Parliamentary Answers – week commencing April 23rd 2012

Question

Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Apache helicopter stowing capability of (a) HMS Ocean and (b) HMS Illustrious is; and what the equivalent capability of HMS Queen Elizabeth will be.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

holding answer19 March 2012

HMS Ocean is capable of stowing six Apache aircraft on the flight deck and a further 14 in the hangar. HMS Illustrious is capable of stowing eight Apache aircraft on the flight deck and a further seven in the hangar. HMS Queen Elizabeth will be capable of stowing up to 20 Apache aircraft on the flight deck and approximately 20 in the hangar.

Question

Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people of each rank and in each theatre of operation in each service have received the longer separation allowance in the last 12 months.

Answer

Question

Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the additional funding to improve service family accommodation will be spent on energy efficiency measures in 2013-14.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

It is too early to say at this stage, what proportion of the additional funding allocated to improving service family accommodation will be spent on energy efficiency measures.

Question

Philip Davies (Shipley, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department plans to keep sections of the Army fully trained in the use of Mastiff, Ridgback and Foxhound vehicles for use in future counter-insurgency operations.

Answer

Nick Harvey (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Defence; North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

It is not yet known which of these of vehicles will be retained as part of the core equipment programme. However, the Army’s training programme will continue to reflect their use for as long as there is a requirement to do so.

Question

Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what surveillance capabilities are currently deployable by the armed forces; and what such capabilities will be deployable in 2015.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

ISTAR (Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance) capability provides decision-makers across Defence with situational awareness and understanding, and underpins force protection.

We have a range of deployable in-service capabilities. These include the Sea King Airborne Surveillance and Control (SKASaC) helicopter, the Sentry Airborne Early Warning (AEW) aircraft and the Sentinel ground surveillance system, all of which were used in Libya; SKASaC and Sentinel remain deployed in Afghanistan. Additionally, Reaper, Hermes 450 and Desert Hawk Unmanned Air Systems (UAS) procured as Urgent Operational Requirements (UORs), are in use over Afghanistan and the Merlin HM Mk1 is deployed to provide support to Oman to counter illicit activity in the maritime domain.

Between now and 2015, Hermes 450 will be replaced incrementally by Watchkeeper and withdrawn from service. These plans are under consideration as part of the current planning round, as is the future of capabilities acquired as UORs once they are no longer required in Afghanistan.

We are developing programmes to maintain our capabilities on Unmanned Aerial Systems, imagery intelligence, signals intelligence, airborne surveillance and base/force protection over the next decade. Owing to the sensitive nature of these programmes, many of the details remain classified. ISTAR is also moving into emerging areas such as cyberspace, supporting the pan-Government security agenda.

Question

Philip Davies (Shipley, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans his Department has to bring all Mastiff, Ridgback and Foxhound vehicles back to the UK after the British role in Afghanistan has been completed.

Answer

Nick Harvey (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Defence; North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

It is intended to bring all serviceable Mastiff, Ridgback and Foxhound vehicles back from Afghanistan but the specific details, including timing and locations, are still to be determined. It is planned to return the vehicles to a number of sites across the UK and wider Ministry of Defence estate. We expect to make decisions on which vehicles will be retained as part of the core equipment programme during the course of the next year.

Question

Michael Crockart (Edinburgh West, Liberal Democrat)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence

(1) whether he has considered conducting a review of the quality of the volunteer estate in Scotland;

(2) whether his Department’s capacity review of the army estate in Scotland will incorporate the volunteer estate.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

The Ministry of Defence is currently considering how best to assess capacity on the volunteer estate. This may involve including some volunteer estate sites in the current Basing Optimisation capacity study work that is in progress.

Question

Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what (a) land and buildings, (b) single use military equipment, (c) dwellings and (d) other departmental assets were disposed of in each year since 2008; and what their value was.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

The total value of (a) land and buildings (excluding dwellings, but including the land on which they stand), (b) single use military equipment, (c) dwellings, and (d) other assets disposed of in each year since 2008 is provided in the following table.

The figures above are the value of the assets in the MOD’s accounts at the time of disposal, rather than any money received.

The data for 2011-12 will published in the annual report and accounts, later in the year.

I will place in the Library of the House a list of all land and buildings, including dwellings, sold by the Department in each year since 2008.

A full list of all single use military equipment and other assets disposed in each year since 2008 is not stored centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Question

Madeleine Moon (Bridgend, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider giving the deployment of armed forces to the Falkland Islands an operational name; and if he will award a service medal to all personnel who have completed tours of duty.

Answer

Nick Harvey (Minister of State (Armed Forces), Defence; North Devon, Liberal Democrat)

The Ministry of Defence applies strict criteria for the award of campaign medals, requiring that a particular operation or commitment carries with it a level of rigour and physical threat over and above that which might normally be expected in the course of service with the armed forces.

The role of those forces deployed to the Falkland Islands remains an entirely defensive one, to deliver in the South Atlantic the Government’s standing commitments and responsibilities for the defence and security of the United Kingdom’s Overseas Territories. There is no evidence of any current credible military threat to the security of the Falkland Islands, and we have no plans to give the deployment an operational name or to award a campaign medal to personnel who have served in the Falkland Islands since the 1982 conflict when the South Atlantic Medal was awarded.

Question

Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the (a) CN-295, (b) Saab 2000 MPA, (c) P-3 Orion and (d) P-8 Poseidon airframes and their capacity to conduct (i) maritime surveillance, (ii) anti-submarine warfare and (iii) overland ISTAR and airborne early warning missions.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The Ministry of Defence conducted a capability investigation into our long-term requirements for maritime surveillance. This included a high-level assessment of a number of possible options to inform our future requirements. Regarding the conclusions of our investigations, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 1 February 2012, Hansard, column 654W, to Mrs Moon.

Question

Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assets have been assigned to NATO’s Airborne Early Warning and Control Force following the grounding of he E-3D Sentry fleet of aircraft.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The E-3D Sentry has not been grounded. The E-3D Sentry is not currently required for any NATO Airborne Early Warning and Control Force operations. However, the force remains at readiness states to meet NATO operational commitments, as required.

Question

Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the E-3D Sentry fleet has been grounded; for how long he expects it to remain grounded; and what assets are covering its (a) search and rescue, (b) intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance and (c) airborne early warning duties.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The E-3D Sentry has not been grounded. The safety of our aircrews is paramount and as a precaution, following the discovery of faults in the radome supports of two aircraft, we have temporarily suspended non-operational routine flying. No time scale has yet been set for the resumption of routine flying. We are engaging with all stakeholders including industry to address the issue as quickly as possible.

The force remains at readiness to meet UK and NATO commitments and operational flying will continue as required. Search and rescue services will continue to be provided using a range of assets.

Question

Martin Horwood (Cheltenham, Liberal Democrat)

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent progress his Department has made with Aerospace, Defence and Security in developing and implementing UK national standards for private military and security companies.

Answer

Henry Bellingham (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Africa and the United Nations), Foreign and Commonwealth Office; North West Norfolk, Conservative)

Aerospace, Defence and Security (ADS) set up a special interest group, the Security in Complex Environments Group (SCEG) to work with the Government in developing and implementing UK national standards. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office hosted the SCEG’s inaugural conference on 5 March at Lancaster House which was attended by over 160 representatives of UK-based private security companies, and which discussed national and international regulatory developments. My noble Friend, Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint, Minister of State for Trade and Investment, and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend Mike Penning, made important speeches at the conference, setting out the Government’s work with ADS on the regulatory agenda.

The SCEG announced at the conference that they intend to have UK national standards for both land and maritime based private security companies (PSCs) in place by the end of 2012. SCEG will shortly submit to Ministers specific proposals for this.

Once British national standards are agreed, we intend to submit them to the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers (ICOC) for certification as meeting the ICOC’s principles and requirements.

Question

David Winnick (Walsall North, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated cost of UK operations in Afghanistan has been to date.

Answer

Philip Hammond (Secretary of State, Transport; Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)

holding answer23 April 2012

We estimate that, as at31 March 2012, the net additional cost of military operations in Afghanistan since 2001-02 has been some £17 billion.

Question

Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 5 September 2011, Official Report, column 86W, on Joint Strike Fighter Aircraft, how much has been spent on the Joint Strike Fighter in each cost category to date.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The total expenditure on the Joint Strike Fighter is £1,825 million, being £1,495 million up to and including the development phase with a further £330 million on the production phase.

Question

Madeleine Moon (Bridgend, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 12 March 2012, Official Report, column 9W, on the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft, what the through-life costs were for the carrier variant Joint Strike Fighter in 2011-12; what the projected costs are for 2012-13; and if he will make a statement.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

We are currently finalising the 2012-13 Budget and balancing the Equipment Plan. As part of this process we are reviewing all programmes, including elements of the Carrier Strike Programme, to validate costs and ensure risks are properly managed. The Defence Secretary expects to announce the outcome of this process to Parliament soon.

Question

Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he plans to arm the Army’s variant of the Wildcat with (i) Sting Ray and (ii) Brimstone.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

holding answer18 April 2012

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 16 April 2012, Hansard, column 78W. The Army variant of the Lynx Wildcat will perform a range of tasks including reconnaissance, command and control, force protection and light transport. The role of the Maritime Variant will include, but is not limited to, Anti-Surface Warfare and an Anti-Submarine role. The suite of weapons each will carry is specific to the variant and is based on these roles.

Question

Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the level of carbon dioxide emissions from his Department’s military establishments (a) in the UK and (b) abroad in each year since 2009.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

Carbon emissions from Ministry of Defence (MOD) military establishments (including office buildings, training areas, naval bases, educational sites, storage facilities and airfields) are shown in the following table. Data were collated and reported for the MOD as a whole and are not split between UK and overseas establishments.

Emissions are calculated each year from the total energy consumption, in kWh, of all fuel types for all MOD activities worldwide. Operational theatres, trading fund agencies (except DSTL) and non-departmental public bodies are excluded.

Question

Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any person employed by (a) his Department, (b) the agencies and non-departmental public bodies for which his Department is responsible and (c) any private firms contracted by his Department is bound by any part of the Official Secrets Act.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

Personnel in the Ministry of Defence (MOD), its agencies and Crown Servants in non-departmental public bodies are bound by the Official Secrets Act, as are employees of private firms contracted by the MOD.

Question

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

Personnel in the Ministry of Defence (MOD), its agencies and Crown Servants in non-departmental public bodies are bound by the Official Secrets Act, as are employees of private firms contracted by the MOD.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

holding answer23 April 2012

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has a significant spend on development, which we regard as different from research. A definition of both was in my previous answer dated 10 October 2011, Hansard, column 48W. The difference in the two sets of figures is that one was the combination of total departmental expenditure on research and development combined, and the other was the total departmental expenditure on research only; the latter provided to add clarity against the figures requested for the Science and Technology Programme expenditure.

There have been revisions to the 2009-10 figures due to improved data coverage of research and development spend in top level budgets other than those covered in the main survey by Defence Analytical Services and Advice (DASA). The 2010-11 figures for research and development are also now available.

The updated figures for departmental expenditure on research and development as a total, and the development expenditure and that for research shown separately are as follows:

Question

Chuka Umunna (Streatham, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of his Department’s research and development expenditure in 2009-10 and 2010-11 was spent (a) within his Department excluding the Defence, Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL), (b) by DSTL, (c) with Qinetiq, (d) with UK universities, (e) with UK small and medium-sized enterprises, (f) with other UK companies and (g) with overseas-based organisations.

