| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
21 Jan 2003 : Column 206W—continued
Departmental Expenditure
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the (a) estimated gross expenditure, (b) authorised appropriations in aid, (c) supply grant, (d) gross expenditure, (e) appropriations in aid applied, (f) net expenditure, (g) amount to be surrendered to the consolidated fund and (h) extra receipts payable to the consolidated fund were in 2001–02, in cash terms, broken down by vote; [91462]
- (2) what the (a) grant and (b) expenditure for the Ministry of Defence were in cash terms, broken down by top level budget holder, in 2001–02. [91461]
21 Jan 2003 : Column 207W
Mr. Ingram: In accordance with the Government Resource Accounting Act 2000, the Department's financial performance is reported to Parliament in the Consolidated Departmental Resource Accounts. The 2001–02 accounts were laid on 21 November 2002 (HC47). Copies are available in the Library of the House. The Department is not required to, and does not, account for cash under the headings upon which information is sought. Cash requirements are accounted for at departmental level, and details of estimate and outturn are included in Schedule 1 of the Resource Accounts.
Depleted Uranium
Hywel Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what use has been made of depleted uranium ammunition on live training exercises in training areas in Wales by (a) UK armed forces and (b) the armed forces of other countries since 1980. [91645]
Dr. Moonie: Depleted uranium ammunition has never been fired on any military training exercise in the United Kingdom.
Royal Navy Resources
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the (a) allocation and (b) cost of Royal Naval resources used to assist the UK community during (i) the foot-and-mouth crisis and (ii) the firefighters' strike. [91230]
Mr. Ingram: The aggregation of many of the Ministry of Defence's resources into central and tri-service budgetary organisations makes it impossible to provide a comprehensive picture of Royal Naval resources used on deployments such as those cited by the hon. Member. The number of personnel and amount of equipment used are, moreover, constantly changing in the course of a deployment lasting several months. It is estimated that around 180 RN personnel and their equipment were assisting the United Kingdom community at the height of the foot-and-mouth crisis. The bulk of the cost of RN resources will have fallen to the two distinct naval budget areas, those of the Commanders-in-Chief Fleet and Naval Home Command, which between them incurred additional expenditure of around £200K. MOD recovered these additional costs from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
An estimated 3,000 RN personnel and their equipment were deployed on a typical strike day during the firelighters' industrial action in November 2002. It is too early to estimate how much the military assistance has cost to date, because the costs incurred since November have yet to be fully captured through the Ministry of Defence's central cost reporting system. The additional costs for the two budget areas referred to in the first part of this statement are expected to be of the order of £800K for the period to 30 November. These costs will be recovered from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
Gas Masks
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether defects have been found in S10 gas masks supplied to armed forces units; and what inspections are routinely made. [91041]
21 Jan 2003 : Column 208W
Mr. Ingram: There have been no defects reported in relation to the S10 Respirator supplied to the armed forces. Units are required to carry out routine inspections at regular intervals and prior to operations.
Helicopters
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the serviceability rate is of (a) Gazelle, (b) Lynx, (c) Sea King, (d) Chinook and (e) Puma helicopters (i) on operations, (ii) for training and exercises and (iii) overall. [91037]
Mr. Ingram: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
Warships
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) to what extent HMS Glasgow will be able to fulfil the specialist functions of HMS Nottingham as developed in her 1999–2000 refit; [91280]
- (2) when HMS Glasgow was placed in extended readiness; and when she is expected to be fully operational; [91221]
(3) what assessment he has made of the (a) air defence and (b) anti-terrorist maritime capabilities of HMS Glasgow in comparison with those of HMS Nottingham. [91281]
Mr. Ingram: While the Type 42 Destroyer, HMS Glasgow, will help ease the short term programming gap in the Fleet created by the unavailability of HMS Nottingham, she is not a direct replacement for that ship. Although both ships are designed to provide area air defence, either independently or as an integral component of larger joint or coalition maritime Task Groups, Glasgow does not have the enhanced air defence capability to take over HMS Nottingham's programme. However, there is no difference between the "anti-terrorism" capabilities provided by the two ships.
HMS Glasgow was placed at extended readiness from May 2002 (Official Report 2 May 2002, column 965W). Further to the answer given to the hon. Member on 27 November 2002 (Official Report, column 334W), Glasgow's return to service is delayed by the requirement to provide personnel to Operation Fresco.
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether HMS Sovereign is fully operational; and if he will make a statement. [91033]
Mr. Ingram: HMS Sovereign has recently completed a long period of maintenance and is currently undertaking the training required, which will return her to a full operational state of readiness.
Oilfield Platforms (Terrorists)
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of possible terrorist threats to UK oilfield platforms. [91232]
Mr. Blunkett: I have been asked to reply.
21 Jan 2003 : Column 209W
All terrorist threats to the UK and to UK interests overseas are monitored very closely. This is an ongoing process. In doing so, we bear in mind the need for vigilance and for a measured, proportionate response which does not generate unnecessary public alarm.
Pilots
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the requirement is for (a) Sea Harrier pilots and (b) Harrier GR7 pilots; and how many there are in each case. [91036]
Mr. Ingram: The position as at 15 January 2003 is set out in the table.
| Aircraft | Requirement | Strength |
|---|---|---|
| Sea Harrier | (3)72 | 48 |
| Harrier GR7 | (4)69 | (5)68 |
(3) The Sea Harrier pilot requirement includes 'cockpit' and career broadening appointments in the Royal Navy, plus a training margin. Both front line squadrons are fully manned and forecast to remain so for the foreseeable future.
(4) The Harrier GR7 requirement comprises wing commander, squadron leader and junior officer posts on front line squadrons, operational conversion units, operational evaluation units and wing appointments. In addition to these established flying posts, fast jet pilots are required for instructional duties within the RAF's flying training system, overseas exchange posts, the RAF Aerobatic Team and a number of ground posts shared by all serving in the General Duties Branch.
(5) Figure includes three Royal Navy officers flying GR7 aircraft. These officers are acting as pathfinders for the scheme under which Joint Force Harrier will gradually migrate to a fleet equipped with GR7/GR9 aircraft.
Radio Mast (Lagopatria)
Mr. Anthony Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in erecting a radio mast in Lagopatria, north of Naples, to provide broadcasting services for the Armed Forces South British Services community. [91215]
Mr. Ingram: The Ministry of Defence is not currently seeking to erect a radio mast at Lagopatria (or any other location in the Naples area) to provide a British Forces Broadcasting Service (BFBS) radio channel for United Kingdom personnel serving at HQ Allied Forces, South. The provision of such a facility is not currently assessed to be a high priority against other welfare needs or against the size of the service population who might benefit. The erection of such a mast could, in any event, only proceed with the prior approval of the Italian authorities, for both its construction and the use of a viable radio frequency. The Italian authorities have previously declined to grant the use of such a frequency.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |