| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11 Mar 2009 : Column 428W—continued
Armed Forces: Training
Mark Pritchard: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the Defence Training Review package he expects to be delivered outside the future Defence Academy at RAF St Athan. [262500]
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: All of the training in the scope of the Defence Training Review Package 1 will, by 2020, be delivered at St. Athan, with the exception of Royal Naval Communications training at HMS Collingwood which amounts to 2 per cent. of the total training requirement. In addition, about 30 per cent. of phase 3 (professional) training will be delivered away from St. Athan at remote learning centres around the UK to enable personnel to stay near home bases and families.
Departmental Absenteeism
Mr. Hands: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff of his Department were recorded absent for non-medical reasons on (a) 2 February 2009 and (b) 3 February 2009; what estimate he has made of the (i) cost to his Department and (ii) number of working hours lost due to such absence; and what guidance his Department issued to staff in respect of absence on these days. [260476]
Mr. Kevan Jones: This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Departmental Data Protection
Mr. Vara:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many contracts (a) his Department and (b) its agencies have which allow contractors to store personal data of UK citizens overseas; for which contracts this
applies; in which countries the data for each contract are held; and how many people have their data stored overseas in the case of each such contract. [245342]
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The Ministry of Defence has identified eight contracts where personal data of UK citizens are held overseas. The following table provides the name of the contract, the country where the data are held and the approximate number of records.
Met Office
Mr. Todd: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department has had with Treasury officials on the future of the Met Office as part of the Government’s Trading Fund Review; and if he will make a statement. [260205]
Mr. Kevan Jones: Officials from the Ministry of Defence and Treasury were represented on the Trading Funds Assessment Steering Group. As announced in the pre-Budget report the Met Office is now being examined as part of the Government’s Operational Efficiency Programme and officials from both Departments are meeting regularly to take this forward.
Naval Bases [Official Report, 20 April 2009, Vol. 491, c. 1-2MC.]
Mr. Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the monetary value of the surface ship refitting contracts was at HM Naval Base Portsmouth in each year since 1997; [261789]
(2) what the monetary value of surface ship refitting contracts was at HM Naval Base Plymouth Devonport in each year since 1997; [261811]
(3) what the monetary value of surface ship refitting contracts was at HM Naval Base Rosyth in each year since 1997. [261812]
Mr. Quentin Davies: There is no requirement to keep contractual information for surface ship upkeep work (refits and docking periods) beyond seven years. The values of contracts completed prior to 2001 are, therefore, no longer held. The following table provides the costs for upkeep work carried out since 2001 on Aircraft Carriers, Type 42 Destroyers, Type 22 and 23 Frigates, Landing Platform Dock, Royal Fleet Auxiliary and Mine Countermeasure vessels:
| £ million | |||
| Location | |||
| Portsmouth | Devonport | Rosyth | |
The figures shown for years 2001 and 2004 include upkeep work packages for the aircraft carriers HM Ships Invincible and Illustrious.
Mr. Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what recent assessment he has made of the (a) capacity and (b) capabilities of (i) HM Naval Base Plymouth Devonport and (ii) HM Naval Base Faslane in respect of submarines; [261808]
(2) what recent assessment he has made of the (a) capacity and (b) capabilities of (i) HM Naval Base Plymouth Devonport and (ii) HM Naval Base Portsmouth in respect of surface ships. [261810]
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The capacity and capability of all three UK naval bases (Clyde, Devonport and Portsmouth) are regularly assessed to ensure that they individually and collectively meet the requirements of the Royal Navy. The most recent assessment was carried out as part of the Naval Base Review (NBR), which concluded in July 2007 that all three naval bases should be retained but optimised. This optimisation work has begun at each naval base and forms an integral part of the Maritime Change Programme (MCP). MCP is developing an enduring maritime enterprise, commensurate with the Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS), that delivers affordable, sustainable and efficient Maritime build, equipment and through life support to meet the operational needs of the Royal Navy today and in the future.
Navy: Contracts
Mr. Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the monetary value of surface ship refitting contracts which will be awarded to UK naval bases in the next three years. [261981]
Mr. Quentin Davies: The MOD’s regular planning round is currently in progress. Until this work has been completed, it is not possible to provide a cost estimate for future Royal Navy surface ship upkeeps.
Programme Belvedere
Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what standard of accommodation is being planned for Joint Helicopter Command under Project Belvedere; what criteria are being used to make the decision; and what the cost would be of upgrading RAF Lyneham to (a) Royal Air Force, (b) Royal Navy and (c) Army accommodation standards; [261906]
(2) what estimate he has made of the cost to date of Programme Belvedere; [262055]
(3) what the reasons are for the time taken to announce the outcome of Programme Belvedere; [262056]
(4) what criteria will be used in selecting an airfield for Joint Helicopter Command under Programme Belvedere; [262057]
(5) who in his Department has lead responsibility for Programme Belvedere; [262058]
(6) who in his Department is responsible for ensuring that Programme Belvedere adheres to its timetable; [262059]
(7) how long he expects production of the environmental impact assessment on the airfield to be selected for Joint Helicopter Command under Programme Belvedere to take; [262060]
(8) how long he expects the process of costing the outcome selected by Programme Belvedere to take. [262061]
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The Belvedere Programme is considering future basing options for the Joint Helicopter Command.
Under the strategic direction of the Defence Operating Board and a three Star military officer (the Senior Responsible Owner), the Belvedere Team Leader has day to day responsibility for the programme timetable.
The range of variables and programme uncertainties has been more complex than originally envisaged, and has inevitably had an impact on the time taken to undertake the work. The criteria against which judgments are made, for both individual airfields and combinations of airfields, include:
operating issues including aircraft numbers, command and control and flying hours; environmental issues including noise,
availability and standard of domestic and technical accommodation;
accessibility for aircraft and vehicle types; aircraft capacity of the airfield;
opportunities for efficiencies and rationalisation;
airfield location—low flying areas, training areas and local communities;
future requirements; and,
affordability and value for money.
The costs of Belvedere since it was reconstituted in June 2007 have been a little under £2 million. In addition, around £2 million has been spent on essential maintenance works at RAF Lyneham to ensure that its existing infrastructure can remain viable if Belvedere concludes that the station should be retained.
No decisions have been taken on the number of bases required, nor therefore, of any accommodation requirements at RAF Lyneham. Any new accommodation would be provided to common joint-Service standards.
Baseline noise and environmental impact assessments have been made for each of the sites being considered by Programme Belvedere. A full environmental assessment following selection of a particular option would take 11-12 months. The programme would then be delivered through a series of individual projects. Future costs would depend upon the option chosen.
The future of the Belvedere Programme is currently under consideration at senior levels within the Department.
Royal Regiment of Scotland: Manpower
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the (a) trained, (b) actual strength and (c) numbers fit for duty requirement is for each (i) regular and (ii) territorial infantry battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland. [262633]
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: Fit for duty has been interpreted as medically fit to perform any duty. Personnel unfit for duty in their primary role but who can perform a role in an alternative capacity are therefore included in the following tables.
As at 1 December 2008, the figures for Royal Regiment of Scotland regular battalions were:
| Battalion | Trained strength | Actual strength | Fit for duty |
As at 1 January 2009, the figures for Royal Regiment of Scotland Territorial Army battalions were:
| Battalion | Trained strength | Actual strength | Fit for duty |
Data concerning fit for duty personnel are not collected for the Territorial Army and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |