House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 5 May 2004 (pt 11)

5 May 2004 : Column 1521W—continued

Kinnegar Army Base

Lady Hermon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Kinnegar Army base at Holywood, County Down. [170031]

Mr. Ingram: Kinnegar is listed in the security normalisation annex of the Joint Declaration, as one of the locations where, in the context of a peaceful society, the regular garrison in Northern Ireland might be based.

Manning Control Points

Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria are used to identify soldiers for manning control; whether this information is readily available to soldiers on a regular basis as well as on entrance of contract; and if he will make a statement. [167841]

Mr. Caplin: The Notice Paper, a statutory document given to all new recruits, contains details of the soldier's Terms of Service and it states that a soldier's future employability will be reviewed after six, nine and 12 years' Colour service and that he or she may be discharged if their service is no longer required.

Commanding Officers are notified of those soldiers who will reach a Manning Control Point (MCP) within the next 15–18 months. At that stage, the soldier's career and employment potential will be reviewed taking into consideration: length of service, rank, trade and long term potential. Following this review, a soldier being considered for discharge by MCP is sent a letter, giving a minimum of 12 months notice. At this point, he or she is asked to sign a certificate to agree that they have been warned about their potential discharge.

Individual cases are then considered by the Army Personnel Centre against the prevailing manning situation within their Career Employment Group. Thus individuals are assessed for quality and employability against their peers and the required structure for their trade.

5 May 2004 : Column 1522W

Merlin Helicopter

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Merlin helicopters have been lost since their original delivery; for what reasons; and what plans he has for their replacement. [167644]

Mr. Ingram: Two Royal Navy Merlin Mk 1 aircraft have been lost since the Merlin entered service with the United Kingdom armed forces. The first crashed into the sea off north-west Scotland in October 2000 following the loss of both the main and tail rotor control. The second crashed at RNAS Culdrose on 30 March this year. The cause of this accident is still being investigated.

These helicopters will be replaced from the Departmental fleet, which allows for the loss of aircraft in service with front line commands.

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the procedure is for acquiring spares for Merlin helicopters; and if he will make a statement. [168561]

Mr. Ingram: Merlin helicopter spares are acquired in the same way as those for the majority of other aircraft used by the United Kingdom armed forces. Spares requirements are calculated at regular intervals throughout the year based on activity levels, deployment patterns and mission types. Predicted requirements are then compared with current spares holdings and current orders from industry and the difference is the future requirement. The process of spares ordering and distribution is managed by the Defence Logistics Organisation working closely with the relevant front line command to meet current and predicated requirements.

MOD Land

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account he takes when releasing Ministry of Defence land for development of the needs of (a) his Department and (b) the local community; and if he will make a statement. [169175]

Mr. Caplin: The interests of the Ministry of Defence are protected by ensuring that the disposal of surplus land and buildings (which are released only where there is no alternative defence use) is conducted in accordance with "Government Accounting" regulations—normally by means of sale on the open market with the benefit of outline planning permission or a planning brief. This necessarily involves consultation with the local planning authority and ensures best value for taxpayers generally.

In the case of the closure of major facilities, it is normal practice for officials in Defence Estates to work closely with the relevant local authorities, and to liaise with recognised local community bodies as part of the disposal process. We seek to take local aspirations into account wherever possible.

Naval Engineers

Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason his Department is replacing the post of engineering artificer in the Navy with the post of engineering technician; and what difference there will be in the qualifications required for the new post. [166689]

5 May 2004 : Column 1523W

Mr. Ingram: A review of the structure, organisation and training of both the Warfare and Engineering Branches of the Royal Navy is currently taking place. It is probable that the term engineering technician will be adopted for all members of the engineering branch below the rank of Commissioned Officer, replacing the artificer and mechanic titles currently in use. The title artificer no longer adequately describes the professional role that those personnel undertake in the modern Navy. Replacing them with engineering technicians will align the Navy with the standards of competence published by the Engineering Council United Kingdom, and refresh the image of this key role against increasingly competitive recruitment market forces.

