Integrated Systems Commercial Intelligence & Support & Support & Partnerships Aerospace Principal operations An industry leader in a variety of A global leader in the design, Comprises the Company’s air Provides support solutions for current Comprises
    [Show full text]
  • The Royal Navy's New-Generation Type 45 Destroyer
    TYPE 45 DESTROYER Acquisition Options and Implications John Birkler, John F. Schank, Mark V. Arena, Giles Smith, Gordon Lee Prepared for the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence Approved for public release; distribution unlimited R Europe The research described in this report was prepared for the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence. ISBN: 0-8330-3203-8 RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND® is a registered trademark. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of its research sponsors. The cover art and Figures 1.1, 1.2, 4.4, and 5.1 are from the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence and are reprinted by permission. The photos in Appendix C are by Tom Lamb. Figure C.4 is from Carlos Merino (IZAR Ferrol Shipyard), “F-100 and F-319: New Frigates for Europe”, paper presented at RINA Conference WARSHIP 2001—Future Surface Warships, London, 2001. Cover design by Maritta Tapanainen © Copyright 2002 RAND All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND. Published 2002 by RAND 1700 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 201 North Craig Street, Suite 202, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-1516 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org/ To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: [email protected] PREFACE In April 2001, the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence (MOD) commissioned RAND to investigate procurement strategies that the MOD could pursue as it acquires warships over the next 15 to 20 years.
    [Show full text]
  • BAESML Barrow Site Emergency Plan
    Title of document BAESML Barrow Site Emergency Plan Alteration to the Approved Site Emergency Plan Project Assessment Report ONR-OFP-PAR-16-018 Revision 0 27 January 2017 Template Ref: ONR-DOC-TEMP-005 Revision 11 Page 1 of 8 Report ONR-DEF-PAR-16-018 TRIM Ref: 2016/406070 © Office for Nuclear Regulation, 2017 If you wish to reuse this information visit www.onr.org.uk/copyright for details. Published 02/17 For published documents, the electronic copy on the ONR website remains the most current publicly available version and copying or printing renders this document uncontrolled. Office for Nuclear Regulation Page 2 of 8 Report ONR-DEF-PAR-16-018 TRIM Ref: 2016/406070 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Alteration of the Approved Site Emergency Plan Permission requested The Licensee has requested ONR’s formal Approval under Licence Condition 11(3) for an alteration to its Site Emergency Plan; the existing plan (BAE Systems Submarines Nuclear Site Emergency Plan, NSRD/GR04-002, eDMS 1586217 Issue 2, 11.07.2011 Rev 3 02.02.2015) is to be replaced with a revised plan (BAE Systems Submarines Nuclear Site Emergency Plan, NSRD/GR04-002, eDMS 1586217 Issue 2, 11.07.2011 Rev 4 16.01.2017). Assessment and inspection work carried out by ONR in consideration of this request ONR’s assessment has been limited to determining the extent of the proposed changes relative to the previous issue and their material significance with regard to the on-site emergency arrangements. ONR judges that the proposed amendments are limited to the removal of the Critical Actions Team and Human Resources Team, which does not affect the principles of operation of the plan.
    [Show full text]
  • George Bowie CV 2013
    Curriculum Vitae George Bowie www.arch-henderson.co.uk Associate CONTACT PROFILE +44 141 227 3060 [email protected] George joined Arch Henderson in 2002 and has specialised in the project management of significant Marine Works, Marine Transportation, Shipbuilding NATIONALITY Support and other infrastructure. He has been responsible for the design co- British ordination and project management of much of the Type 45 Destroyer enabling works for BAE Systems as well as a roll on/off ferry terminal and various port and ferry related projects throughout the UK and overseas. QUALIFICATIONS BSc Civil Engineering EXPERIENCE ACCREDITATIONS George has experience in the design co-ordination and project management of BSc building structures including complex multi-disciplinary facilities and is a CDM Coordinator for these projects. YEARS OF EXPERIENCE 25+ SELECTION OF PROJECTS: EXPERTISE Project Management Imperial Dock, Leith £2m) CDM Coordinator Replacement of historic dry dock gate, machinery and pumps with new mitre MOD Structures gates and civils upgrade. Shipbuilding Structures Montrose Port Authority – 2 New Berths (£14m) General Infrastructure Two Deep Water Berths replacing a collapsed quay and extending existing cargo Marine Structures handling facilities over two contracts. Argyll and Bute Council (£4.5m) Project Engineer for new Ferry Terminal located at Dunoon BAE Systems Marine Limited (£8.5m) Project Engineer for Govan number 1 Slipway upgrading Clydeport Limited (£1m) Project Engineer for proposed Rothesay Dock, Boat Yard Clydeport Limited Management of small-scale structural and civil engineering contracts. BAE Systems Marine Limited Upper Clyde shipyards, management of small-scale structural and civil engineering contracts. BAE Systems Marine Limited (£500k) Govan Centre of Excellence, project management of a variety of multi-disciplined contractors, including resident engineer to structural alterations contract.
    [Show full text]
  • Shared Modular Build of Warships: How a Shared Build Can Support Future Shipbuilding
    CHILDREN AND FAMILIES The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and EDUCATION AND THE ARTS decisionmaking through research and analysis. ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE This electronic document was made available from www.rand.org as a public service INFRASTRUCTURE AND of the RAND Corporation. TRANSPORTATION INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS LAW AND BUSINESS Skip all front matter: Jump to Page 16 NATIONAL SECURITY POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY Support RAND SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Purchase this document TERRORISM AND Browse Reports & Bookstore HOMELAND SECURITY Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND National Defense Research Institute View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non- commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND electronic documents to a non-RAND website is prohibited. RAND electronic documents are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the RAND Corporation technical report series. Reports may include research findings on a specific topic that is limited in scope; present discussions of the methodology employed in research; provide literature reviews, survey instru- ments, modeling exercises, guidelines for practitioners and research professionals, and supporting documentation; or deliver preliminary findings. All RAND reports un- dergo rigorous peer review to ensure that they meet high standards for research quality and objectivity.
    [Show full text]
  • National Approaches to Shipbuilding and Ship Procurement
    National Approaches to Shipbuilding and Ship Procurement National Approaches to Shipbuilding and Ship Procurement Edited by Douglas L. Bland Defence Management Studies Program School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University 2010 Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication National approaches to shipbuilding and ship procurement / edited by Douglas L. Bland. (The Claxton papers, ISSN 1491-137X ; 11) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-1-55339-294-1 1. Warships—Design and construction—Government policy. 2. Shipbuilding—Government policy. 3. Shipbuilding industry—Military aspects. I. Bland, Douglas L. II. Queen’s University (Kingston, Ont.). Defence Management Studies Program III. Series: Claxton papers ; 11 V750.N37 2010 359.6’212 C2010-903512-7 Copyright © Defence Management Studies Program, School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, 2010 The Claxton Papers The Queen’s University Defence Management Studies Program, established with the support of the Canadian Department of National De- fence (DND), is intended to engage the interest and support of scholars, members of the Canadian Forces, public servants, and participants in the defence industry in the examination and teaching of the management of national defence policy and the Canadian Forces. The program has been carefully designed to focus on the development of the theories, concepts, and skills required to manage and make decisions within the Canadian defence establishment. The Chair of the Defence Management Studies Program is located within the School of Policy Studies, and the program builds on Queen’s University’s strengths in the fields of public policy and administration, strategic studies, management, and law. Among other aspects, the program offers an integrated package of teaching, research, and conferences, all of which are designed to build expertise in the field and to contribute to wider debates within the defence community.
    [Show full text]