|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Military intelligence functions are spread across a broad range of Defence activities. To produce an accurate figure would involve collating data from various sources across the Department and armed forces at disproportionate cost. Nevertheless, the majority of intelligence business is conducted by the Defence intelligence staff (DIS). DIS outturn figures (based on direct resource DEL and capital DEL) are set out in Table 2 as follows.
|DIS Outturn (£ million)|
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many reports have been made by residents of services accommodation to (a) Modern Housing Solutions and (b) Defence Estates on the presence of asbestos in their accommodation. 
However, the Ministry of Defence and its contractors take the health and safety of all occupants of service accommodation seriously and any reports concerning asbestos are fully investigated and appropriate action taken where necessary. Also occupants of service
accommodation are made aware of the location of any asbestos known to be present in their accommodation and are given appropriate health and safety advice. The MODs actions are in accordance with the control of asbestos regulations.
Mr. Tyrie: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the Answer of 12 January 2009, Official Report, columns 82-3W, how many journalists have been embedded in the armed forces since 1997; and for how long in each case. 
Mr. Kevan Jones: Since April 2005, 537 media visits were facilitated to destinations worldwide. These figures exclude May to July 2005 for which no data are available. The number of journalists involved in each visit varies and exact figures are not available.
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the supply of prosthetic limbs for service personnel injured on operations (a) for the first fitting of the limb and (b) for second and subsequent replacement limbs; and what recent estimate he has made of the average waiting time between the submission of a request for a prosthetic limb and the fitting of the limb in such cases. 
Mr. Kevan Jones [holding answer 27 January 2009] : Injured service personnel who require prosthetic limbs are supplied with tailor made prostheses with state of the art componentry which is matched to their clinical needs. Service patients requiring such prostheses are transferred to the Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre (DMRC) at Headley Court when they are medically stable. Within typically two days of arrival they are seen by a prosthetist in order to cast a bespoke socket that will cover the stump and allow attachment of the prosthetic limb itself. The limb is then typically supplied within five days of admission to Headley Court and fitted when it is clinically appropriate. The patient is also given a second limb as a spare and additional limbs or fittings as are required to improve functionality. In cases where a simple replacement of a component is appropriate, individual patient data held at DMRC enable the new item to be manufactured and supplied without necessarily requiring the patient to attend Headley Court in person.
For veterans, the standard of prosthetic limb provision to injured personnel by the Defence Medical Services will, as a minimum, be matched by the NHS in Great Britain as set out in the Service Personnel Command Paper.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department spent on works and refurbishment to offices allocated to Ministers in departmental buildings in the last 12 months. 
Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what expenditure his Department has incurred in providing transport for Ministers between Parliament and departmental premises in each of the last five years. 
Mr. Kevan Jones: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 26 January 2009, Official Report, column 6W. All ministerial travel is undertaken in accordance with the ministerial code.
Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many UK (a) military personnel and (b) civilian staff were attached to (i) the European Union Military Staff, (ii) the European Defence Agency, (iii) the European Union Military Committee and (iv) other EU institutions in each month since May 2008. 
|Date period||(a) Military personnel||(b) Civilian staff|
Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with reference to the Answer of 1 July 2008, Official Report, column 754W, on the EU Rapid Reaction Force, what the UK contribution is to the 50,000 to 60,000 person military force. 
deploy within 60 days and sustain for at least one year military forces of up to 50,000 to 60,000 persons capable of the full range of Petersberg tasks.
This represents an overarching target for member states collective level of capability, from which the EUs capability development framework takes its lead. It does not imply the creation of a standing EU force of any kind. Any commitment to an EU-led operation is voluntary and is a decision for national Governments to make on a case by case basis.
Mr. Kevan Jones: The Brigade of Gurkhas provides a key element of the British Army, fulfilling a number of roles, including infantry, engineers, signals and logistics. These roles were confirmed as part of the Future Army Structure review in 2004 and there are no plans to change them.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what estimate his Department has made of the cost of purchasing and converting three replacement United States Air Force KC-135R aircraft into RC-135V/W Rivet Joint aircraft and associated equipment and services to UK requirements; what assessment he has made of the additional capability such aircraft will provide; and if he will make a statement; 
(2) what estimate his Department has made of the cost of supplying and modifying three replacement MRA4 aircraft platforms to fit UK requirements; what assessment he has made of the additional capability such platforms will provide; and if he will make a statement. 
The costs of using the Nimrod MRA4 platform and the Rivet Joint system and the capabilities they provide are currently being assessed against this requirement, along with the Nimrod R1 platform, as part of the preparations for a main investment decision expected in 2009.
The Nimrod MRA4 production contract covers nine aircraft with an option to productionise the three trials aircraft. We continue to discuss this possible extra work with BAE Systems, but no decision has yet been reached.
Mr. Quentin Davies: The Ministry of Defence undertakes a wide ranging research programme addressing and supporting many activities. In the last five years, research specifically targeted to counter the use of improvised explosive devices by adversaries has been undertaken to the values shown in the following:
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research his Department undertook on protecting troops against use of improvised explosive devices by opposing forces before deploying troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. 
Mr. Quentin Davies: Prior to the deployment of UK forces to Afghanistan and Iraq, the MOD was carrying out research on the development and enhancement of protective capability against a wide range of threat explosive devices. This research included the enhancement of personal and vehicle protection, and means of electronically countering the IED threat.
Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his Answer of 26 January 2009, Official Report, column 38W, on Navy: piracy, whether (a) CTF-150 and (b) CTF-151 will have operational priority for use of HMS Portland. 
Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) troops in contact incidents and (b) indirect fire events were recorded in (i) Afghanistan and (ii) Iraq in each month of the last three years. 
Mr. Hutton: The Ministry of Defence is currently collating and validating the data needed to answer this question. I will write to the hon. Member when this work is complete, and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: As I stated in my answer to the hon. Member on 13 November 2007, Official Report, column 127W, manning levels of ships are adjusted according to their task. Thus ships undergoing maintenance, for example, would be expected to have a lower level of manning than those deployed on operations. Detailed statistics on these manning judgements are not held centrally.
Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 26 January 2009, Official Report, column 40W, on warships, what the (a) required and (b) actual level of spare part availability has been for each (i) frigate, (ii) destroyer and (iii) submarine type in the Royal Navy in each year since 2001. 
Mr. Quentin Davies: As I stated in my answer on 26 January 2009, Official Report, column 40W, there is no requirement to measure the availability of spare parts for Royal Navy vessels in the format requested as availability is measured at equipment rather than platform level. The new system currently being rolled out to record performance statistics for equipment demands only holds data from the last 12 months which I provided in my earlier response; information prior to this could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|