No change is anticipated to the entry qualifications for Naval Engineering Technicians. Men and women will be able to join with a range of academic qualifications that span those for today's mechanics and artificers. Once they have completed basic training, engineering technicians will progress according to their abilities, with the most able continuing to have opportunities for promotion to the officer corps.

Naval Procurement

Mr. Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of through-life programmes to accompany future naval procurements. [166536]

Mr. Ingram: Each project is required to maintain a Through Life Management Plan which explains how the particular equipment will be supported through to the end of its life. This is subject to regular scrutiny throughout the equipment's life and, in particular, as part of the Main Gate business case submission.

The support through life for major future naval equipments is assessed against the Warship Support Agency's Maritime Support Strategy element. This forms part of the Defence Logistics Organisation sponsored Support Solutions Envelope.

Nimrod MRA4

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of the Nimrod MRA4 aircraft programme; and when a decision will be made on approval for the production phase of aircraft numbers four to 18. [166901]

Mr. Ingram: The agreement reached with BAE Systems in February 2003, embodied in a formal contract amendment on 23 February this year, has put the Nimrod MRA4 programme on a much sounder footing for the future. Under the restructured contract, design and development and manufacture have been separated as far as possible, to ensure that technology is adequately de-risked before making further

5 May 2004 : Column 1524W

commitment to production price and schedule. Whilst risks and challenges remain, the development and production of the first three Nimrod MRA4 aircraft to be used in the flight trials programme is well under way and we are making good joint progress towards first flight this summer. Long lead item work continues on aircraft 4–18; a decision to exercise the option in the contract for full production is dependent on design maturity and price negotiation and is expected next year.

Officer Numbers

Mr. Breed: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the (a) establishment and (b) strength of all ranks above OF 2 in the (i) Royal Navy and (ii) RAF was on the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [161059]

Mr. Ingram: As at 1 January 2004, the trained strength and requirement for all ranks above OF 2 in the Naval Service and RAF are shown as follows. The tables show figures for each equivalent NATO rank and these are set out as follows:
Naval Service⁽¹⁸⁾

Rank Trained strength Requirement Surplus/Deficit

OF 9 4 3 +1

OF 8 7 10 -3

OF 7 30 28 +2

OF 6 99 91 +8

OF 5 280 270 ⁽¹⁹⁾—

OF 4 1,080 1,200 -120

OF 3 2,460 2,530 -70

All OF 3 and above 3,950 4,130 -180

⁽¹⁸⁾   Naval Service figures include Royal Navy and Royal Marines.
⁽¹⁹⁾   Less than five.

RAF

Rank Trained strength Requirement Surplus/Deficit

(1)

OF 6 to OF 9⁽²⁰⁾ 120 100 +20

OF 5 320 250 +70

OF 4 1,150 940 +210

OF 3 2,550 2,430 +120

(2)

Specialists⁽²¹⁾ 390 400 -20

(3)

All OF 3 and above 4,530 4,130 +400

⁽²⁰⁾   The Trained Manpower Requirement (TMR03) does not break down the requirement by individual rank for OF 6 (Air Cdre) and above.
⁽²¹⁾   Specialists are excluded from (1) and shown separately as a total of all OF 3s and above. Due to the way Specialists are posted, a rank breakdown is not readily available. Specialists are in the following branches: Medical, Med Spt, Dental, Chaplains, Legal and Princess Mary's Royal Air Force Nursing Service.
Note:
All figures over 100 and any derived from these figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

NATO Rank Codes and UK Service Designations

Royal Navy⁽²²⁾ Royal Marines⁽²²⁾ Army Royal Air Force

OF 10 Admiral of the Fleet — Field Marshal Marshal of the RAF

OF 9 Admiral General General Air Chief Marshal

OF 8 Vice Admiral Lieutenant General Lieutenant General Air Marshal

OF 7 Rear Admiral Major General Major General Air Vice Marshal

OF 6 Commodore Brigadier Brigadier Air Commodore

OF 5 Captain Colonel Colonel Group Captain

OF 4 Commander Lieutenant Colonel Lieutenant Colonel Wing Commander

OF 3 Lieutenant Commander Major Major Squadron Leader

OF 2 Lieutenant Captain Captain Flight Lieutenant

OF 1 Sub-Lieutenant Lieutenant/2nd Lieutenant Lieutenant/2nd Lieutenant Flying Officer/Pilot Officer

OF(D) Midshipman — Officer Designate Officer Designate

⁽²²⁾   The Royal Navy and the Royal Marines together make up the Naval Service.

