---

Meteor Missile Programme

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received from Governments of the partner countries regarding the Meteor missile programme. [66022]

Dr. Moonie: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has not recently received any formal representations from the Governments of the partner countries regarding the Meteor missile programme. He has, however, taken every opportunity to discuss the project with his counterparts in the partner countries as the occasion has arisen.

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions the German Government have made representations to the British Government regarding the Meteor missile project. [66023]

Dr. Moonie: The German Government have made no formal representations to the UK Government since the United Kingdom selection of Meteor in May 2000, to salsify the requirement for a Beyond Visual Range Air

3 Jul 2002 : Column 321W

to Air Missile for Eurofighter. There has, however, been regular dialogue between UK Ministers and officials and their German counterparts regarding the Meteor missile project.

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he expects the Meteor missile programme to move into its development phase; [66021]

(2) if he will make a statement on the future of the Meteor missile programme; [66020]

(3) if he will make a statement on the Meteor missile programme; and if he expects them to be in service on time. [66040]

Dr. Moonie: A draft contract for the development and production of the Meteor missile was sent to our partner nations at the end of April following the conclusion of negotiations with the prime contractor MBDA. A revised and final draft contract was passed to our partners earlier this month. We very much hope that all partner nations will confirm within the next few weeks that they are content for the contract to be signed. Germany will need also to sign the Meteor Memorandum of Understanding, which has already been signed by the other five partner nations.

Although negotiation of the Meteor contract has taken longer than expected, we assess that Meteor can achieve its planned in-service date with the RAF if the contract is awarded in the near future.

Infantry

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many trained infantry there were in the Army in each year since 1997. [66028]

Mr. Ingram: The number of trained infantry in the Army in each year since 1997 are detailed in the table:

Date of strength	Officer	Soldier	Total
1 January 1997	2,673	22,683	25,356
1 January 1998	2,726	22,741	25,467
1 January 1999	2,748	22,232	24,980
1 January 2000	2,753	22,385	25,138
1 January 2001	2,783	22,606	25,389
1 January 2002	2,837	22,619	25,456

Eurofighter

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the spare parts for Eurofighter will be stored; and if he will make a statement. [66018]

Dr. Moonie: Spare parts for the Royal Air Force Eurofighter fleet are essential to operations and many are classified as RESTRICTED and above and disclosure of their location could be prejudicial to national security. Therefore, I am withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to defence, security and international relations.

3 Jul 2002 : Column 322W

Armoured Regiments

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which armoured regiments have been at (a) high readiness, (b) training year and (c) other tasks in each of the past three years. [66027]

Mr. Ingram: It is assumed that reference to armoured regiments refers to Royal Armoured Corps (RAC) tank regiments and not Armoured Infantry (IA) Battalions. Those regiments that have been at (a) high readiness, (b) training year and (c) other tasks in each of the past three years are shown in the tables:

Formation readiness cycle (FRC)	Armoured tank regiment
2002
High readiness	The Royal Dragoon Guards (RDG)
	King's Royal Hussars (KRH)
Training	Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (SCOTS DG)
	Queen's Royal Lancers (QRL)
Other tasks	The Queen's Royal Hussars (QRH)
	2 Royal Tank Regiment (2 RTR)
2001
High Readiness	The Queen's Royal Hussars (QRH)
	2 Royal Tank Regiment (2 RTR)
Training	The Royal Dragoon Guards (RDG)
	King's Royal Hussars (KRH)
Other tasks	Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (SCOTS DG)
	Queen's Royal Lancers (QRL)
2001(1)
High Readiness	Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (SCOTS DG)
Training	The Queen's Royal Hussars (QRH)

⁽¹⁾ The Formation Readiness Cycle (FRC) as a mechanism to deliver these units at readiness was in its infancy in 2000, hence the declaration of just two armoured regiments, rather than the full six.

