---

14 Oct 2003 : Column 23W—continued

Microsoft (Licensing Fees)

Norman Lamb: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was paid to Microsoft in licensing fees by his Department and its agencies in each of the last three years; and how much has been budgeted for (a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05. [130669]

Mr. Caplin: The total expenditure on Microsoft licensing fees is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost; however the Defence Communication Services Agency holds some information on expenditure and this is set out as follows. As the DCSA has steadily taken on responsibility for more of the MOD's IT over the last three years, the early figures should be viewed as representing only a share of MOD's total expenditure. The later figures encompass an increasingly high proportion of it (though still not all).

	£ million
2001–02	15.06
2002–03	21.35
2003–04	25.87

£17 million per year has been allocated for a future agreement and negotiations are under way at present. Due to these negotiations it would not be appropriate to give further information on future budgeting and it is therefore withheld under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

MOD Housing

Diana Organ: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is his policy that members of the armed services are responsible for payment of repairs to buildings, following a burst water tank, when they are the key holder of Ministry of Defence housing. [123904]

Mr. Caplin: Military personnel occupy Service Families' Accommodation under a contractual licence and have a general obligation to report structural defects including leaks or water tank bursts. Where damage to the fabric of the building occurs through negligence on the part of the licensee, the terms of the licence allow the staff of the Defence Housing Executive to raise charges in respect of the cost of repairs.

Non-Combatant Deaths

Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to reduce the number of non-combatant deaths of armed forces personnel. [129074]

14 Oct 2003 : Column 24W

Mr. Ingram: We take non-combatant deaths, which can occur in a range of circumstances, very seriously. Road Traffic Accidents account for the majority of non-combat deaths, and the Ministry of Defence operates a number of road safety campaigns to increase awareness of risks on the road.

Another significant contributor to non-combat deaths is disease, to which members of the Armed Forces are as susceptible as the general public. But as part of the Defence Health Programme we are creating a health promotion strategy to co-ordinate work already in hand within each of the three Services. Through an emphasis on fitness and proper nutrition, together with increased availability of health advice and access to treatment, we aim to reduce the instance of disease-related deaths. Fewer than one in 20 non-combat deaths throughout the armed forces last year were ruled by the coroner as suicides or open verdicts. Through a tri-Service Suicide and Self-harm Prevention Working Group we are developing a more cohesive Armed Forces suicide and deliberate self-harm prevention policy. Other measures include the bench-marking of prevention measures with the NHS, HM Prison Service and other nations, and the development of a Stress Policy. Moreover, personnel are trained to be on the alert for signs of depression, altered behaviour and other possible indicators of self-harm. Further studies are planned into the identification of factors which may indicate greater risk of self-harm and suicide.

QinetiQ

Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the implementation of the long term partnering agreements on QinetiQ. [120789]

Mr. Caplin: The Long Term Partnering Agreement (LTPA) between the Ministry of Defence and QinetiQ came into effect on 1 April 2003. Under the Agreement, MOD retains ownership of its ranges and QinetiQ operates them on behalf of the Department to provide MOD with a long term test and evaluation capability.

The LTPA is worth up to £5.6 billion to QinetiQ and is expected to deliver savings to the MOD of around £700 million (at current prices).

Absent Without Leave

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his Answer of 11 July 2003, Official Report, column 1033W, on trained personnel, how many of the service personnel who went absent without leave in each year were dismissed from each service. [127908]

Mr. Caplin: Available information is shown in the table. Please note that as data are captured using different methods for each of the three Services, the given figures are not directly comparable on a Tri-Service basis.

Figures are based only on trained personnel and have been rounded to prevent accidental disclosure of sensitive personal data.

The figures in this answer will differ from those given by my hon. Friend for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) in his answer of 7 January 2003, Official Report, columns 40–42W as AWOL figures for those under training were included at that time.

14 Oct 2003 : Column 25W

Naval Service^(4),(5)The Naval Service figures for the period 1 January–31 December

	Number reported AWOL	Number dismissed from the Service(5)
1998	25	10
1999	35	5
2000	50	5
2001	85	10
2002	90	5

⁽⁴⁾ These figures relate to Royal Navy only so do not include Royal Marines.

⁽⁵⁾ Those dismissed at court-martial or additionally, for the Naval Service only, at Summary Trial under warrant punishment system, as the result of a (or several) discipline offence(s). For the Naval Service dismissals the dismissal may not be solely due to the AWOL offence although one of the recorded offences was AWOL. They do not include personnel who were recorded as AWOL and later dismissed at a hearing with AWOL not recorded as an offence. In the case of the Army there are figures for the number of soldiers who have been court-martialled for going AWOL and then a third set of figures for those who have been subsequently dismissed as a direct result of the court-martial. The RAF figures are those personnel reported as AWOL and later dismissed for any reason.

Army^(6),(7),(8)

Financial year	Number reported AWOL(7)	Number court-martialled for going AWOL(6)	Number dismissed from the Service(6)
1998–99	1,400	90	45
1999–2000	1,665	100	50
2000–01	1,850	115	50
2001–02	1,655	120	45
2002–03(8)	1,685	125	65

⁽⁶⁾ Those dismissed at court-martial or additionally, for the Naval Service only, at Summary Trial under warrant punishment system, as the result of a (or several) discipline offence(s). For the Naval Service dismissals the dismissal may not be solely due to the AWOL offence although one of the recorded offences was AWOL. They do not include personnel who were recorded as AWOL and later dismissed at a hearing with AWOL not recorded as an offence. In the case of the Army there are figures for the number of soldiers who have been court-martialled for going AWOL and then a third set of figures for those who have been subsequently dismissed as a direct result of the court-martial. The RAF figures are those personnel reported as AWOL and later dismissed for any reason.

⁽⁷⁾ The AWOL figures differ from the answer given in my answer of 11 July 2003, Official Report, column 1033W, due to belated absence publications being actioned or the cancellation of some absences.

⁽⁸⁾ Army and RAF dismissal figures for 2002–03 are subject to any unresolved disciplinary actions.

Royal Air Force^(9),(10)

Financial year	Number reported AWOL	Number dismissed from the Service(9)
1998/99	20	0
1999/2000	20	0
2000/01	20	(11)—
2001/02	15	(11)—
2002/03(10)	25	(11)—

⁽⁹⁾ Those dismissed at court-martial or additionally, for the Naval Service only, at Summary Trial under warrant punishment system, as the result of a (or several) discipline offence(s). For the Naval Service dismissals the dismissal may not be solely due to the AWOL offence although one of the recorded offences was AWOL. They do not include personnel who were recorded as AWOL and later dismissed at a hearing with AWOL not recorded as an offence. In the case of the Army there are figures for the number of soldiers who have been court-martialled for going AWOL and then a third set of figures for those who have been subsequently dismissed as a direct result of the court-martial. The RAF figures are those personnel reported as AWOL and later dismissed for any reason.

⁽¹⁰⁾ Army and RAF dismissal figures for 2002–03 are subject to any unresolved disciplinary actions.

⁽¹¹⁾ denotes less than five

14 Oct 2003 : Column 26W

---