some default text...

Defence

Afghanistan

Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the cost of airlifting equipment and supplies out of Afghanistan should overland routes not be a viable option for withdrawal in 2014. [115883]

Peter Luff: Every effort is being made to ensure ground lines of communication (GLOCs) (overland routes into, and out of, Afghanistan) remain open. The Pakistani Government recently announced that they will reopen the Pakistani GLOC following a telephone conversation between US Secretary of State Clinton and Pakistan Foreign Minister Khar.

NATO has also secured the necessary memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with the central Asian republics that facilitate the northern distribution network (the northern entry or exit point to and from Afghanistan) which has been further reinforced by UK bilateral MOUs.

Where there are no time pressures, low grade materiel equipment and supplies would be recovered by surface means in shipping containers. However, recovery by air forms a significant part of the UK redeployment plan particularly for protected mobility vehicles, sensitive materiel and outsized loads.

The approximate costs of the redeployment of surface containers range from £5,000 to £12,000 per container. For the air line of communication, costs range between £10,000 and £30,000 per container equivalent, either returning directly to the UK by air or by a combination of air and other options. The detailed costs would vary depending on the scenario and would be subject to commercial in confidence considerations between the Ministry of Defence and partnered contractors.

Aircraft Carriers

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the Queen Elizabeth Class ships will be configured to allow shipborne rolling vertical landing of the F-35B. [118359]

Peter Luff: That is our intention, and since the decision to revert to the short take off and vertical landing aircraft variant was announced in May 2012, the Ministry of Defence and Aircraft Carrier Alliance have been working to understand the challenges of integrating a shipborne rolling vertical landing capability into the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers.

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which fixed wing aircraft are capable of taking off and landing vertically on aircraft carriers. [118360]

3 Sep 2012 : Column 32W

Peter Luff: The short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the Joint Strike Fighter and the Harrier are currently the only aircraft capable of landing vertically on aircraft carriers.

Armed Forces

Mr Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he is taking to ensure that reductions in spending on the armed forces do not reduce their readiness for action. [115682]

Mr Philip Hammond: I refer the hon. Member to the statement I made on 14 May 2012, Official Report, column 261, on the Defence Budget and Transformation, where I explained that the best way I can support our armed forces as they restructure and refocus themselves for the future is to give them the assurance of stable and well-managed budgets and the confidence that the equipment programme is affordable and deliverable. We have achieved this, allowing our armed forces to move forward and to deliver the adaptable force structure described in the strategic defence and security review with confidence. The Army is confident that, through an expansion of reserves and their effective integration with the Regular Army, greater use of contractors and intelligent targeting of the manpower reductions in the support arms (where reserves and contractors can more readily play a role) the impact on military readiness is minimised.

Mr Mike Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to publish full details of the future allocation of resources to regular and reserve forces. [115685]

Mr Philip Hammond: The additional £1.8 billion being invested over the next 10 years in reserves will be used to increase and develop the trained strength of the reserves and to enhance their capability. It will be allocated to increase recruiting and improve retention, to enhance training at all levels, and to provide more and better equipment. This investment has already begun and will enable reserve forces of all three armed services to play greater roles as integral elements of the whole force.

Armed Forces: Adjustment Disorder

Bridget Phillipson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel have been diagnosed with adjustment disorder since May 2010. [118007]

Mr Robathan: Defence Analysis Statistics and Advice (DASA) records attendance by service personnel at the Ministry of Defence Department of Community Mental Health (DCMH) and at in-patient facilities, including the results of the initial psychiatric assessment of all patients. These are reported on a quarterly basis on the DASA website:

www.dasa.mod.uk

Between 1 May 2010 and 31 March 2012 (the latest date for which published data are available) 3,021 UK armed forces personnel had at least one episode of care at a MOD DCMH or in-patient admission with an initial assessment for “adjustment disorder”.

3 Sep 2012 : Column 33W

“Adjustment disorders” are a form of neurotic disorder, and the term covers a range of symptoms (including mood and anxiety symptoms as well as unhelpful coping behaviours) related to distress following exposure to a wide variety of stressful events. For most personnel, the prognosis is usually good if the exposure to the stressors ceases. They are distinct from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which is a variety of neurotic disorder that arises from a more defined stressor (one that involves significant perceived risk to oneself or a close person), has a well defined set of symptoms, and once established may be enduring if not managed appropriately.

Armed Forces: Amputation

Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what (a) medical services, (b) compensation and (c) mental health support are made available by his Department for service personnel requiring amputation. [117973]

Mr Robathan: The Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre (DMRC) at Headley Court houses a dedicated Prosthetics Unit which provides the highest quality prosthetics and adaptations, manufactured on site and individually tailored to the specific needs of the patient. Quality and fit of prosthetic limbs are of paramount importance in the rehabilitation process and, as part of the routine clinical care, every amputee case at DMRC is regularly assessed for the comfort and fit of their socket, and the alignment and functional quality of all components are checked every time the patient attends DMRC as either an in-patient or out-patient.

The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) provides compensation for any injury, illness or death which is predominately caused by service, for all current and former members of the UK armed forces, including Reservists, who were injured, on or after 6 April 2005. Claims are submitted to the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency (SPVA).

A full-time mental health team is based at DMRC, to ensure that the personnel being treated there can also receive mental health treatment on-site if they need it. New amputee in-patients receive a mental health assessment as part of their care programme, and ongoing care and support is provided as required.

Armed Forces: Discrimination

Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with reference to section 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2011, what discussions Ministers in his Department have had with the police on preventing discrimination against service people. [118070]

Mr Robathan: Any discrimination against members of the armed forces community is to be abhorred, and we will continue to be alert to any cases which are brought to our attention. When such discrimination is experienced and reported, the local chain of command will work closely with the civil police and other appropriate bodies to tackle the problem.

While I have had no direct discussions with civil authorities, we continue to work across Government to tackle any disadvantage incurred as a result of service.

3 Sep 2012 : Column 34W

Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with reference to section 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2011, what discussions Ministers in his Department have had with their counterparts in the (a) Department for Education (b) Department for Communities and Local Government and (c) Department of Health on preventing discrimination against service people. [118071]

Mr Robathan: We continue to work across Government to tackle the prevention of disadvantage incurred as a result of service by our armed forces. The three Departments cited are members of the Cabinet Sub Committee on the Armed Forces Covenant, which meets regularly to consider how to ensure that service people are not disadvantaged or discriminated against compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services.

Armed Forces: Mass Media

Mr Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the 2005 pledge that British forces would never deliberately target journalists or media facilities has been removed from the latest edition of his Department's Green Book. [118349]

Mr Robathan: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave on 17 July 2012, Official Report, column 751W.

Armed Forces: Postal Services

Mr Spellar: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent steps he has taken to ensure that firms recognise a British Forces Post Overseas address as a valid British address. [118092]

Mr Robathan: The British Forces Post Office (BFPO) and Royal Mail have worked together to introduce UK-style postcodes for service personnel and their families serving overseas.

The new online postcodes will help personnel serving overseas, and their families, by improving access to products and services from the internet, as envisaged under the Armed Forces Covenant. It will also help personnel maintain a UK credit history recognised by financial service providers.

Released commercially in March 2012, companies have been able to update their internet services to accept BFPO numbers since April 2012.

This will be a significant benefit for our forces and their families stationed overseas, who should enjoy exactly the same access to goods and services as UK residents.

Armed Forces: Redundancy

Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the level of skills lost from having made redundant service personnel with experience of serving in Afghanistan. [117974]

Mr Robathan: Service personnel selected for redundancy have been chosen to reflect those ranks and specialisations

3 Sep 2012 : Column 35W

which manpower planning indicates will be surplus as the armed forces reduce to their post-strategic defence and security review size.

Individuals have been selected for redundancy by single service boards, whose remit has included ensuring that those who remain will provide the best fit of skills, experience and competences to meet the future needs of the armed forces.

Army

Jonathan Reynolds: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the demographic analysis used to determine the selection of infantry battalions to be withdrawn from the Order of Battle as part of the Army 2020 review. [116597]

Nick Harvey [holding answer 12 July 2012]: Against a backdrop of needing to remove five battalions from the infantry order of battle as part of the wider Army 2020 structure, a number of criteria were applied by the Army which were: maintaining a regimental system which is largely regionally aligned; demographic sustainability of regiments according to projected regional supply of recruits; proportionality of outcome, with no cap badge deletions and no regiment losing more than one battalion in a re-organisation; balancing the whole infantry structure to maintain variety of roles and parity of opportunity of experience for officers and soldiers; taking account of previous decisions on mergers and deletions; historical manning performance; and ensuring a solution that the Army would see as fair and equitable.

Based on demographic data available from the Office of National Statistics for the age cohort across the UK from which infantry recruits are drawn, and historical trends in terms of the percentage of that cohort likely to join the Army, an assessment was made of which regiments were likely to be the least sustainable in the future if they retained their current structure. This work also included a comparison of each regiment's historical outflow so the likely recruiting requirement could be determined.

The analysis showed that those regiments likely to be the least sustainable in future were the Royal Regiment of Scotland (predicted to be 1.75 battalions short), The Yorkshire Regiment (predicted to be 0.8 battalions short), The Mercian Regiment (predicted to be 0.56 battalions short) and the Royal Welsh Regiment (predicted to be 0.55 battalions short). It was therefore decided to remove one battalion from each of those regiments.

After the removal of four battalions, the method for predicting future sustainability became less statistically discerning. Therefore to determine the fifth battalion to be removed from the order of battle required the application of criteria that went wider than demographics. Historical manning performance and the need to maintain equity of opportunity meant that the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (with average historical undermanning of 13.3% since the previous reorganisation of the infantry in 2007, and being a regiment with two battalions) was the next appropriate regiment from which to withdraw a battalion.

The analysis showed that after the withdrawal of five battalions from across the infantry, future manning should be sustainable with sufficient recruits predicted to fill the necessary posts across all battalions.

3 Sep 2012 : Column 36W

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the established unit strength will be (1) of (a) 3rd Battalion, The Rifles Regiment, (b) 2nd Battalion, The Rifles Regiment, (c) 2nd Battalion, The Mercian Regiment, (d) 3rd Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Scotland, (e) 4th Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Scotland, (f) the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, (g) 5th Battalion, The Rifles Regiment, (h) 1st Battalion, The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment, (i) The Queen's Royal Hussars, (j) 1st Battalion, The Yorkshire Regiment, (k) 2nd Battalion, The Royal Anglian Regiment, (l) 1st Battalion, The Royal Gurkha Rifles, (m) 1st Battalion, The Rifles Regiment, (n) 1st Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, (o) 2nd Battalion, The Royal Gurkha Rifles, (p) 2nd Battalion, The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, (q) the Royal Scots Borderers, 1st Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Scotland, (r) the Household Cavalry Regiment, (s) the Queen's Dragoon Guards, (t) the merged unit of the 9th/12th Royal Lancers and the Queen's Royal Lancers and (u) the merged unit of the 2nd Royal Tank Regiment and the 1st Royal Tank Regiment under his Army 2020 proposals; [116873]

(2) of (a) 1st Battalion, The Coldstream Guards, (b) 2nd Battalion, The Tigers, The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment, (c) The Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment, (d) the public duties companies of the Brigade of Guards, (e) 2nd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment, (f) 3rd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment, (g) Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, 5th Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Scotland, (h) 1st Battalion, The Royal Irish Regiment, (i) 1st Battalion, Irish Guards, (j) 4th Battalion, The Rifles Regiment, (k) The Royal Highland Fusiliers, 2nd Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Scotland, (l) 1st Battalion, Scots Guards, (m) 1st Battalion, The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, (n) Royal Dragoon Guards, (o) 1st Battalion, The Mercian Regiment, (p) 1st Battalion, (Vikings), The Royal Anglian Regiment, (q) 3rd Battalion, The Yorkshire Regiment, (r) The Welsh Guards, (s) The King's Royal Hussars, (t) The Light Dragoons, (u) 1st Battalion, The Grenadier Guards, (v) 1st Battalion, The Royal Welsh and (w) the Royal Welch Fusiliers under his Army 2020 proposals. [116874]

Nick Harvey: In the future Army Structure outlined under Army 2020, the allocation of roles to individual Infantry Battalions and Royal Armoured Corps Regiments is yet to be decided. It is therefore too early to provide the established strength of each of the units listed in the question.

