---

8 Sept 2004 : Column 1307W—continued

Defence Spending Review

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications of (a) the Defence Spending Review and (b) the proposals set out in his oral statement on future capabilities for defence on 21 July for (i) the Typhoon project and (ii) the Apache project; and if he will make a statement. [186668]

Mr. Ingram: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence set out in his statement on 21 July 2004, Official Report, columns 343–70, Typhoon is an essential element of our plans to transform the armed forces for the 21st century. The aircraft is already
 
8 Sept 2004 : Column 1308W
 
demonstrating excellent performance in service and we intend to place the order for the second tranche as soon as negotiations on price and performance have been successfully completed.

The entry to service of the Attack helicopter represents an essential step in the Army's transition towards an increasingly manoeuvrist approach to warfare, and is therefore fully in line with the proposals in the Defence White Paper published in July, "Delivering Security in a Changing World". The Attack Helicopter will significantly improve our ability to engage land targets with precision and at range.

Infantry

Mr. Jenkins: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many infantry were employed by the British Army, broken down by rank, excluding vacancies according to the latest available statistics; and what projections for numbers of infantry were made for the Defence Review. [187008]

Mr. Caplin: The trained Infantry Strengths as at 1 July 2004 are as follows:

Rank	Trained
Officers
Lt Col	360
Lt Col (Special List)	5
Major	1,020
Captain	1,025
Lt	495
2Lt	50
Officer total	2,955
Other ranks
WO1	150
WO2	855
SSGT	955
SGT	1,825
CPL	3,615
LCPL	3,765
PTE	11,615
Soldier total	22,780
Infantry trained strength total	25,735

Note:
Totals have been rounded to the nearest five.




 
8 Sept 2004 : Column 1309W
 

The manpower released from the reduction of four infantry battalions equates to approximately 2,500 posts, all of which will be reinvested back in to the Army. While a proportion of these will be reallocated back into the infantry itself to develop more robust and resilient establishments, others will be reinvested in the most heavily committed specialists such as logisticians, engineers, signallers and intelligence. Exact details in terms of the numbers allocated to each individual Arms and Service have yet to be fully worked through and finalised.

Missiles

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the effectiveness of ship borne surface-to-surface missiles. [171863]

Mr. Ingram: The Harpoon anti-ship missile, fitted to Type 22 and Type 23 frigates, provides our current surface-to-surface ship borne missile capability. The Ministry of Defence regularly assesses the effectiveness of such weapons systems, through a combination of routine trials, research and analysis and as a normal part of our review of the equipment programme.

In terms of potential future capabilities, the Department is currently conducting a balance of investment study into a range of possible land attack options. This includes consideration of the utility of ship
 
8 Sept 2004 : Column 1310W
 
borne surface-to-surface missiles on the Future Surface Combatant (FSC) and Type 45 Destroyers. The next stage of this study is expected to report this autumn.

Operation Majestic Eagle

Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) ships and (b) personnel (i) were originally requested to take part and (ii) took part in Operation Majestic Eagle. [186643]

Mr. Ingram: The United States request to take part in Exercise Majestic Eagle did not specify a particular level of involvement. Because Majestic Eagle took place during the terminal stages of the Royal Navy's extensive AURORA 04 programme of exercises with US forces, United Kingdom participation was limited to HMS Invincible, which took part via satellite link while returning from AURORA 04.

Operational Deployments

Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the last three operational deployments and the length between each has been for (a) 1 Para, (b) 2 Para, (c) 3 Para and (d) 7th Armoured Brigade; and how many personnel have been medically downgraded in each. [187127]

Mr. Ingram: Details of the last three operational deployments of each of the units, and the length between each of those deployments, are shown in the following table.

Unit	Date	Location	Interval (months)
1 PARA	May and August 2000 (2 short deployments)	Sierra Leone	9
	January to June 2001	Northern Ireland	4
	January to June 2003	Iraq	19
2 PARA	January to March 2002	Afghanistan	2
	September 2002 to March 2003	Northern Ireland	6
	December 2003 to April 2004	Iraq	8
3 PARA	January to June 2002	Northern Ireland	18
	January to June 2003	Iraq	7
	May 2004 to date	Northern Ireland	11
7 Armoured Brigade	May to November 2000	Kosovo	31
	May to November 2001	Kosovo	6
	January to June 2003	Iraq	13

The details of those personnel classed as non-FE, as at 1 July 2004, are included as follows. Non-FE status signifies some form of temporary medical downgrading, although it should be noted that while an individual is considered to be medically downgraded, they may still be liable for deployment, depending on the reason for the downgrading, the nature and location of the deployment, and medical advice.

Unit	Non-FE total	Establishment total	Percentage of establishment
1 Para	45	687	7.3
2 Para	20	687	2.9
3 Para	50	687	7.2
7 Armoured Brigade	415	6,575	6.3

Policies (Environmental Impact)

Mr. Horam: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many new policy proposals or significant changes in policy were produced in (a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04; how many of these were screened for their environmental impacts; and how many were the subject of separate environmental appraisals. [185097]

Mr. Caplin: The Ministry of Defence has produced the following new policy proposals and changes to policy in the periods 2002–03 and 2003–04:

The Strategic Defence Review: A New Chapter (2002);

Delivering Security in a Changing World (Defence White Paper, 2003); and

Delivering Security in a Changing World: Future Capabilities (2004).

These policies have not been screened for their environmental impacts or been subject to separate environmental appraisals.

To address the requirements for policy level environmental appraisal the Department worked with Defra to trial the Integrated Policy Appraisal tool (IPA). The IPA tool has been integrated into
 
8 Sept 2004 : Column 1311W
 
Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) and the Department is now taking forward environmental policy appraisal work in this context in order to meet policy appraisal commitments.

The MOD continues to carry out sustainability appraisal and more detailed environmental assessments as a result of the implementation of strategic policy decisions, for example, those arising from the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of the Strategic Defence Review (SDR), published in July 2000. This work is supported by the Ministry of Defence's, Sustainability Appraisal Handbook (2003), which underpins the Department's commitment to the environmental aspects of sustainable development as expressed in the Secretary of State's Policy Statement, July 2000.

Rosyth Shipyard

Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department plans to contribute to the costs of running the Rosyth Shipyard. [186644]

Mr. Ingram: No, there are no plans for the Ministry of Defence to contribute to the costs of running Rosyth Dockyard. As with any company, Babcock Support Services Ltd., the owners of Rosyth Royal Dockyard, must recover their costs through their various income streams, in accordance with their contracts and with accounting conventions.

---