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.

 

Question

Jim Shannon (Strangford, DUP)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with reference to the Government’s Positive for Youth document and new approach to cross- governmental policy for 13 to 19 year olds, what steps he is taking to expand cadet forces into state schools; and how he is ensuring this will be done in a cost effective way.

Answer

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

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 11 June 2012, Hansard, column 91W. In line with our commitment to Positive for Youth, Ministry of Defence (MOD) continues to work with the Department for Education to explore options to expand the cadet forces. I recently held a conference with the Schools Commissioner to discuss options with key stakeholders. I am keen that any expansion is carried out in the most cost effective manner without diluting the cadet experience, and I hope that an announcement will be made soon.

Positive for Youth applies to England only, but the MOD is of course willing to discuss similar opportunities with the devolved Administrations.

 

Question

Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay, Liberal Democrat)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many serving members of (a) the Army, (b) the Royal Navy and (c) the Royal Air Force (i) committed and (ii) attempted suicide in each year since 1992.

Answer

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

holding answer18 June 2012

The following table illustrates the number of suicides by serving members of the armed forces in each year since 1992:

	All	RN	Army	RAF
1992	37	6	22	9
1993	43	5	25	13
1994	34	6	20	8
1995	43	2	32	9
1996	32	7	19	6
1997	26	4	17	5
1998	19	2	13	4
1999	28	6	18	4
2000	36	6	22	8
2001	16	2	12	2
2002	15	4	11	0
2003	25	3	15	7
2004	20	2	16	2
2005	22	5	13	4
2006	12	0	10	2
2007	10	4	6	0
2008	9	0	7	2
2009	14	2	10	2
2010	6	3	2	1
2011	5	3	2	0

Information on incidents of deliberate self harm, which can include attempted suicide, but also less serious incidents, is set out in the following table. For the period to 2005 only information relating to the Army is held centrally. Data for 2006 onwards are available from the Tri-Service Notification of Casualty system, and from 2010 these have been supplemented by Defence Medical Information Capability Programme sources. These three series are therefore not directly comparable.

Army data 1994 to 2005
	Army
1994	128
1995	134
1996	136
1997	140
1998	181
1999	167
2000	143
2001	174
2002	124
2003	195
2004	196
2005	207

Tri-Service Casualty Reporting System 2006-09
	All	RN	Army	RAF
2006	(1)—	28	29	(1)—
2007	68	32	31	5
2008	129	35	88	6
2009	134	47	77	10
(1) Fewer than five

Where there is only one cell in a row or column that is fewer than five, the next smallest number has also been suppressed so that numbers cannot be derived from totals.

Tri-Service Casualty Reporting System and Defence Medical Information Capability Programme
	All	RN	Army	RAF
2010	367	74	260	33
2011	315	45	237	33

Question

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his oral answer of 11 June 2012, Official Report, column 1, on new equipment expenditure, which lost and stolen items listed between May 2010 and March 2012 have subsequently been found or recovered.

Answer

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

The following items were reported as stolen but were subsequently found or recovered during financial years 2010-11 and 2011-12:

Items	Outcome
Military Ceremonial Kit—1 x sword ORS; 1 x scabbard ORS; 1 x belt waist; 1 x sling sword; 1 x sling; 1 x lining; 1 x sword knot	All items except sword recovered
Fuel	Monies recovered
Laptop computer	No crime. Item found
Pyrotechnics	Items were recovered
TV viewing cards	All items recovered
4 x full size goal posts; 2 x small size goalposts	No crime. Items recovered

