| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
17 July 2006 : Column 212W—continued
Meat Procurement
Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of his Department’s procurement policy on (a) beef and (b) lamb for members of the British armed forces serving on the Falkland Islands. [85038]
Mr. Ingram: The procurement of meat in the Falkland Islands is consistent with the Ministry of Defence’s wider procurement policy. In accordance with this policy, contractors are encouraged to purchase British produce whenever it is competitive and consistent with meeting quality standards. The MOD is, however, bound by European legislation, and is required to seek value for money in the Single European Market. The MOD’s Food Supply Contractor sources all meat procured for use by the UK armed forces.
Merchant Naval Ships
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he takes to ensure that wrecks of merchant naval ships lost during hostilities are protected. [84826]
Mr. Watson: Issues relating to merchant vessels are in the first instance the responsibility of the Department for Transport.
The Ministry of Defence administers the Protection of Military Remains Act 1986, which allows it to protect from unauthorised interference the remains of aircraft and ships lost while in military service.
Whether an individual merchant vessel is eligible for designation under the Act depends on whether it can be said to have been “in military service”. This will be a case-by-case determination, depending on the circumstances of the individual vessel's loss.
Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability Programme
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the (a) out-of-service date is for each Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel due for decommissioning by 2025 and (b) scheduled in-service date is for each planned new vessel in the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability programme. [85378]
Mr. Ingram: On current plans the RFA out-of- service dates are as follows:
| Date | |
As with all projects, the in-service dates for the vessels in the Military Afloat Reach and Sustainability
programme will only be set following the main investment decision. This decision has not yet been taken.
Military Equipment Exports
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he plans to supply the Government of Colombia with (a) military equipment and (b) other support in each of the next three years. [85294]
Mr. Ingram: The Ministry of Defence does not supply the Colombian armed forces with military equipment. We currently have no plans to alter this policy. I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s reply on 3 July 2006, Official Report, column 703W.
Military Vehicles
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to purchase mine-protected RG-31 vehicles, or variants thereof, for the Army. [81602]
Mr. Ingram: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 26 June we are conducting a review of the options for protected patrol vehicles to determine what can be done as soon as possible and in the longer term.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the wheelbase dimensions are of (a) the Snatch Land Rover, (b) the RG-31 and (c) variants of the RG-31; and if he will make a statement. [81603]
Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the dimensions of the (a) Snatch armoured Land Rover, (b) RG-31M and (c) Tempest Truck, the Mine-Protected Vehicle are; what is the time for each vehicle to accelerate from stationary to normal cruising speed; what their maximum speeds are; and what their turning circles are. [80572]
Mr. Ingram: The information requested on Snatch, the Mine Protected Vehicle and RG-31 is:
| Vehicle | Length | Width | Height | Max Speed | Acceleration | Turning Circle( 1) |
| (1) Kerb to kerb distance. (2) For Snatch 2; Snatch 1 and 1.5 are slightly less. Since high speed is not a requirement for Snatch, its maximum speed has not been tested precisely. (3) The vehicle chosen to replace Mamba as the Mine Protected Vehicle (MPV) was initially called Tempest but this name is no longer used and the in service vehicle, based on the Cougar vehicle produced by Force Protection Inc, is known simply as MPV. (4) RG-31 is not in service with the UK armed forces, but this data was obtained from BAES during the ongoing review of our patrol vehicle capability. | ||||||
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost per track mile excluding crew costs is of operating (a) a Warrior MICV and (b) a RG-31M in Iraqi conditions. [82495]
Mr. Ingram:
The full capitation cost for the Warrior Armoured Fighting Vehicle (all variants) based on peacetime usage is calculated for financial year 2006-07 as £154.04 per kilometre. Specific operational track mile data is not held centrally and
could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Ministry of Defence does not own any RG-31M vehicles.
Phoenix UAV
Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the Phoenix unmanned aerial vehicle has cost since the programme’s inception. [84268]
Mr. Ingram: The Phoenix unmanned aerial vehicle system has cost approximately £345 million since inception.
Premature Voluntary Releases
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many premature voluntary release exits there were from the regular (a) infantry, (b) Royal Artillery, (c) Royal Engineers, (d) Royal Corps of Signals, (e) Royal Armoured Corps, (d) Household Cavalry and (e) Royal Electrical Mechanical Engineers in each of the last five years. [85761]
Mr. Watson: Between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2006, there were 18, 660 voluntary outflow release exits in these arms/services.
| Voluntary outflow exits( 1) (officers( 2) and soldiers: 2001-02 to 2005-06 | ||||||
| Arm/service | 2001-02 | 2002-03 | 2003-04 | 2004-05 | 2005-06 | Total |
| (1) The term premature voluntary release (PVR) has been changed to voluntary outflow (VO) although the methodology for producing this information remains the same. voluntary outflow is defined as all exits from trained personnel which are generated by the individual before their time expiry. (2) Figures for officers in the general staff (officers with the rank of colonel or above) are excluded. Note: Figures are rounded to the nearest 10. Due to rounding the totals may not equal the sum of the pans. | ||||||
Private Land (Military Use)
Bill Wiggin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many private sites are used for military exercises in Herefordshire; and whether rent is paid for use of such sites. [85225]
Mr. Watson: In financial year 2005-06, 161 sites were used for military training on private land in Herefordshire. So far this financial year, 92 sites have been used of which nine were for adventure training. The military training undertaken on private land in Herefordshire is primarily, though not exclusively, operational in nature rather than being designated exercises.
No rent is paid for military training on private land in Herefordshire, apart from camp site fees which are sometimes paid for adventure training exercises. Fees have been incurred for five of the adventure training exercises that have taken place this year.
The owners’ permission is sought in advance of any training on private land.
Raptor Reconnaissance Pods
Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Raptor reconnaissance pods are fitted to Tornado aircraft. [84585]
Mr. Ingram: There are currently four Reconnaissance Airborne Pod Tornado pods undergoing acceptance flight trials for the Tornado GR4/4A. A further four pods are undergoing maintenance activity with the equipment manufacturer, Goodrich Company.
Recruitment
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people joined the Army from each Government office region of England in 2005. [84417]
Mr. Watson: Estimated soldier enlistments for 2005 are shown in the following table:
| Government office region | Enlistments |
| Notes: 1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10. When rounding to the nearest 10, numbers ending in five have been rounded to the nearest multiple of 20 to prevent systematic bias. 2. Figures are based on the location of armed forces career office to which the applicant applied rather than the residence of the applicant. Due to the nature of Army officer recruitment procedures, it is not possible to provide an estimate for the number of Army officers recruited from each Government office region. | |
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |