---

27 Feb 2006 : Column 31W—continued

RAF Menwith Hill

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost of (a) weld mesh fencing, (b) razor wire, (c) CCTV cameras and (d) other security measures at RAF Menwith Hill was in 2004–05; and who is responsible for such funding. [50810]

Mr. Ingram: Physical security measures such as the weld mesh fencing, razor wire and CCTV cameras at RAF Menwith Hill are funded by the US authorities. The cost data is not held by the Ministry of Defence.

Royal Ordnance Sites

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met representatives of the trade unions to discuss the closure of Bridgwater Royal Ordnance site. [53369]

Mr. Ingram: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has never met with representatives of the trade unions to discuss the closure of the BAE Systems Land Systems Bridgwater site. These matters are rightly the responsibility of the company.

Service Families (Medical Services)

Mrs. Dorries: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what dentistry services are provided for families of personnel in the (a) Royal Marines, (b) Royal Navy, (c) Army and (d) Royal Air Force; and if he will make a statement. [51822]

Mr. Touhig: Civilian dependants of members of the United Kingdom armed forces resident in the UK have no entitlement to treatment at Defence Dental Service (DDS) facilities, as responsibility for their dental care rests with the NHS. However, dependants of Ghurkha personnel who are serving in accompanied posts worldwide are afforded dental treatment at no cost to themselves.
 
27 Feb 2006 : Column 32W
 

At overseas locations treatment for UK dependants is provided by the DDS at its own dental centres.

Spending Review (Efficiency Targets)

Mrs. Villiers: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much is expected to be saved as a result of meeting the civil service work force reductions targets for his Department set out in the 2004 Spending Review; and whether these savings count towards the agreed efficiency target for his Department set out in the Review. [52798]

Mr. Touhig: As part of the 2004 Spending Review settlement, the Ministry of Defence agreed to reduce the civil service work force in the MOD by 10,000 by 1 April 2008. These reductions are expected to save over £150 million by 1 April 2008, although the exact figure will depend on the actual grades of those posts removed. Most, if not all, of the forecast savings are being scored against the Department's 2004 Spending Review efficiency target.

Mrs. Villiers: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the target level of employment expressed as full-time equivalents in his Department by April 2008, in order to meet his Department's civil service work force reductions target set out in the 2004 Spending Review. [52847]

Mr. Touhig: As a result of work force target reductions set out in the Spending Review 2004 the target level of employment expressed as full-time equivalents for the Ministry of Defence by April 2008 is 95,236.

Mrs. Villiers: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what total efficiency savings were achieved by his Department in 2004–05; and whether these count towards the agreed efficiency target for his Department set out in the 2004 Spending Review. [52862]

Mr. Touhig: The Ministry of Defence made just over £200 million of efficiency savings in 2004–05, excluding any efficiencies made by the Defence Logistics Transformation programme, which are subject to audit. £100 million of these efficiencies have been carried forward into the figures being reported this year.

Mrs. Villiers: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what interim targets he has set for achieving (a) the agreed efficiency target for his Department and (b) the civil service work force reductions targets for (i) gross reductions in posts, (ii) net reductions in posts and (iii) relocations for his Department, as set out in the 2004 Spending Review; what the baseline figures are against which these interim targets are assessed; on what dates they will take effect; and by what dates these interim targets are intended to be met. [52908]

Mr. Touhig: The only formal interim target we have set is to reduce civilian manpower numbers by 3,255 by 1 April 2006 and by 6,288 by 1 April 2007 from a baseline of 106,810 at 1 April 2004. However we also intend delivering at least one third of our overall efficiency target by the end of the current financial year, and two thirds by April 2007.
 
27 Feb 2006 : Column 33W
 

Spring Supplementary Estimates

Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the written statement of 14 February 2006, Official Report, columns 71–72WS, on the Spring Supplementary Estimates, what operations comprised the extension of aircraft operations referred to; and what elements made up the £2.1 million transferred to his Department from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. [54338]

Mr. Ingram: The transfer of £2.1 million from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is to provide an extension to the Canberra fleet in support of their ongoing initiatives.

Territorial Army

Mr. Peter Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many vacancies there are in the Territorial Army in Northern Ireland. [53263]

Mr. Touhig: As at 31 January 2006 the strength of the Territorial Army (TA) in Northern Ireland was 1,554 against an establishment of 2,078, including the Queen's University Officer Training Corps (QUOTC) which is a Type B TA unit. The strength excluding the QUOTC was 1,333 against an establishment of 1,908.

Tomahawk Block IV Missile

Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Royal Navy has tested the torpedo tube-launched variant of the Tomahawk Block IV cruise missile; and if he will make a statement. [51293]

John Reid [holding answer 15 February 2006]: A test firing of the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile Torpedo Tube Launched Block IV variant was undertaken by a Royal Navy submarine in June 2005. The test did not achieve its aim. However, valuable lessons were learnt and modifications to the missile have now been made. The Royal Navy intends to conduct another test firing later this year.

Type 45 Destroyer

Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the forecast unit production cost of a Type 45 destroyer was as at 31 March of financial years 2000–01 to 2004–05, broken down by (a) indirect resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL), (b) direct resource DEL and (c) capital DEL. [54407]

Mr. Ingram: The forecast unit production cost of the Type 45 destroyer programme as at the end of financial years 31 March 2002 to 2005 are as reported in the respective Major Projects Report 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2005; and are as follows:

Major Projects Report	Unit production costs (£ million)
2002	632.7
2003	552.7
2004	576.7
2005	561.6

As is normal practice for MPR reporting, the unit production costs are based entirely on capital expenditure
 
27 Feb 2006 : Column 34W
 
and do not include non-recurring expenditure or indirect resource expenditure. For the financial year ending 31 March 2001, only the total forecasted cost of £5,250 million is available.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the forecast cost at Main Gate was of the Type 45 destroyer programme, broken down by (a) indirect resource departmental expenditure limit (DEL), (b) direct resource DEL and (c) capital DEL. [54419]

Mr. Ingram: The forecast cost at Main Gate of the Type 45 programme broken down into indirect resource expenditure (I-RDEL), direct resource expenditure (R-DEL) and capital expenditure (CDEL) is as follows:
£ million

	Amount
R-DEL	0.0
I-RDEL	500
CDEL	4,975
Total	5,475

At the time of Main Gate approval there was no distinction between direct resource expenditure and capital expenditure. The figures for Main Gate approval are in accordance with those which have been reported in Major Projects Report 2004 onwards, which were adjusted in agreement with the National Audit Office to take into account the Treasury change to the rate of interest on capital from 6 per cent. to 3.5 per cent., effective from 1 April 2003.

Mike Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total overspend has been in developing the Type 45 destroyer. [52565]

Mr. Ingram: It is not possible to provide specific details of the development costs of the Type 45 destroyer as the contracts placed for both the warship and its main weapon system (the Principal Anti-Air Missiles System) cover both development and production phases. As reported in Major Projects Report 2005, we expect the initial acquisition costs of the first six Type 45 destroyers to be £5,896 million as opposed to a figure of £5,475 million when the project was approved originally in 2000. The reasons for cost growth are detailed in successive editions of the Major Projects Report.

---