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Royal Armoured Corps is at establishment strength in personnel. [66026]

Mr. Ingram: The establishment and strength of the Royal Armoured Corps (RAC) and the Household Cavalry (HCAV) as at 1 May 2002 is detailed in the table:

Trained strength against liability for HCAV/RAC as at 1 May 2002

	Officer	Soldier	Total
Liability	855	5,023	5,878
Strength	835	4,940	5,775
Difference	-20	-83	-103
Difference (percentage)	-2.3	-1.7	-1.8

Manning statistics for the RAC are currently grouped with the HCAV. Work is in progress to provide separate totals for the HCAV and the RAC. I will write to the hon. Member when these figures are available and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

Armoured Vehicles

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) MBTs and (b) AFVs are held in reserve. [66025]

Mr. Ingram: There are no Challenger 2 main battle tanks nor other armoured fighting vehicles specifically designated as reserve stock. The greater proportion of the vehicles that make up the fleets are held on the

3 Jul 2002 : Column 323W

war-fighting establishment. The remainder are either held for training and trials or are undergoing planned maintenance programmes.

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the recommended establishment number of main battle tanks is for an armoured regiment. [66024]

Mr. Ingram: The establishment of main battle tanks in an armoured regiment is 58, although the number allocated to each regiment at any given time is dictated by its role in any one year.

Fishing Patrols

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what agreements his Department has with DEFRA in relation to the number of days per year Royal Navy fishery protection vessels must be on patrol; and if he will make a statement; [66037]

(2) how many days on fishery patrol naval vessels have undertaken for MAFF/DEFRA in each of the past five years; [66038]

(3) when HMS Shetland completed her last fishery protection patrol; and when she will be paid off; [66036]

(4) when HMS Tyne will carry out her first operational fishery patrol. [66039]

Mr. Ingram: The Royal Navy carry out fishery protection duties under an agreement with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The current arrangements run from April 2002 until March 2008. For the current year the Royal Navy has agreed to provide a total of 950 days of fishery protection. This figure is reviewed and agreed annually.

In each of the last five years the Royal Navy carried out the following number of patrol days:

	Number
2001–02	957
2000–01	977
1999–2000	979
1998–99	1,104
1997–98	1,130

HMS Shetland completed her final fishery protection patrol on 28 June 2002. She will be paid off at the end of July. On current plans, HMS Tyne will carry out her first operational fishery protection patrol in January or February 2003.

Lynx

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Lynx Mk 8 are operational. [66034]

Mr. Ingram: As of 2 July 2002, there are 24 operational Lynx Mk 8 helicopters.

Harrier

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evaluation his Department has made of the Harrier II plus programme; and for what reasons he has proceeded with an upgrade of the Harrier GR7 to GR9 specification rather than capabilities offered by Harrier II plus. [66031]

3 Jul 2002 : Column 324W

Mr. Ingram: As I made clear in my answer on 28 February 2002, Official Report, columns 1451–52W to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer), the Harrier GR7 is being upgraded to GR9 standard as this best meets our capability requirements. The Ministry of Defence has not conducted a formal evaluation of the capabilities offered by the Harrier II plus programme, but understands that the main capability difference between the Harrier GR9 and the Harrier II plus is in the latter's nose- mounted radar.

While it would, in theory, be possible to mount a radar in the nose of the GR9, we currently have no requirement to do so. Therefore, no detailed work has been undertaken by the MOD into the practicality and cost-effectiveness of such a modification.

Such a programme would be at least as complex, lengthy and costly as the Sea Harrier Blue Vixen/ AMRAAM update in the mid-90s. Given the likely considerable cost, time scale and technical risk involved, and the planned entry into service of the Future Joint Combat Aircraft in 2012, the benefits of integrating a radar on to the GR9 Harrier would be of limited duration and utility. Such a programme would also delay the integration of the smart weapons on to the Harrier GR9 required to enable it to continue to conduct its primary role of the delivery of offensive air power from land and sea.

---