|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the estimate in the 2006 Defence White Paper that running costs of the proposed future deterrent would represent 5 to 6 per cent. of the defence budget included the costs of (a) conventional forces supporting the deterrent and (b) decommissioning replacement submarines. 
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The estimate of the running costs contained within the White Paper does not include an allocation for those occasions when conventional forces are used to support the deterrent but does include the initial decommissioning costs for the replacement submarines.
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The performance award arrangements for staff in the Ministry of Defence are part of the continuous performance management process between managers and staff throughout the year. Although the culmination of the performance management process may result in a performance payment being made, the expenditure on the various constituents of the process which contribute towards the final payment of the award could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Mrs. Moon: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 1 April 2009, Official Report, columns 1277-78W, on ex-servicemen: mental health, what support his Department has provided for the community mental health pilot projects for veterans; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Kevan Jones: It has been the policy of successive Governments that the NHS should be the main provider of treatment for veterans. The NHS is therefore taking the lead for the six Community Mental Health pilots; the MOD has provided the start up costs for the six pilot sites and will meet the costs of the evaluation, £0.5 million. Veterans are also designated as a Special Interest Group (SIG) in the Department of Health's £173 million Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) Programme. In addition, to assist those veterans not in the catchment areas of one of the pilots, we have expanded our Medical Assessment Programme (MAP) based at St. Thomas' hospital, London, to include assessment of veterans with mental health symptoms with operational service since 1982.
I undertook to write to you with an answer to your Parliamentary Question on 14 May 2009, Official Report, column 948W. I am now able to provide a breakdown of spend per financial year on the Career Transition Partnership Scheme. The Career Transition Partnership (CTP) is a partnership between the Ministry of Defence and Right Management Consultants. As you may be aware, the inception of the CTP contract was in October 1998, which is why the spend figure for financial year 1998-99 is lower than subsequent years.
The figure for spend in each financial year is shown in the table below, these figures exclude VAT.
|Financial year||Spend( 1) (£ million)|
|(1)Rounded to nearest £100,000.|
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Fremington Army Camp in (a) preparing service personnel for operations and (b) provision of cadet training; 
(2) if he will estimate the disposal value of the site of Fremington Army Camp (a) with and (b) without the enhanced access route necessary for planning permission for the site's development. 
Mr. Kevan Jones: Fremington Camp, built in 1943, provides classrooms, accommodation and associated facilities for personnel conducting operational driver crew training at Braunton Burrows. The Cadets and University Officer Training Corps also use Fremington Camp between June and August.
Although a market valuation has been carried out for internal decision making purposes, it is not our policy to release such valuations as to do so could influence the market, and thus potentially disadvantage the taxpayer in the event of a disposal.
Mr. Kevan Jones:
The cost of purchasing and delivering the pedestrian safety barriers to Kenley airfield was £11,250 excluding VAT. The labour costs associated
with installation were £425 excluding VAT. RAF personnel also assisted with installation.
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to take the main gate decision for the Maritime Airborne Surveillance system; and what estimate he has made of the cost of implementing the system. 
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress his Department has made in implementing the recommendations contained in the Pitt report on flooding regarding the Met Offices forecasting and flood prediction methodology; what research he has commissioned to support such implementation; and when he expects such research to be completed. 
Mr. Kevan Jones: Noting the key role it plays in flood risk management, the Met Office is committed to improving its forecasting capability to meet the needs of emergency responders. Following a major investment in supercomputing it is already exploiting a new, highly detailed, forecast model that provides significantly improved support for the issue of flood related warnings. Building on this capability, in line with recommendation 3 of the Pitt review, the Met Office has developed a detailed research plan and started work which will further enhance its ability to forecast local-scale heavy rainfall events and further increase the amount of warning it is able to give to responders for such events. This research programme is due to be completed by summer 2012 in line with the timetable outlined by the Government in response to the Pitt review, although some benefits will be realised before this.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the new (a) 4x4 Supacat Jackal 2 patrol vehicles and (b) 6x6 Coyote tactical support variant vehicles to be delivered to the Army. 
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what expenditure his Department incurred on (a) leasing and (b) maintaining white fleet vehicles in the latest period for which figures are available; for what purposes his Department leases such vehicles; how many (i) civilians and (ii) service personnel have
used his Department's white fleet vehicles in the latest period for which figures are available; and for what purposes in each case. 
Mr. Quentin Davies: The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has two lease agreements in place for the provision of the majority of non-operational cars, i.e. white fleet vehicles. During FY 2008-09 the provision of leased vehicles under the UK and British Forces Germany white fleet contracts cost the Department approximately £82 million. It is not possible to separate the cost of maintaining the leased vehicles because the daily rate charge for vehicle provision includes the cost to the contractor of procuring the vehicles, routine servicing and maintenance, the provision of a recovery service, eventual disposal of the vehicle, and administrative overheads incurred by the service provider.
White fleet vehicles are leased for use in non-deployable administrative and support roles and transporting personnel and equipment. All MOD personnel, both military and civilian, are eligible to use white fleet vehicles on authorised duty journeys. The control and management of these vehicles is undertaken at unit level. This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: HM Ships Ocean, Illustrious, Manchester, Cornwall, Cumberland, Portland, Somerset, Northumberland, Richmond, Westminster, Kent, and St. Albans are currently deployed with one or more helicopters.
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons classified documents relating to Royal Navy submarines were erroneously delivered to a metal armaments company in Swadlincote; and if he will make a statement. 
The circumstances and the content of the boxes have, however, been examined by Defence Equipment and Support security staff who are satisfied that none of the documents were classified above restricted and did not represent a security risk. I have been reassured that the company have put improved processes in place to prevent a recurrence.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it is his Departments policy to keep Royal Navy warships at sea for longer periods when required operationally by allocating two crews to each vessel. 
Mr. Quentin Davies: It is not the Departments policy to keep Royal Navy warships at sea for longer periods when required operationally by routinely allocating two crews to each vessel. The Royal Navy has traditionally employed different manning solutions on different platforms, depending on operational and personnel needs. Recent trials of more naval approaches have shown no advantage over this traditional, mixed approach.
Mr. Kevan Jones: There is no fixed timetable set for reaching the target personnel establishment. However, it will be achieved as soon as possible, subject to normal recruiting and resource constraints, which is anticipated to take a number of years.
Mr. Quentin Davies: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 22 January 2009, Official Report, column 1667W. The Astute programme is currently being re-baselined and I will make an announcement in due course.
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: It is not normal for Parliament to be involved in Initial Gate decisions for procurement projects. I do however propose to update Parliament on progress following the Initial Gate decision.
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: No. On 14 March 2007 the House of Commons voted by a significant margin to accept the recommendations set out in the December 2006 White Paper The UKs Future Nuclear Deterrent. There has been no substantive change in international security since then that would suggest that a further vote is required.
Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what (a) weapons and (b) rounds of ammunition for which (i) his Department has and (ii) the armed forces have responsibility have gone missing in the last 12 months; and what the cost was of the loss of such weapons and ammunition. 
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|