| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
25 Jun 2009 : Column 1066W—continued
Armed Forces: Sick Leave
Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what percentage of armed forces personnel in each service were (a) unable to deploy and (b) only able to undertake limited deployment for medical reasons in each year since 2003. [275017]
Mr. Kevan Jones: The MOD collates, on a quarterly basis, management information on the number of service personnel “fit for task”, which provides a measure of the medical fitness of all trained armed forces personnel. These figures are broken down into three categories: medically fully fit, medically not fully fit, and medically unfit. It should be noted that the majority of those personnel who fall under the category of medically not fully fit remain fit enough to work in some capacity and therefore continue to make a contribution to operational effectiveness, often within theatres of operation.
Prior to 1 April 2006, information was collected by the single services for internal management purposes, but was not required to be reported centrally in a
standardised format. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
For information on the period covering the first quarter of 2006-07 through to the second quarter of 2008-09, I refer the hon. Member to my answers of 20 and 22 January 2009, Official Report, columns 1262W
and 1664W. Medically fit for task figures for the third and fourth quarters of 2008-09 can be found in the following table. Personnel numbers are rounded to the nearest 10, and percentages, rounded to one decimal point.
| Naval Service | Army( 1) | RAF | |||||
| Number | Percentage of trained strength | Number | Percentage of trained strength | Number | Percentage of trained strength | ||
| (1) Since 2007 the Army has collated figures for its deployable elements only not its total trained strength. | |||||||
Since 1 April 2007 the Army has collated quarterly figures for its deployable elements only, rather than for its total trained strength. For this reason the figures are not comparable to those provided by the Navy and RAF in the same period. The Army’s deployability returns provide a snapshot, on a specific day, of the deployability of Army personnel broken down into the following categories: fully deployable; limited deployability (LD); and personnel unable to deploy (PUD). Many of those personnel classed as LD can and will deploy to operational theatres, likewise PUDs will be able to undertake non-deployed duties.
The following table provides the figures as at 1 December 2008 and 1 April 2009; personnel numbers are rounded to the nearest 10, and percentages rounded to one decimal point.
| Number | Percentage of deployable strength | |
For the last quarter, the reporting date has been altered to 1 April, bringing it in line with the financial year and other reporting.
Defence: Procurement
Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of the procurement of (a) aircraft carriers, (b) Joint Strike Fighter, (c) the Trident replacement programme, (d) Type 45 destroyers, (e) the Future Rapid Effects System, (f) Astute Class submarines and (g) Typhoons in the next 12 months. [280829]
Mr. Quentin Davies: The current estimated expenditure on the procurement of the programmes listed for the next 12 months up to the end of financial year 2009-10 is provided in the following table:
| £ million | |||
| Programme | Direct Resource DEL and Capital DEL | Indirect Resource DEL | Total |
| Note: Indirect Resource DEL includes a notional Cost of Capital Charge and Depreciation. | |||
The total estimated expenditure includes equipment procurement costs only and excludes any related equipment support or overhead expenditure.
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent on defence procurement in each of the armed services in the latest year for which figures are available; and how much of that expenditure was incurred in Scotland in each service. [281651]
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The Defence budget is spent as efficiently as possible to deliver value for money in producing required military capability, but is not allocated on a regional basis or by individual service. For example, military equipment is provided for the armed forces by the Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) organisation, which receives the top level requirements under the guidance of the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff (Capability). These are determined on a capability basis.
Estimates for direct MOD expenditure on equipment and non-equipment, and civilian and service personnel in Scotland are provided in the following table. Expenditure has been expressed as a percentage of the MOD’s total worldwide actual cash expenditure. It is not possible to give a final figure for expenditure for Scotland as our
contractors may place subcontracts with organisations outside Scotland. Moreover, companies in Scotland may receive defence subcontracts from firms elsewhere in the UK.
| Scotland 2006-07 | |
| £ million at current prices (VAT exclusive) | |
| Note: Figures rounded to nearest £10 million | |
The MOD presents estimates of annual procurement of goods and service in the UK broken out by industry sector and estimates of aggregate MOD equipment expenditure annually in “The UK Defence Statistics”, which can be found at the following link:
The most recent data cover 2002-03 to 2006-07 and the data for 2008-09 will be published on 27 September 2009. Given that there is no regional consideration to the defence budget, we will no longer produce a regional breakdown of direct defence employment and associated expenditure after then.
There is a strong manufacturing base in Scotland as a result of sustained investment by the UK Government. The Scottish Affairs Select Committee report into Employment and Skills for the Defence Industry in Scotland, published in June 2008, said that “the defence industry is vital to Scotland”. Defence and aerospace industries generate nearly £2.31 billion in sales and together with the MOD support almost 50,000 jobs and a record number of apprentices.
EC Law
Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the proportion of statutory obligations provided for by legislation on matters for which his Department is responsible which were introduced as a consequence of obligations arising from EU legislation in the latest period for which figures are available. [281867]
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The Department has not had to introduce new legislative instruments as a result of obligations under EU Legislation.
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Cameroon: Prisoners
Mr. Chaytor:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will request a report from the Cameroon authorities on the (a) health of and (b) availability of medical assistance, (c) physical conditions at the place of detention and (d)
process for appeal against their sentence of the imprisoned chairman and vice chairman of the Southern Cameroons National Council. [282179]
Chris Bryant: The chairman of the Southern Cameroons National Council (SCNC), Chief Ayamba Ette Otun, together with the vice chairman Nfor Ngala Nfor, and activist Enow John Enow were released on bail on 3 June 2009 and remain at liberty. The process by which they may appeal against their sentence is a matter of Cameroon law and for their legal representatives to advise them.
Commonweatlh
Mr. Keith Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department's White Paper on the Commonwealth is expected to be published; and if he will make a statement. [281978]
Mr. Ivan Lewis: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has no current plans to publish a White Paper on the Commonwealth.
Mr. Keith Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what (a) financial and (b) other contribution his Department will make to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Trinidad and Tobago in November 2009. [281979]
Mr. Ivan Lewis: The Government of Trinidad and Tobago will meet overall costs of hosting the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM), which takes place in Port of Spain in November 2009.
We have shared experience of running international summits with the Government of Trinidad and Tobago and remain in regular contact with the National Secretariat of Trinidad and Tobago which is responsible for co-coordinating CHOGM.
Departmental Nurseries
Mr. Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what crèche facilities his Department provides for its employees working in Whitehall. [282229]
Chris Bryant: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) operates a nursery in King Charles Street, Whitehall for up to 42 children from 8-6 pm Monday to Friday. Places are open to children of staff, whether fathers or mothers and whether full-time or part-time employees.
The nursery is certified by the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (OFSTED) as an approved day care facility for children between six months and five years of age. The nursery is managed by Bright Horizons Family Solutions, a company specialising in the running of workplace nurseries. The FCO nursery received a top ‘outstanding’ mark in a recent OFSTED inspection (24 April 2009).
The FCO also runs a nursery for staff working at its second site, Hanslope Park, near Milton Keynes.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |