This is a regular round up of Parliamentary questions and answers from ministers relevant to defence issues In addition to oral questions, MPs and Peers can ask government ministers questions for written answer. These are often used to obtain detailed information about policies and statistics on the activities of government departments. In the House of Commons ‘ordinary’ questions do not have to be answered on a specific date. An MP will date a written question for two days after they have tabled it (ie, submitted it for answer via the Table Office). The convention is that the MP can expect it to be answered within seven days of the question being tabled.
Contents
Question
Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Piranha 10×10 armoured vehicles his Department has acquired under urgent operational requirements; from which countries such vehicles were required; and what their operational role was.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
None.
Question
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on rent for private sector accommodation for use by armed forces personnel in (a) 2007, (b) 2008, (c) 2009 and (d) 2010.
Answer
Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)
Substitute Service Family Accommodation (SSFA) and Substitute Service Single Accommodation (SSSA) properties may be rented to accommodate service families and single serving personnel respectively when no suitable Ministry of Defence accommodation is available to entitlement at or close to the duty station. Substitute accommodation is only used as a last resort and often more than one service person may occupy an SSSA property.
The amount spent on SSFA and SSSA per financial year is shown in the following tables:
| SSFA properties | ||
| Financial year | Number of SSFA properties (as at 31 March) | Cost (£ million) |
| 2006-07 | 1,279 | 18 |
| 2007-08 | 1,190 | 18 |
| 2008-09 | 1,391 | 20. |
| 2009-10 | 1,524 | 22 |
| 2010-11 | 1,668 | 23 |
| SSSA properties | ||
| Financial year | Number of SSSA properties (as at 31 March) | Cost (£ million) |
| 2006-07 | 4,095 | 40.5 |
| 2007-08 | 4,479 | 44.5 |
| 2008-09 | 4,806 | 50.9 |
| 2009-10 | 4,803 | 55.9 |
| 2010-11 | 4,454 | 53.0 |
These figures do not include properties rented from Annington Homes Ltd, bulk hire or those subject to private finance initiative arrangements.
Question
Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces under the age of 18 years saw active service in (a) 2008-09, (b) 2009-10 and (c) 2010-11.
Answer
Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)
In accordance with the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (the Optional Protocol), Ministry of Defence policy is not to deploy personnel aged under 18 on operations.
The United Kingdom ratified the Optional Protocol on24 June 2003 and remains firmly committed to it. Every feasible step is taken, in accordance with our obligations, to prevent the involvement in hostilities of service personnel under the age of 18.
We have protective measures, including single-service administrative guidelines and procedures and a system for tracking personnel, to reduce as far as possible the risk of unintentional deployments. We have also revised and re-issued the “Policy on the Care of Service Personnel under the Age of 18”. Our processes are, however, not infallible and the pressures on units prior to deployment have meant that there have been a small number of instances where service personnel have been inadvertently deployed to an operational theatre before their’18th birthday.
There were four members of the armed forces who were under the age of 18 years and deployed to operational theatres between April 2008 and March 2010. As a result of tighter controls in units and at RAF Brize Norton no service personnel under the age of 18 years has deployed since January 2010.
Question
Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will allow families of members of the armed forces facing redundancy to remain in their current location until the decisions on such redundancies have been made.
Answer
Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)
We have recently notified those service personnel selected for redundancy in tranche one, and where possible we will allow their families to remain in their current locations until the discharge date.
Details regarding the redundancy fields for future tranches are currently being considered by individual service manning authorities. Until a service man or woman has been selected for redundancy he or she remains deployable both in the United Kingdom and overseas. If the assignment is for accompanied service, entitlement to service families accommodation is limited to the new duty station.
Question
Matthew Hancock (West Suffolk, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of armed forces personnel were women in each (a) service and (b) rank in the latest period for which figures are available.
Answer
Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)
The information requested is given in the following table:
| Percentage | ||||
| 1 April 2011 | All services | Naval service | Army | RAF |
| Total | 9.6 | 9.4 | 8.0 | 13.8 |
| Officers | 12.3 | 9.7 | 11.3 | 15.7 |
| OF-9 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| OF-8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| OF-7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| OF-6 | 1.7 | 0 | 0.6 | 5.5 |
| OF-5 | 3.4 | 1.0 | 3.6 | 5.2 |
| OF-4 | 5.8 | 3.0 | 6.2 | 7.7 |
| OF-3 | 11.8 | 8.7 | 11.4 | 15.3 |
| OF-2 | 15.2 | 13.7 | 13.6 | 18.2 |
| OF-l/OF-(D) | 14.7 | 12.1 | 13.1 | 19.2 |
| Other ranks | 9.0 | 9.3 | 7.4 | 13.2 |
| OR-9 | 4.5 | 3.9 | 5.9 | 2.9 |
| OR-8 | 4.7 | 0.5 | 5.4 | 0 |
| OR-7 | 6.0 | 4.9 | 7.0 | 5.3 |
| OR-6 | 9.8 | 7.6 | 9.1 | 12.5 |
| OR-4 | 11.9 | 11.7 | 9.7 | 16.0 |
| OR-3 | 7.5 | 0.2 | 7.8 | 0 |
| OR-l/OR-2 | 9.1 | 11.1 | 6.3 | 14.6 |
Question
Ian Austin (Dudley North, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect of reductions in his Department’s expenditure on the level of its contracts with BAE Systems; and if he will make a statement.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
As part of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) implementation process, we have engaged with BAE Systems on a programme of commercial negotiations for contracts impacted directly by SDSR decisions. These negotiations continue, and cover all aspects of the Department’s future requirements with the company and the company’s capabilities. I am withholding the details of these discussions as their disclosure would prejudice commercial interests.
Question
Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for personnel using the Maritime Composite Training System to conduct live training with service personnel from foreign nations using the Joint Multinational Interoperability Assurance Network.
Answer
Nick Harvey (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Defence; North Devon, Liberal Democrat)
The Royal Navy plans to commence Maritime Composite Training System inter-operability trials with two of its NATO partners in April 2012.
Question
Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South, Liberal Democrat)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to appoint a new partner for Defence Business Services.
Answer
Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)
The competitive dialogue process is expected to conclude by Christmas at which point we will make a decision whether or not to award the contract to a commercial partner or retain the current in-house management. This decision will be taken on value for money grounds.
Question
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel have applied to be considered for redundancy since May 2010; and what assessment he has made of the effect of redundancy notices issued to service personnel on active duty.
Answer
Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)
holding answer12 October 2011
There have been some 2,300 applications from members of the armed forces to be considered for compulsory redundancy in tranche one, of whom 1,770 were accepted.
Service personnel in receipt of the operational allowance were exempt from redundancy unless they were volunteers. Those applicants who volunteered and were selected for redundancy while serving on operations are receiving the same level of support and advice as any others.
Question
Graham Jones (Hyndburn, Labour)
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions (a) he and (b) his officials have had with their counterparts in the Ministry of Defence on tranche 3B of Eurofighter.
Answer
Danny Alexander (Chief Secretary, HM Treasury; Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, Liberal Democrat)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend Mr Osborne, has had no specific discussions on tranche 3B with his counterpart in the MOD. Treasury officials discussed the potential size of tranche 3 numerous times with the MOD prior to contract signature in 2009.
Question
Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason there will be a three-year pause in the upgrade of service family accommodation properties from 2013.
Answer
Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)
There will be a pause in the upgrade programme while the Ministry of Defence (MOD) works to reduce its funding gap, and to balance Defence priorities and the budget whilst protecting front-line operations.
The MOD will continue to fund routine and response maintenance on accommodation, together with minor new works, including special needs adaptations; carpet replacement; and improvements delivered through the asset replacement programme, during the three year upgrade pause.
Question
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial support is available for armed forces personnel returning to civilian life who began serving before 2005 but who have fewer than 20 years service.
Answer
Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)
There is a resettlement training grant of £534 that is available to service leavers who have served six or more years to assist them in paying for resettlement training. The grant is also available to all service personnel who are medically discharged, regardless of their length of service. Resettlement support for the majority of service leavers is provided by the Career Transition Partnership (CTP).
Further support is available to eligible personnel, through various training courses (which are free from tuition fees); career transition workshops; employment and future career advice; assistance with CV writing and job preparation; vocational training; and a job-search/recruitment facility.
Furthermore, dependent on their pension scheme, rank and length of service, those who leave the armed forces and have no immediate terminal benefit may be eligible for a resettlement grant.
Question
Graham Jones (Hyndburn, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
(1) what discussions (a) he and (b) his officials have had with their counterparts in (i) HM Treasury and (ii) the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills on a slow-down in orders for tranche 3A of the Eurofighter; and when such discussions took place;
(2) what discussions (a) he and (b) his officials have had with BAe systems on a slow-down in orders for tranche 3A of the Eurofighter; and when such discussions took place;
(3) what discussions (a) he and (b) his have had with their counterparts from partner core nations on a slow-down in tranche 3A of the Eurofighter; and when such discussions took place;
(4) whether his Department has (a) undertaken and (b) evaluated any impact assessment on the potential effects on (i) levels of employment and (ii) the economy of a slow-down in orders for tranche 3A of the Eurofighter; and when any such assessment was made;
(5) when the meeting took place which decided to slow down production of tranche 3A of the Eurofighter; and who represented his Department at that meeting.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
A proposal was made in May 2010 by the Eurofighter GmbH consortium to slow down rate of production of Typhoon Tranche 3A aircraft for all four partner nations. The Typhoon partner nations agreed to this proposal in July 2011.
The agreement on production slowdown aims to protect the industrial capacity of the Eurofighter partner companies to service export orders for Typhoon while meeting the requirements of the partner nations. The UK Government are fully committed to the Typhoon programme and potential exports, and recognises the wider benefits that these bring to the UK economy in terms of revenue and jobs for both the short and long term.
The proposal was agreed by Ministers and by officials, both within the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and with our Typhoon international partners. Officials from the UK Trade and Investment’s Defence and Security Organisation provided some input to the issue, but were not involved in this decision as it falls within the MOD’s delegated authority. HM Treasury was also not involved in this decision for the same reason. The Eurofighter partner companies, which include BAE Systems, were instrumental in negotiating acceptable arrangements with the partner nations from the outset.
Question
Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his most recent estimate is of the (a) completion date and (b) cost to the public purse of the Valiant Jetty programme.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
The latest forecast completion date for the Valiant Jetty project is September 2012, which puts the in-service date out to December 2012. This is nearly four years after the contracted completion date of October 2008.
The current contractual maximum price of the project is £134 million. However, the contractor, AMEC, is forecasting an out-turn of around £92 million over this figure. Under the terms of the contract AMEC is responsible for the first £50 million of this cost overrun. The Ministry of Defence may be liable for a proportion of any cost overrun beyond £50 million over the maximum price, but only insofar as AMEC is able to show that the additional costs in question have been reasonably and properly incurred.
Question
Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the preferred bidder for the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme will be announced.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
An announcement concerning the main investment decision for the Warrior Capability Sustainment Programme will be made shortly.
Question
Madeleine Moon (Bridgend, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which aircraft have been identified as potential replacements for the Sentinel R1; and if he will make a statement.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
There is currently no plan to replace the Sentinel R1. The withdrawal of this capability will be mitigated by utilising a number of other platforms and assets including unmanned air systems such as Watchkeeper.
Question
Madeleine Moon (Bridgend, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost to the public purse of (a) retaining, (b) upgrading and (c) replacing the Sentinel R1; and if he will make a statement.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
As announced in the strategic defence and security review, our current plan is to withdraw the Sentinel system from service when it is no longer required to support operations in Afghanistan. There are, therefore, no estimates of the cost to retain, upgrade or replace the platform.