Flight deck helmet, goggles and ear defenders	No crime. Items found
Body armour and plates	No crime. Items recovered
Medical daysack	No crime. Items found
Head Stall, Bossess, SIR Singles, Brite Chain, Bit Banbury and Drum Horse Girth	No crime. Items found
Military daysack, green overalls, beret	No crime. Items found
Steel hoist; petrol mower; 3 x boxes chemical light sticks	One item recovered
Cash	Recovered
Silver plated cutlery	No crime. Item found
Various military clothing and equipment	Recovered
Landrover	Item found
Head mounted night vision system	No crime. Item recovered
Gortex clothing; bowman radio equipment	2 radios recovered
MOD equipment	Some items recovered
Antenna; filters; headset	No crime. Items found
Camera	No crime. Item found
Foul weather jacket; daysack	No crime. Item Found
Smoke grenade	Item recovered
Expandable barrier for traffic control	No crime—item found
1 x rescue and salvage hydraulic kit	Recovered
MK 7 Kevlar helmet	Recovered
Dinghy	Solved—item destroyed, not stolen
Goal posts	No crime. Items found
Anti-freeze	Item recovered
2 x head mounted night vision systems	No crime. Items found
1 x night vision goggles	No crime. Item recovered
1 x night vision goggles	No crime. Item returned
Computer	Item recovered
1 x coat; 1 x tie; 1 x gloves	No crime. Items found
Various electronic equipment	Items recovered
7 x drill rifles	4 drill rifles recovered

 

Question

Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions Ministers in his Department have had with representatives of the External Reference Group.

Answer

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

holding answer19 June 2012

Officials have regular meetings with members of the Covenant Reference Group, which superseded the External Reference Group.

A joint meeting between the Ministerial Committee on the Armed Forces Covenant and the Covenant Reference Group is currently in the planning stages. Separately, I have had various meetings with organisations which are members of the Community Reference Group, such as the Families Federations and Service Charities, but not as representatives of the group.

 

Question

Gareth Thomas (Harrow West, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the level of (a) procurement and (b) other fraud affecting his Department’s spending in (i) 2010-11 and (ii) 2011-12; and if he will make a statement.

Answer

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

The Ministry of Defence (MOD)’s estimated losses to procurement fraud were £2.7 million in financial year (FY) 2010-11 and £5.8 million in FY 2011-12. Losses for all other categories of fraud were estimated to be £3.4 million in FY 2010-11 and £5.2 million in FY 2011-12. These losses represent less than 0.019% of the Defence Budget in 2010-11 and less than 0.033% in 2011-12.

The estimate of loss is provided when suspicions are initially reported and will only be quantified when investigative processes have been completed. These figures will fluctuate on an annual basis depending on the particular allegations of fraud under investigation in any one year.

The MOD is developing initiatives to better understand the risks of fraud, and to enhance existing mechanisms aimed at preventing, detecting and responding to fraud.

 

Question

Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether sea trials of the F35b aircraft will involve both Royal Navy and RAF pilots.

Answer

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

Decisions on which pilots will participate in sea trials on the F35b aircraft will be taken nearer the time. They will be drawn from a joint Joint Strike Fighter force of Royal Navy and Royal Air Force personnel.

 

Question

Philip Davies (Shipley, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many campaign medals were awarded to territorial army (a) officers and (b) other ranks in each of the last five years.

Answer

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

The number of campaign medals in respect of Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan awarded to Territorial Army officers and other ranks in each of the last five years, is shown in the following table:

Calendar year	Officers	Other ranks	Total
2008	330	1,180	1,510
2009	280	1,040	1,310
2010	180	880	1,060
2011	140	760	900
2012 (up to 13 June 2012)	110	320	430
Total	1,040	4,170	5,210

 

Question

Julian Lewis (New Forest East, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the public have communicated with his Department about the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme since May 2010; how many such people identified themselves as former members of the armed forces; and if he will place copies of any such correspondence in the Library.

Answer

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

The Ministry of Defence holds no records of written communications from members of the public about the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme since May 2010.

There may have been other forms of communication from members of the public but this information is not held centrally.

 

Question

Philip Davies (Shipley, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Territorial Army personnel are serving in each regiment; how many such personnel are required by each regiment; and how many such personnel will be required to meet the 2020 objective.

Answer

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

Information relating to the strength and establishment (manpower requirement) for Territorial Army (TA) regiments is not held centrally.

As at1 April 2012there were around 25,000 members of the TA (trained and untrained strength), against an Army 2020 objective of some 30,000 trained reserve personnel with a further 8,000 under training.

 

Question

Jim Shannon (Strangford, DUP)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence

(1) what the Territorial Army numbers in (a) Northern Ireland, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland and (d) England were in the latest period for which figures are available; and what proportion of the target threshold this represents;

(2) how many Territorial Army (TA) personnel he proposes to allocate above present numbers in each constituent part of the UK as part of his uplift of the overall TA numbers.