Answer

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

In 2009-10, the MOD research and development expenditure was approximately:

(i) 16% by DSTL

(ii) Less than 1% with UK universities

(ii) 61% with other UK companies

(iv) 23% with overseas based organisations

In 2010-11, the MOD research and development expenditure was approximately:

(i) 14% by DSTL

(ii) Less than 1% with UK universities

(iii) 75% with other UK companies

(iv) 11% with overseas based organisations

The separation of these figures into research and development and the apportionment to the other categories requested are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Question

Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Education on what dates Ministers in his Department had meetings with their counterparts in the Ministry of Defence to discuss the service premium between 13 February and 17 April 2012.

Answer

Lord Astor of Hever (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Defence; Conservative)

In determining fleet sizes no specific provision is made for the possible loss of ships on war fighting operations. The Royal Navy has lost just four frigates and destroyers to enemy action in the last 50 years, all of which were during the Falklands War, and steps have been taken to learn lessons from these losses.

Ship design, capability, training and doctrine all play a part in maximising operational effectiveness and help to ensure ship survivability.

Question

Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with which NATO members he expects the UK will have interoperability of carrier strike capability using F-35Cs by 2025.

Answer

Gerald Howarth (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (International Security Strategy), Defence; Aldershot, Conservative)

holding answer19 March 2012

We are currently finalising the 2012-13 budget and balancing the Equipment Plan. As part of this process we are reviewing all programmes, including elements of the carrier strike programme. The Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend Mr Hammond, expects to announce the outcome of this process to Parliament soon.

Question

Madeleine Moon (Bridgend, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for how many credit card transactions made by employees of his Department the person making the transaction has been asked to refund to the Department in the latest period for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

Answer

Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)

The Ministry of Defence does not issue credit cards, but the Department does use the Government Procurement Card (GPC) to purchase low value items and services up to the value of £5,000. The GPC is a purchasing/payment card and not a credit card. The number of recorded refunds to the Ministry of Defence for the deliberate misuse of GPCs in financial year 2011-12 is zero.

Question

Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the Government has contributed to NATO’s (a) civil budget, (b) military budget and (c) Security Investment Programme since 2002.

Answer

Gerald Howarth (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (International Security Strategy), Defence; Aldershot, Conservative)

The amount contributed by the UK to NATO’s civil budget, military budget and the NATO Security Investment Programme (NSIP) since 2002 is as follows:

Question

Ian Lucas (Wrexham, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to achieve full accreditation of security companies and UK flagged ships in the Indian Ocean.

Answer

Henry Bellingham (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Africa and the United Nations), Foreign and Commonwealth Office; North West Norfolk, Conservative)

The Prime Minister announced on 30 October that armed guards would be allowed on UK-flagged ships in the high risk, area off the coast of Somalia. Privately contracted armed security personnel (PCASPs) on UK-flagged vessels currently need to comply with interim guidance published by the Department for Transport in December 2011 and carry the relevant Home Office licenses. They will be expected to be certified as meeting the relevant national or international standards when this becomes possible.

As I announced in a written ministerial statement on 21 June 2011, Hansard, column 7WS, we have appointed ADS (Aerospace, Defence and Security) as our trade association partner in the development and implementation of UK national standards for land and maritime based private security companies (PSCs). ADS have established a sub-group, the Security in Complex Environments Group (SCEG) which is currently drafting standards for maritime PSCs and expects to submit specific proposals to Ministers shortly. The SCEG announced at their inaugural conference on5 March that they expect to have both land and maritime national standards in place by the end of 2012.

Statement

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

I announced to the House on 26 January 2011, Hansard, columns 10-11WS, that I had asked Lord Currie of Marylebone to undertake a review of the Government’s single source pricing regulations, which include the Government Profit Formula (GPF) overseen by the Review Board for Government Contracts. Lord Currie published his recommendations in October 2011 and they are currently the subject of consultation with industry and across Government. Pending the outcome of those discussions, the review board has been asked to maintain the existing arrangements.

The review board recently completed their 2012 annual review of the Government Profit Formula and has recommended revised allowances. The Government have accepted the board’s recommendations and the updated allowances have been agreed with industry.

The recommendations will be implemented for new single source work in accordance with the arrangements agreed with industry and published in an addendum to the review board’s report, a copy of which will be placed in the Library of the House.