|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many procurement contracts for military equipment with a value greater than £1 million have been agreed with non-UK companies in each year since 2001; what their total value was in each year; how manysuch contracts were won by (a) US companies, (b) non-EU companies and (c) EU companies in each year since 2001, broken down by country; what the value was of each such contract; and if he will make a statement. 
Work to consider the benefits of rationalisation and collocation of the two main Army HQs-HQ land (currently based in Wilton) and HQ Adjutant General (currently based in Upavon)is ongoing. The Army is still determining the possible size and structure of the new HQ organisation and, in parallel, assessing a number of site options. We intend to inform the House about the final size and structure of the new HQ towards the end of this year. It is planned
19 Jan 2006 : Column 1531W
that an announcement about possible future locations will be made by the spring. Full collocationassuming it is finally approvedis unlikely to be completed before 2009.
Mr. Ingram: The current proposal, subject to Trades Union consultation, is to close the Clothing Research and Development facility. Under the proposal, acquisition essential services would be moved into the Defence Clothing Integrated Project Team, also based at Caversfield, and the Research Programme would be competed for by industry and academia.
Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will arrange for an independent review of the operation of the research and development facility following its transfer from Colchester to Caversfield in 2001. 
Mr. Ingram: The future of the Clothing Research and Development facility has been under constant review both prior to, and since its transfer from Colchester. Independent advisors have already been involved in the review process.
Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people were made redundant when the research and development facility was transferred from Colchester to Caversfield; how many staff from Colchester transferred to Caversfield; and how many of the transferred staff still work for R and D at Caversfield. 
Mr. Ancram: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) surface ships, (b) submarines and (c) auxiliary vessels are (i) available to and (ii) deployable by the Royal Navy; and what the equivalent numbers were in 2000. 
The vessels available to be deployed by the Royal Navy, which is interpreted as those platforms in Fleet Time having achieved their mandatory collective training, together with the comparative figures for the year 2000, are:
19 Jan 2006 : Column 1532W
Mr. Touhig: The number of Territorial Army personnel qualifying for annual bounty in any training year (April-March) is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, information on paid bounties (usually for the qualifications gained in the previous year) is shown in the following table.
|April 2004 to March 2005||23,560|
|April 2003 to March 2004||25,450|
|April 2002 to March 2003||26,020|
|April 2001 to March 2002||26,050|
|April 2000 to March 2001||28,370|
1,113 members of the Territorial Army (TA) have been called out more than once over the past five years. This figure includes individuals who may have reported for mobilization but subsequently did not mobilize for medical or other reasons. Information on individuals in this category is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
The strength (broken down by officers, soldiers and officer training corps (OTC)) and liability of the TA (including OTC) as at 1 December 2005 can be found in the following table:
19 Jan 2006 : Column 1533W
|Territorial Army||of which are Officer Training Corps (OTC)||of which are mobilised|
Currently, the TA and Regular Army Reserve form approximately 8 per cent. and 1.4 per cent. respectively of the Regular Army's overall capability deployed on operations (this includes members of the TA and Regular Army Reserve who have been mobilized in support of operations but not necessarily deployed).
Mr. Lancaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Territorial Army who were mobilised and attended RTMC Chilwell subsequently were not deployed (a) on medical grounds, (b) because of failure of individual training directives tests at RTMC and (c) for other reasons in each of the last five years. 
Mr. Touhig: Numbers of TA personnel who attended RTMC Chilwell and did not pass to a receiving unit are set out in the following table; figures for those TA members who reached a receiving unit but were not subsequently deployed are not available.
|Reason for 'failure'||2001||2002||2003||2004||2005|
|Medical and dental failures||20||20||1,040||50||40|
|Individual revocations upheld||n/k||n/k||980||210||50|
|Employer revocations upheld||n/k||n/k||770||140||40|
|Post no longer available||30||20||180||0||0|
|Non-acceptance by receiving unit||0||0||10||0||0|
|Volunteer changed mind||0||0||0||0||0|
Figures are not held on the number of individuals who attended RTMC but were not mobilised due to failure of individual training directive tests. These individuals would be accepted by the deploying unit and either given the required level of training or returned to a (non-deployed) unit.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|