Answer

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

The Strategic Defence and Security Review and subsequent Defence Transformation announcement laid out the key role that the Territorial Army would play in the delivery of the Army’s structure under Future Force 2020. As a result of this, the regular/reserve balance will be adjusted, with the aim of achieving an integrated Army of around 120,000 by 2020, of which some 30,000 will be trained reserve personnel, with a further 8,000 under training.

Against this target, the following table shows the Territorial Army numbers (trained and untrained) in Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England at1 April 2012.

Territorial Army personnel stationed location as at1 April 2012
	Number
(a) Northern Ireland	1,640
(b) Wales	1,470
(c) Scotland	2,460
(d) England	19,430
Notes: The figures are based on service personnel’s stationed location and not their location of residence—where personnel work is not necessarily where they live. Personnel deployed on operations to an area away from their stationed location are shown against their most recent stationed location. 2. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10; numbers ending in five have been rounded to the nearest 20 to prevent systematic bias. Source: DASA (Quad-Service)

An announcement on the Army’s new structure is planed to be made before the summer recess. Further work will then be required before the exact regional spread of Territorial Army personnel across the UK is decided.

 

 

Question

Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spent on education and training in each of the last five years; and how much of that amount was spent on training for specific equipment.

Answer

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

The Ministry of Defence invests in both internal and external training for service and civilian personnel. Given the central importance of readiness for operations, whether ongoing commitments such as Afghanistan or new contingencies, training lies at the core of what we do. This means that training costs are not easily separated out from the rest of the Defence Budget, and that includes the amount spent on training for specific equipment.

It is, however, possible to identify the costs for external training for the last five years and these are given in the following table:

	£ million
2006-07(1)	189.26
2007-08(1)	197.15
2008-09	230.44
2009-10	233.69
2010-11	204.89
(1) Figures prior to 2008-09 also include External Assistance costs.

 

Question

Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions Ministers in his Department have had with employers on tackling discrimination against veterans in the workplace.

Answer

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

holding answer19 June 2012

The Ministry of Defence encourages all employers to value the skills and experience which former service personnel can bring to the workplace.

 

Question

Ian Austin (Dudley North, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what places will be provided for Bomber Command veterans at the unveiling of the Bomber Command Memorial in Green Park on 28 June 2012.

Answer

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

The allocation of tickets has been co-ordinated entirely by the Bomber Command Association. However, we understand that the vast majority of places in the Memorial and Saluting Areas of the event site in Green Park, which has a combined capacity of 6,600 licensed by Westminster council, have been allocated to veterans, the next of kin of the 55,573 members of Bomber Command killed during the War, their carers and immediate family.

 

Question

Vernon Coaker (Gedling, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland

(1) what his policy is on the future of HMS Caroline; and if he will make a statement;

(2) what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Defence on the future of HMS Caroline.

Answer

Owen Paterson (Secretary of State, Northern Ireland; North Shropshire, Conservative)

Before HMS Caroline was decommissioned in 2011 she was the second oldest ship in the Royal Navy and the only surviving ship to have fought in the Battle of Jutland. She is therefore of significant historic value and is the only naval vessel in the world to have in situ First World War turbines.

HMS Caroline has been in Belfast’s Alexandra Dock for more than 80 years and was a floating base for the Royal Navy Reserve. I very much support HMS Caroline remaining in Belfast, and the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend Mr Swire, has had several discussions with the Northern Ireland Minister for Enterprise Trade and Investment Arlene Foster MLA on how best to secure her future and to encourage greater interest in her.

My right hon. Friend is seeking to meet the Minister for the Armed Forces in early July with Arlene Foster MLA when she is next in London to continue these discussions. I also have had private discussions and intend to visit HMS Caroline shortly.

 

Question

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last visited Brunei; what recent steps he has taken to strengthen the UK’s economic, commercial, cultural and educational links with Brunei; and if he will make a statement.

Answer

Jeremy Browne (Minister of State (South East Asia/Far East, Caribbean, Central/South America, Australasia and Pacific), Foreign and Commonwealth Office; Taunton Deane, Liberal Democrat)

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague), visited Brunei on 26-27 April 2012. The Secretary of State discussed a range of issues, including the UK’s close partnership with Brunei across the energy, defence and finance sectors. The Secretary of State found the relationship to be thriving; delivering substantial benefits for both countries, notably in the fields of Energy, Defence, Education and Finance, subsequently underlined by a visit to London by His Majesty the Sultan. In a separate event with Brunei’s Minister of Education, the Secretary of State launched the initiative of the British Universities’ Brunei Association to strengthen still further the educational and research links between Britain and Brunei. The text of the Secretary of State’s statement following the visit is at:

www.fco.gov.uk/en/news/latest-news/?view=News&id=758821382

 

Question

Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the A400M aircraft’s ability to land on rough airstrips.

Answer

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

As part of the ongoing multinational trials programme being undertaken by Airbus Military (the A400M prime contractor) into the capabilities of this new aircraft, a series of complex tests into its ability to operate on a range of surfaces, including rough landing strips has recently started. As these trials are not yet complete, no results have been collected, nor has any assessment been made.

Once the trials are complete and have been evaluated, the outcome will be presented to A400M nations who will collectively make an assessment of this information and whether the aircraft’s performance meets the agreed requirement.

 

Question

Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the potential threat to national security of electromagnetic pulses.

Answer

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

The threat from electromagnetic pulse (EMP) has been assessed by Government, with full engagement from the MOD. EMP from nuclear devices falls within the boarder category of a risk of nuclear attack. Such an attack constitutes a tier 2 risk to national security. The Government are keeping the risk of acquisition or use of non-nuclear EMP by State or non-state actors under review.

As stated previously in evidence provided by Defence officials to the House of Commons Defence Committee (HCDC) Inquiry into electromagnetic pulses (EMP), state development of nuclear EMP devices tends to require advanced engineering. It would require a combination of warhead and missile capabilities that is restricted at present to a few states, none of whom, we judge, currently have the intent to conduct a HEMP (High-Altitude EMP) attack, and all of whom would understand the severe consequences of such aggression. While the Government monitors and assesses whether existing open source information could be used to create a viable non-nuclear EMP device, this information is being withheld for the purposes of safeguarding national security.

 

Question

Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his oral statement of 14 May 2012, Official Report, columns 261-64, what the status is of the Seaseeker Programme.

Answer

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

Project Seaseeker is part of the core equipment programme. The intention is to take the investment decision in 2013 in order to bring the capability into service around 2017.

 

Question

Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he proposes that his Department’s Committed Core Equipment Programme will include the Trident successor programme.

Answer

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

holding answer24 May 2012)

As previously announced, the successor nuclear deterrent is included within the core programme.

 

Question

Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence

(1) how many (a) Challenger 2 combat tanks, (b) combat engineer tractors, (c) combat personnel vehicles and (d) multi-rocket armoured vehicles are permanently based in Scotland in respect of each (i) equipment type and (ii) location;

(2) how many Jetstream (a) T2 aircraft and (b) T3 aircraft are permanently based in Scotland in respect of each (i) equipment type and (ii) location.

Answer

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

The UK’s Defence footprint is organised, resourced and managed on a UK-wide basis to meet operational needs.

No equipment of the types listed are permanently based in Scotland at this time.

 

Question

Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) Bowman communication systems, (b) Clansman communication systems, (c) aviation computer systems and (d) A&I weapons systems of each equipment type are permanently based at each location in Scotland.

Answer

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

The UK’s Defence footprint is organised, resourced and managed on a UK-wide basis to meet operational needs.

There are no Clansman communication systems or aviation computer systems permanently based in Scotland. Information relating to the precise locations of the Bowman Communication Systems is being withheld for the purpose of safeguarding national security, however, it is estimated that there are around 2,100 across Scotland.

 

Question

Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) SA90 self propelled guns, (b) multi rocket armoured vehicles, (c) Bates communication systems, (d) SA and IS mortars, (e) man portable surveillance and target acquisition radar systems and (f) Rapier field standard missiles of each equipment type are permanently based at each location in Scotland.