5 May 2004 : Column 1525W

Rank	Trained strength	Requirement	Surplus/Deficit
OF 9	4	3	+1
OF 8	7	10	-3
OF 7	30	28	+2
OF 6	99	91	+8
OF 5	280	270	⁽¹⁹⁾—
OF 4	1,080	1,200	-120
OF 3	2,460	2,530	-70
All OF 3 and above	3,950	4,130	-180

Rank	Trained strength	Requirement	Surplus/Deficit
(1)
OF 6 to OF 9⁽²⁰⁾	120	100	+20
OF 5	320	250	+70
OF 4	1,150	940	+210
OF 3	2,550	2,430	+120

(2)
Specialists⁽²¹⁾	390	400	-20

(3)
All OF 3 and above	4,530	4,130	+400

	Royal Navy⁽²²⁾	Royal Marines⁽²²⁾	Army	Royal Air Force
OF 10	Admiral of the Fleet	—	Field Marshal	Marshal of the RAF
OF 9	Admiral	General	General	Air Chief Marshal
OF 8	Vice Admiral	Lieutenant General	Lieutenant General	Air Marshal
OF 7	Rear Admiral	Major General	Major General	Air Vice Marshal
OF 6	Commodore	Brigadier	Brigadier	Air Commodore
OF 5	Captain	Colonel	Colonel	Group Captain
OF 4	Commander	Lieutenant Colonel	Lieutenant Colonel	Wing Commander
OF 3	Lieutenant Commander	Major	Major	Squadron Leader
OF 2	Lieutenant	Captain	Captain	Flight Lieutenant
OF 1	Sub-Lieutenant	Lieutenant/2nd Lieutenant	Lieutenant/2nd Lieutenant	Flying Officer/Pilot Officer
OF(D)	Midshipman	—	Officer Designate	Officer Designate

Mr. Breed: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the differences between strength and establishment of officers in the Army. [161060]

Mr. Ingram: A comparison between current liability and current strength of Army officers is shown as follows:

Rank Liability Strength⁽²³⁾

General/Lieutenant General 7 17

Major General 27 43

Brigadier 175 184

Colonel 546 561

Lieutenant Colonel 1,579 1,713

Major 4,540 4,723

Captain 4,850 4,465

Lieutenant/2nd Lieutenant 1,876 1,680

⁽²³⁾ As at January 2004.

Rank	Liability	Strength⁽²³⁾
General/Lieutenant General	7	17
Major General	27	43
Brigadier	175	184
Colonel	546	561
Lieutenant Colonel	1,579	1,713
Major	4,540	4,723
Captain	4,850	4,465
Lieutenant/2nd Lieutenant	1,876	1,680

The difference at Major and above is largely because the liability consists only of Army posts. Tri-Service rotational and competition posts and certain international appointments, for example to NATO, are not tied to British Army officers and therefore do not form part of the liability. In practice the Army does not carry a substantial surplus of officers, although there is provision for small margin to cover those in training and on resettlement prior to retirement.

The difference at Captain and below is due to a combination of factors. In recent years, the output from the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, which is affected by both input and throughput, has not achieved the target. The number of junior officers is therefore lower than the requirement. The RMAS output target is now being met. Some posts are rank-ranged. In these instances the liability is shown against the lower rank although the incumbent may be of a higher rank. Officers holding temporary acting rank are shown against the strength at the higher paid rank.

Next Section

Index

Home Page