|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
4th Mechanised Brigade Headquarters and 204 Signal Squadron
The Royal Dragoon Guards
1st Battalion Scots Guards
The Royal Scots Borders, 1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland
1st Battalion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment (King's, Lancashire and Border)
1st Battalion The 22nd (Cheshire) Regiment (1st Battalion The Mercian Regiment as of 1 September 2007)
21 Engineer Regiment
12 Logistic Support Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps
1 Close Support Medical Regiment
Elements of 845 Naval Air Squadron (Sea King)
Elements of 847 Naval Air Squadron (Lynx)
D Battery, 3rd Regiment Royal Horse Artillery
K Battery, 5th Regiment Royal Artillery
Elements of 33 Engineer Regiment (Explosive Ordnance Disposal)
62 Works Group Royal Engineers, 523 Specialist Team Royal Engineers (Works)
Elements of 3rd (UK) Division Signal Regiment, The Royal Corps of Signals
Elements of 1st (UK) Armoured Division Signal Regiment, The Royal Corps of Signals
Elements of 10th Signal Regiment, The Royal Corps of Signals
Elements of 14th Signal Regiment (Electronic Warfare), The Royal Corps of Signals
Elements of 21st Signal Regiment (Air Support), The Royal Corps of Signals
Elements of 6 Supply Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps
Elements of 16 Tank Transporter Squadron, 7 Transport Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps
Elements of 11 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps
Elements of 84 Medical Supply Squadron, 9 Supply Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps
Elements of 150 Transport Regiment (Volunteers), The Royal Logistic Corps
Elements of 24 Postal, Courier and Movement Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps
Elements of 29 Postal, Courier and Movement Regiment, The Royal Logistic Corps
Elements of 148 Expeditionary Forces Institute Squadron (Volunteers), The Royal Logistic Corps
Elements of 1 Battalion Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers
115 Provost Company, 1st Provost Regiment, Royal Military Police
Elements of 102 Military Working Dog Support Unit, Royal Army Veterinary Corps
Elements of 1 Military Intelligence Brigade
No 28 (AC) Squadron, Royal Air Force (Merlin)
619 Tactical Air Control Party, Royal Air Force
627 Tactical Air Control Party, Royal Air Force.
Colin Burgon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many private contractors were employed by his Department in Iraq on 1 January 2008; how many were employed on 1 January in each of the previous three years; and what the cost was of such employment in each year. 
|Total outflow||Voluntary outflow||Voluntary outflow rate as a percentage of strength|
1. These figures are drawn from trained regular Royal Marine personnel.
2. Promotions to officer from the ranks, demotions to the ranks from officer and transfers to other services have been excluded.
3. When rounding to the nearest 10, numbers ending in five have been rounded to the nearest multiple of 20 to prevent systematic bias.
4. Due to ongoing data validation following the introduction of JPA, the flows since October 2006 are still provisional.
Des Browne: The question of invitations to Albania, Croatia and Macedonia (each of which is participating in a Membership Action Plan) will be considered at the NATO summit meeting to be held in Bucharest in April. The UK supports the membership aspirations of those European countries that meet NATO's standards and share its values and would be pleased if all three were ready to receive an invitation.
Mr. Bob Ainsworth:
Nuclear decommissioning costs are the subject of current work within the Department.
When this work is complete, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.
I undertook to write to you in my answer of 7 January 2008 (Official Report, column 53W) to respond to your Question, regarding the cost of the decommissioning of Vanguard Class submarines.
As you may be aware from the answers to previous questions, it is not possible to provide costs broken down by class; the furthest they can be broken down at present is to the total decommissioning cost for in-service submarines only.
Nuclear decommissioning provisions are the estimated costs of future liabilities. These are principally related to future facility decommissioning and the treatment and storage of nuclear waste arising from operations at MOD sites, operations of Royal Navy submarines, and the Departmental share of planning and constructing a national repository for the eventual disposal of that waste.
We have recently undertaken a review of the nuclear provisions. Our estimated current liability for in-service submarines only (i.e. excluding facility decommissioning, and the decommissioning of out of service submarines and submarines not yet in service) is £455 million. This is an undiscounted figure, meaning that it includes an estimate of potential inflation; the equivalent discounted figure is £240 million.
I hope that this is helpful.
Mr. Jeremy Browne: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) parking tickets and (b) speeding fines were issued for vehicles used by his Department in each of the last 10 years; and what the cost to the public purse of those penalties was in each year. 
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts have been entered into by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Support Integrated Project Team since 2004; and what the value was of each contract. 
I undertook to write to you in my answer of 7 January 2008 (Official Report, column 57W) to provide details of contracts placed by the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Support Integrated Project Team (RFAS IPT) since 2004. I apologise for the time it has taken to collate this information.
Since 2007, the IPT has placed a total of 403 contracts in support of in-service RFA vessels and details of each contract are included in the attached list. You will notice they have been separated into competitive and non-competitive contracts.
I am withholding details of individual contract values that were let following a competitive process, as to release this information could prejudice the commercial interests of the
contractors and could provide their competitors with a commercial advantage for future procurements. In order to provide you with as much information as possible, however, the competitive contracts have been grouped into price categories.
I am placing a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.
Daniel Kawczynski: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the value was of each grant provided by his Department, its associated agencies and non-departmental public bodies to (a) Shrewsbury and Atcham borough council, (b) Shropshire county council and (c) Telford and the Wrekin borough council in (i) 2006-07 and (ii) 2007-08; and what grants have been planned for 2008-09. 
Des Browne [holding answer 29 January 2008]: As the December 2006 White Paper, The Future of the United Kingdoms Nuclear Deterrent (Cm 6994), made clear, we have decided to maintain our nuclear deterrent capability by procuring a new class of submarines to replace the Vanguard-class and by participating in a programme to extend the life of the Trident IID5 missile. We expect that once the new fleet of submarines comes into service the annual in-service costs of the UKs nuclear deterrent, including the costs of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, will be similar to today (around 5 to 6 per cent. of the defence budget).
Mr. McNulty: Evaluation and assessment of the single non-emergency number 101 service in the initial five live areas has found that the service has successfully demonstrated the benefits it was intended to achieve. In addition to improving the public's access to community safety services, through better partnership working and information about what problems are happening where, the 101 service has also helped local police and councils to target their resources more effectively and efficiently and improve the delivery of those services to the public.
While the Government recognise the benefits that have been achieved, it has been decided that the Home Office will not continue to fund directly the operation of the 101 service in the live areas or the development
of 101 services in other areas. This was a difficult decision taken in the context of significant pressure on resources and competing policing and security priorities.
However, the Home Office will continue to provide funding for the national 101 infrastructure in order to enable and support local areas to maintain or develop their own locally funded 101 services, informed by and building on the benefits demonstrated to date, I welcome the work currently being taken forward to this effect by the Greater London Assembly together with London councils, individual boroughs and the Metropolitan Police in their plans to pilot the 101 service locally.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|