Answer

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

The UK’s Defence footprint is organised, resourced and managed on a UK-wide basis to meet operational needs.

The only equipments listed in the question that are permanently based in Scotland are the mortars, of which there are a total of 39.

The locations of these mortars are provided in the following table:

	Number
Arbroath	9
Inverness	6
Edinburgh	21
Glasgow	3

 

Question

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion, Green)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the written statement of 14 May 2012, Official Report, column 20WS, on the Atomic Weapons Establishment, what the revenue and capital expenditure of the Atomic Weapons Establishment was in each year from 2007-08 to 2011-12; and what the revenue and capital expenditure is projected to be in each of the years from 2012-13 to 2017-18.

Answer

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

The following table shows the breakdown of capital and revenue (resource) costs at the atomic weapons establishment for the period 2007-08 through to 2017-18.

The question asked for revenue and capital expenditure. However, the Ministry of Defence uses the accounting terms capital departmental expenditure and resource departmental expenditure.

£ million at outturn prices
Financial year	Capital costs	Resource costs	Total costs
2007-08	409	485	894
2008-09	395	405	800
2009-10	420	450	870
2010-11	409	535	944
2011-12(1)	349	592	941
2012-13(1)	466	506	972

2013-14(1)	473	512	985
2014-15(1)	534	533	1,067
2015-16(1)	483	535	1,018
2016-17(1)	419	543	962
2017-18(1)	426	562	988
(1 )Figures for years 2011-12 and 2012-13 are provisional, while those for 2013-14 up to 2012 to 2018 are planned. Notes: 1. CDEL—Capital Departmental Expenditure Limit This covers costs required to bring an asset into working condition for its intended use. Costs include direct purchase price, direct support required to bring the asset to working condition, delivery/handling and installation, Capital spares are also included in CDEL. These are what are required to support the asset and are defined as repairable items with more than one year of life which are retained for the purpose of replacing elements of an asset as it undergoes repair, maintenance, servicing. Additionally CDEL covers any upgrade costs that change/improve the capability of the asset or extends its life. 2. RDEL—Resource Departmental Expenditure Limit These are the costs required to support an asset that is in-service—i.e. we are getting beneficial use from it. These costs include associated running costs and maintaining the asset (i.e. contractor support) that does not alter the capability/life of the asset.

 

Question

Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay, Liberal Democrat)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many former members of the (a) Army, (b) Royal Navy and (c) Royal Air Force (i) committed and (ii) attempted suicide within (A) three, (B) five and (C) 10 years of discharge since 1992.

Answer

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

holding answer18 June 2012

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) does not hold information on attempted suicides of armed forces personnel once they have left service. However MOD does hold some data on former members of the armed forces who have committed suicide. This is currently published by Defence Analytical Services and Advice (DASA) and details causes of mortality (including suicides and open verdict deaths) of veterans of the 1990-91 operation in the Gulf, together with comparative data for a matched cohort of personnel who did not deploy.

Between 1 April 1991and 31 December 2011there were 265 suicide and open verdict deaths among Gulf War 1 Veterans and the comparison cohort who had left service.

The following table provides a breakdown by service, overall and for those who died within three, five and 10 years of discharge. Please note there were five records where the exit date was not available and therefore it is not possible to determine how long after discharge the death occurred:

Service	All	Within three years of discharge	Within five years of discharge	Within 10 years of discharge	Exit date not available
All	265	68	93	183	5
Royal Navy	16	1	5	12	0
Army	208	42	60	135	4
RAF	41	25	28	36	1

The MOD is currently undertaking research into the causes of death (including suicide) among those who served in the Falklands campaign. The study will obtain death notifications to date for the cohort, and will assist us in continuing to develop our support for former personnel and those leaving the services. The MOD is also undertaking a similar study on veterans of Operations Telic and Herrick. This will monitor the causes of death (including suicide) of all serving members of the armed forces from 2003 until the end of Operations in Afghanistan. The intention is to run the study for the lifetime of the cohort; therefore the population will include both serving and discharged personnel. The MOD hopes to publish initial results in 2014.

 

Question

Richard Drax (South Dorset, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussion he has had with representatives of Augusta-Westland on the contract to build Apache helicopters.