Question
Madeleine Moon (Bridgend, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Sentinel R1 to be retired from service; and if he will make a statement.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
As announced in the strategic defence and security review, our current plan is to withdraw the Sentinel system from service when it is no longer required to support operations in Afghanistan.
Question
Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence
(1) when he expects the final downselection in the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability tanker contract to occur;
(2) what the total cost to the public purse is of the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability tanker contract;
(3) on what date he expects the (a) first and (b) last Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability tankers to be delivered to the Royal Navy.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
Final bids have been requested from the bidders in the ongoing international competition for the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability (MARS) Tanker contract. We anticipate announcing the winning bidder early next year.
I am withholding information on the cost of the contract and the planned delivery schedule as their disclosure would prejudice commercial interests.
Question
Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what obligations his Department has placed on General Dynamics to manufacture and assemble the Scout Specialist Vehicle in the UK.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
The Ministry of Defence has placed no contractual obligations on General Dynamics UK (GDUK) to manufacture the Scout Specialist Vehicles (Scout SV) platforms in the UK. GDUK has, however, indicated that a significant proportion of the activity may be conducted in the UK.
In addition, the contract allows for the transfer of the assembly integration and test work on the platforms from off-shore facilities, to the Defence Support Group in the UK. A value for money decision on whether to transfer this work will be taken later in the programme, closer to production. An enabling arrangement for industrial participation has also been put in place with General Dynamics, that will see work being carried out in the UK, or assistance being provided to UK exporters to Spain (assembly of ASCOD, the base vehicle for Scout SV is currently conducted in Spain).
Wow – do I read the last one right, after all the GD propaganda about BAe’s offering for FRES SV being “built” in Sweden, it appears they have the same arrangement after all ? The hull is built in Spain and completed / fitted out in the UK ?
jed, just doing a post on it now, do you remember ‘British to its Bootstraps’
How can a rational decision have been made on Sentinel if there have been no estimates to the cost of retaining the system?
Hi BB,
Say no more! Soon after the decision there were rumours in the “trade” press that another, unnamed nation wants to buy the capability
- only a chance to recoup a reasonable portion of the initial investment would explain the decision and the apparent lack of numbers (this aspect was not part of the question, and did not get answered)
By 2014/15 those airframes will have a lot of hours on them, so who would buy them except for a transitional capability, to train on?
Hi, ACC.
If there is a buyer for those well used airframes, then no doubt we’ve ditched the capability for a fist full of small change.
I also thought that Sentinel had the potential to be used as a control station and data relay for Watchkeeper; in which case we have the paradox of having mitigated the withdrawal of an important part of the Watchkeeper UAV system with a subsequently less capable Watchkeeper UAV system.
(those fancy new Hawkeyes could do the same thing)
I was trying (but failing) to find who was still in the running for MARS project earlier. Does anyone know?
And on a vaguely related historical trivia point, can anyone confirm that the A(ustin) & P(ickersgill) Tyne site at Hebburn – they were on the list of MARS bidders at one point – is the old Hawthorn Leslie yard?
Many thanks in advance.
Oh, joy! The MARS FT seems to finally make it into the next phase then?
Man, took a long time for that…!
“I was trying (but failing) to find who was still in the running for MARS project earlier. Does anyone know?”
This is all i can say about MARS FT:
On 10 December 2007 the MOD issued an “Invitation to Participate in Dialogue” to industry to for up to six fleet tankers at an expected cost of £800 million.
On 21 May 2008 the MOD announced the results of the invitation, indicating that four companies had been shortlisted: Fincantieri (Italy); Hyundai (Republic of Korea); Navantia (Spain) and BAE Systems with BMT DSL and DSME (Republic of Korea).
Last March, a written answer however pointed out that the shortlisted bidders were 6. Evidently in the latest re-runs of the competition a decision was taken for expanding the race.
One of the two “unknown” bidders, i believe, is France’s DCNS, but i’ve been unable to find out for sure.
Latest ISD i heard of was 2016. Numbers have (of course) dropped. From 6 tankers, to 4, with the contract expected to come as a first order for 2 vessels, plus two options for two more hulls, options to finance subsequently, one at a time, in a 2 + 1 + 1 fashion.
Frazer-Nash and its partners — Seatec UK, Babcock Marine and Technology, Atos Consulting and LSC Group — were selected last April to provide Afloat Support Shipping Engineering and Technical Services to the MoD’s Afloat Support Project Team.
Read more: http://www.theengineer.co.uk/sectors/military-and-defence/mod-awards-frazer-nash-led-consortium-mars-contract/1008121.article#ixzz1bLs62Aaf
The people still running in the MARS competition are: Fincantieri (Italy); Hyundai (Republic of Korea); and DSME (Republic of Korea).
Gabs is right about the 4 hulls intention too.
Technology marches on but I just can’t see how Watchkeeper can in any way replace Sentinel, just from an antenna size on the SAR perspective. Wonder if whatever comes out of Telemos/Reaper will provide the actual replacement.
Anyway, if I were a betting man I would wager a tenner that Sentinel survives beyond Afghanistan, but wouldn’t bet more than a tenner!
I put a Link on the open thread to written evidence to the defence select committe on Libya from raytheon on sentiel over Libya and it’s capabilties if you fancy a read
TD/ Mark,
From Marks link it is evident that 2018 is the earliest(!) Sentinel could go:
“With the JSF not due to enter into service until between 2017 and 2020 and Scavenger not planned to deliver an operational capability until sometime after 2018, there remains a risk of no capability in this area for a significant period of time.
The Sentinel system also has a valuable role in communications. The Ground Station currently provides the coalition forces with *the only means of interoperation with JSTARS* which will be lost when Sentinel is retired.
Furthermore this loss will have an effect on potential plans for the long range deployment of UAVs, for which radio relay of data may be required, especially if SATCOM bandwidth is limited or not available. Sentinel’s high altitude ceiling has been utilised in this way by the USAF using the original ASTOR demonstrator GEX 9001 as a trials aircraft operating out of Afghanistan.”
It is good that Raytheon got the chance to write their own piece as what is under the bonnet is not often clear from the MoD announcements.
- the cheapest (and as of now, the only) way to piggy-bag on JSTARS
“Wonder if whatever comes out of Telemos/Reaper will provide the actual replacement.”
I don’t think that Telemos will be carrying that powerful and big a sensor suite. But, if i’m not saying an idiocy, i think that a Global Hawk variant was fitted with the same radar of Sentinel, lately…?
About the need to piggy-bag on JSTARS (as the AGS programme keeps losing members, and thereby shrinking & lagging ever more):
“(J-STARS) uses a powerful ground-looking Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) mounted on a Boeing 707-300 airframe, in order to give American commanders outstanding battlefield surveillance and communications relay capabilities. The Alliance Ground Surveillance (AGS) system aimed to create a similar capability as a pooled NATO asset, based on a mix of smaller Airbus A321 airframes and RQ-4B Global Hawk UAVs, coupled with ground stations.
AGS started in 1995, and has taken a very long time. In the end, it was also slashed by deleting its manned aircraft and advanced TCAR radar entirely. Its MoU was late, its contract will be both late and smaller in scope, and time will tell if it meets even the delayed 2012-2014 fielding window.”
Source: DID of yesterday
Global hawk costs the Germans 80-100m per a/c and ground station and a similar figure per a/c to develop the sigint package it capable but very expensive. We have a gd system in astor and the CAS recently give an interview in which it sounds like the sentiel position may change. People have been to look at these a/c and if there sold they may all not go to same buyer I could even see us selling 1 to keep the others going.
Mark,
V much the way I am thinking and I thought the answer to “cost to upgrade or replace” was literally true, it begged the follow-on question: how much would the opportunity cost, for a similar capability, from ground-up be
I don’t know if you used $ or pounds, but my information is similar (for fleets of under ten):
- basic config with support systems $100m a piece
- advanced, not only the German but the Korean requirement: $200m
- considering 30h endurance and 25.000km range, you only need four to keep one on station