Answer

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

No requirement currently exists to add to the Army Air Corp’s fleet of Apache attack helicopters. The Ministry of Defence is engaged in the concept phase of a Capability Sustainment Programme to address our future attack helicopter capability requirement and how it will be sustained to 2040.

As part of the Concept Phase, informal discussions are taking place with potential contractors to inform the range of options which will be taken forward into the Assessment Phase. The Project Team have had initial meetings with representatives of AgustaWestland, who have been encouraged to continue to work with the MOD to help develop our analysis.

 

Question

Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the recent sale of Harrier fighter aircraft led to a loss to his Department; and how much was any such loss.

Answer

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

holding answer13 June 2012

The sale of Harrier assets to the US Government was for US$180 million (around £110 million); this figure included the sale of 72 Harrier airframes, spares and associated support equipment. Moreover, when the value of the sale is added to the savings made from retiring the Harrier fleet from service, the total estimated receipts and savings to the Ministry of Defence is around £1 billion.

The decision to retire the Harrier force early was not taken lightly. Fleet reductions by the previous Government that predated the Strategic Defence and Security Review meant that the Harrier force was not large enough to achieve sustained operations in Afghanistan, and maintain an adequate contingent capability for the unexpected on its own—such as the recent operation in Libya. A combined fleet of Tornado and Harrier would not be cost-effective, since retiring an aircraft type delivers greater savings than running two smaller fleets.

 

Question

Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the likely effect of the Strategic Defence and Security Review on the number of people employed in the defence industry.

Answer

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

holding answer14 June 2012

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) does not collect information on the number of people employed in the defence industry. The last available official estimates published in UK Defence Statistics 2009 were that 300,000 full-time jobs in the UK were supported by MOD expenditure and defence exports.

The MOD continues to spend a significant amount on procuring equipment and support for the UK armed forces to deliver Future Force 2020. In 2009-10 MOD spent over £20 billion with UK industry and we plan to spend around £160 billion over the next 10 years on the MOD’s equipment and support requirements, a substantial proportion of which will be with UK-based suppliers.

 

Question

Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) 12 ton mine protected vehicles, (b) BR90s, (c) amphibious bridging and ferry equipment and (d) concrete mixers of each equipment type are permanently based at each location in Scotland.

Answer

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

No equipment of the types listed are permanently based in Scotland at this time. The UK’s Defence footprint is organised, resourced and managed on a UK-wide basis to meet operational needs.

 

Question

Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there is a backlog of cases at the Defence Business Services National Security Vetting relating to (a) his Department’s personnel, (b) other civil servants and (c) private sector personnel.

Answer

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

The current backlog of cases, defined by Defence Business Services National Security Vetting as the difference between current and normal case holding, is shown in the following table. Types of case vary and include complex cases which take longer than usual to clear.

		Cases
Counter-terrorist check	MOD personnel	550
Security clearance	Defence industry	650
	Other civil servants	1,000
Developed vetting	MOD personnel	300
	Defence industry	100
	Other civil servants	10

Ministry of Defence (MOD) personnel are defined as MOD civil servants and armed forces personnel. Private sector personnel are contractor cases for those working in the Defence industry. The figures for other civil servants are those for repayment work carried out for DBS National Security Vetting, being a wide range of Government customer organisations.

 

Question

Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the target time is for completion of (a) security checks on and (b) developed vetting by the Defence Business Services National Security Vetting of UK citizens who work for private sector personnel employed by defence contractors or companies providing security to defence or nationally important sites.

Answer

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

The key performance targets for Defence Business Services National Security Vetting to complete all forms of routine security check (SC) and developed vetting (DV) cases are 25 calendar days for SC and 95 calendar days for DV cases. These are net of any third party delays.

 

Question

Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was to his Department of the use of external consultants in each of the last two years.

Answer

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

In financial year (FY) 2010-11 the Ministry of Defence (MOD) spent £26 million on consultancy contracts (as defined by the Office for Government Commerce), including MOD’s trading fund agencies.

The final out-turn on (FY) 2011-12 external consultancy will not be available until July 2012.

We have made significant savings in external assistance over the past decade (from £404 million in 2001-02 to £26 million 2010-11). The following table provides expenditure information for the previous six financial years:

	£ million
2005-06	261
2006-07	129
2007-08	120
2008-09	106
2009-10	79
2010-11	26

Expenditure on consultancy is now published annually in UK Defence Statistics.

 

Question

Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence

(1) what the total monetary value is of each contract between his Department and Atos;

(2) when each contract between his Department and Atos was most recently (a) agreed, (b) renewed and (c) extended.

Answer

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

The Ministry of Defence currently has four contracts with Atos, the details for which are shown in the following table.

Contract No.	Contract purpose	Total value (£000)	Date contract agreed	Renewal date	Extension date
ACT-03461	Computer Software Training	6,636	21 April 2009	None planned	None planned
CTLBC-10	Provision of Occupational Health for Civilian Personnel	4,143	3 June 2008	None planned	None planned
FTS3-CBJPT0005	Technical Assistance for Merlin Engine	1,098	1 April 2012	None planned	None planned
FTS3-FSM/057	Information Knowledge Management Evaluation	253	19 March 2012	None planned	None planned

 

Question

Douglas Carswell (Clacton, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has received through the commercial export levy in each of the last 10 years.

Answer

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

Available records show that commercial exploitation levy (CEL) income is as detailed in the following table:

Financial year	Amount (£ million)
2005-06	14.5
2006-07	16
2007-08	12.5
2008-09	22
2009-10	34.5
2010-11	15
2011-12	18.5

Details prior to 2005 are not held centrally and are therefore unavailable.

 

Question

Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the BvS 10 Viking vehicles used in Afghanistan will be re-built; and what the cost to the public purse will be.

Answer

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

Having been deployed successfully in Afghanistan, Viking vehicles need to be regenerated for return to the core vehicle fleet in readiness for future contingent operations. It remains our intention for the Royal Marines to be equipped with an amphibious protected mobility capability as set out in the strategic defence and security review. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) plans to review uncommitted projects, such as the Viking Regeneration Programme, regularly to decide when it is necessary to commit funding. Those deemed a priority will benefit from the £8 billion of headroom that is available in the equipment budget over the next 10 years following the completion of the latest planning round.

The cost of the programme will be confirmed at the Main Investment Decision Point. The MOD does not publish the planned costs of programmes before this point, as their disclosure would prejudice commercial interests.

 

Question

Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence

(1) what training facilities will close after the implementation of the Defence Technical Training Change Programme; when those facilities will close; and if he will estimate the savings which will accrue from each site closure;

(2) when the (a) Army’s School of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering, (b) School of Electronic and Aeronautical Engineering at Arborfield, (c) Marine Engineering School at HMS Sultan and (d) Air Engineering School at RAF Cottesmore will move to RAF Lyneham.

Answer

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

On current planning Tranche 1 of the Defence Technical Training Change Programme (DTTCP) will result in moves of the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME) training currently conducted at Arborfield and Bordon to Lyneham in Wiltshire, to free these sites up for disposal from 2015. The disposal receipts from the sale of these sites is subject to commercial pressures and sensitivities, current market forces and further detailed work and is not available at present.

Subsequent tranches of the DTTCP plan to move the remaining Defence Technical Training (DTT) schools, including the Royal Naval School of Marine Engineering at HMS Sultan and the Air Engineering School at RAF Cosford, to Lyneham. The relocation of DTT schools would not of itself result in the closure of these sites. The subsequent tranches of the DTTCP will be subject to further detailed work and therefore the proposed dates of their respective relocations to Lyneham are not yet available.

 

Question

Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he has put in place to prevent discrimination against the armed forces in the provision of goods and services.

Answer

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

The Armed Forces Covenant sets out the principles that those who serve in the armed forces, whether regular or reserve, those who have served in the past, and their families, should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services, and that special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given most, such as the injured and the bereaved.

The interim armed forces covenant annual report was published at the end of 2011, and was written in conjunction with our key partner charities, the Families Federations, other Government Departments and the devolved Administrations, all of whom are members of the Covenant Reference Group. It highlighted progress across a range of different areas and identified work still to be done.

A recent measure to combat discrimination has seen the announcement by the Ministry of Defence and Royal Mail of a technical solution for those serving overseas. In addition to improving access to a range of online services including buying goods online and making it easier to access Government online services, this will assist credit reference agencies with their assessments and armed forces personnel serving overseas with maintaining a UK credit history recognised by financial service providers and in turn improve access to financial products.

We will continue to raise awareness of the role of the armed forces in society, which will also help to reduce discrimination.

 

Question

Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence

(1) what measures he has put in place to monitor discrimination against the armed forces, veterans and their families;

(2) what measures he has put in place to centrally record discrimination against service people as defined under the provisions of the Armed Forces Act 2011;

(3) what mechanisms he has put in place for service families to record incidences of discrimination with his Department.

Answer

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

holding answer14 June 2012

The Armed Forces Covenant sets out the principles that those who serve in the armed forces, whether regular or reserve, those who have served in the past, and their families, should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens, and that special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given most, such as the injured and the bereaved.

Any discrimination against members of the armed forces community is to be abhorred, and we will continue to be alert to any cases which are brought to our attention.

When discrimination is experienced, the chain of command will work closely with the civil police, or other bodies as appropriate to address the problem.

 

Question

Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence of what military factors on the costs of the carrier programme he took account during the development of the Strategic Defence and Security Review.

Answer

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

During the Strategic Defence and Security Review, the Ministry of Defence made its assessment of the different options for the carrier programme based on the best estimates available of all the relevant factors—military, financial and industrial—associated with each. The proposal to fit a Queen Elizabeth Class Carrier with catapults and arrestor gear to enable the operation of the carrier variant of the Joint Strike Fighter was then subjected to a detailed study to investigate the technical feasibility, costs and timescales. As a result of this work it has become clear that an operational carrier strike capability could not be delivered until late 2023 at the earliest, and we will therefore pursue the STOVL variant. This will mean that we can start flying jets off the Queen Elizabeth in 2018, earlier than would otherwise have been possible, and at a price we can afford.

 

Question

Peter Bone (Wellingborough, Conservative)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to encourage recognition of the contribution of UK armed forces.

Answer

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

The Government recognises the need to ensure that our armed forces, veterans and their families have the support they need and receive the recognition they deserve. The vast majority of people in this country view our armed forces with great pride, as illustrated by the excellent levels of public attendance at ‘Welcome Home’ parades and the positive public response to our servicemen and women, most recently displayed as a result of the armed forces contribution to the Diamond Jubilee celebrations.

We shall once again celebrate Armed Forces Day on30 June 2012, when the national celebrations have their focus in the city of Plymouth. This highly successful annual event is designed to boost public support and appreciation of all those who serve or have served in the armed forces. In addition to this, as part of the armed forces covenant, more than 50 communities have signed their own community covenants. This statement of mutual support between a civilian community and its armed forces is designed to nurture understanding and awareness of issues affecting the armed forces community.

 

Question

Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the projected cost was of installing catapult and arrestor gear to two aircraft carriers in (a) October 2010, (b) July 2011 and (c) January 2012.

Answer

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

We did not develop cost estimates for the conversion of two carriers, as the Strategic Defence and Security Review required the conversion of only one, with a decision on the second being taken at the 2015 SDSR.

Our cost estimates for the conversion of one carrier were £920 million, in outturn prices, in October 2010. This estimate had been revised to around £950 million by July 2011. By January 2012 our estimates had increased to around £2 billion and reflected our much greater understanding of the implications and requirements of conversion.

Question

Kevan Jones (North Durham, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence

(1) how much his Department has spent on commencement of the delivery of the carrier programme (a) in total and (b) in each category of cost;

(2) how much his Department has spent on the aircraft carrier programme (a) in total and (b) in each category of cost since May 2010.

Answer

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

The Ministry of Defence has spent £2,450 million to the end of April 2012 on the Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carrier programme. Of this, £111 million was for Assessment Phase work, £175 million for Demonstration Phase and £2164 million on the Manufacturing Phase. Over the period May 2010 to end April 2012, we spent £1,262 million, all of which was Manufacturing Phase expenditure. During this period, we also committed up to £39 million on our investigations into conversion, which is accounted for separately.