However, when allocated, total unit strengths based on their specific role are expected to be as in the following table:

Unit roleUnit strength

Armoured Infantry

729

Armoured (Heavy) Protected Mobility Infantry

709

Light Protected Mobility Infantry

581

Light Role Infantry

561

Royal Gurkha Rifles

567

Parachute Regiment

660

T56 Armoured Regiment

587

Armoured Cavalry Regiment

528

3 Sep 2012 : Column 37W

Light Cavalry Regiment

404

Household Cavalry Mounted Regiment

341

The exact establishments of the London Based Public Duties Incremental Company (PDIC) and Scottish based PDIC remain under review although current planning figures are around 90 and 140 personnel respectively.

All unit strengths include other arms attached to the units such as Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, Royal Army Medical Corps, Adjutant General Corps (Staff and Personnel Support), Royal Logistic Corps, Royal Army Physical Training Corps and Royal Army Chaplains Department personnel.

Mr Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many multi-role brigades the Army will have by 2020. [116931]

Nick Harvey: I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), on 5 July 2012, Official Report, column 1085, in which he said that a future structure for the Army based on reaction forces, comprising 16 Air Assault Brigade and three armoured infantry brigades, adaptable forces, comprising seven infantry brigades of varying size and force troops.

Between them these will be able to generate the same operational output as five multi-role brigades but in a more flexible way.

Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are employed in each of the 17 major units affected by the Army 2020 review. [117080]

Nick Harvey [holding answer 13 July 2012]:I refer the right hon. Member to the Statement made by the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), on 5 July 2012, Official Report, columns 1087-88, in which he announced changes to a number of units that will be withdrawn, amalgamated or merged resulting in the reduction overall of 17 units.

The following table shows the total number of regular Army personnel, both officers and soldiers, employed within each of the units affected:

EstablishmentTotal Regular Army personnel employed

9th/12th Lancers

371

Queens Royal Lancers

485

1st Royal Tank Regiment

351

2nd Royal Tank Regiment

526

39 Regiment Royal Artillery

581

24 Commando Engineer Regiment

369

28 Engineer Regiment

536

67 Works Group Royal Engineers

58

5th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland (5 SCOTS)

582

2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (2RRF)

619

3 Sep 2012 : Column 38W

2nd Battalion The Yorkshire Regiment (2 YORKS)

588

3rd Battalion The Mercian Regiment (3 MERCIAN)

630

2nd Battalion The Royal Welsh (2 R WELSH)

762

1 Regiment Army Air Corps

336

9 Regiment Army Air Corps

450

1 Logistic Support Regiment Royal Logistic Corps

536

2 Logistic Support Regiment Royal Logistic Corps

508

23 Pioneer Regiment Royal Logistic Corps

556

101 Force Support Battalion Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

235

5th Regiment Royal Military Police

200

These figures comprise all regular Army personnel under the command of the unit's commanding officer and therefore include Army personnel from other arms and corps employed at the unit.

An individual in a unit which is being withdrawn or merged is no more or less likely than any other individual with similar skills and service record to be selected for future redundancy. When units are withdrawn from the Army's order of battle their personnel will be reassigned to other units, where possible within the same regiment.

Mr Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what further steps his Department plans to take to deliver Future Force 2020 as set out in the Strategic Defence and Security Review. [117366]

Mr Philip Hammond [holding answer 16 July 2012]: The Ministry of Defence Business Plan 2012-15 sets out the key actions we are taking to restructure the armed forces and their capabilities to deliver the Future Force 2020 capability, as set out in the Strategic Defence and Security Review and other subsequent announcements.

Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with reference to page 24 of his Department's publication, Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty: The Strategic Defence and Security Review, published in October 2010, when he plans that the five multi-role brigades will be established. [118073]

Nick Harvey: The Army 2020 proposition offers the best solution for a combined force of 120,000 regular and reservist soldiers. It will deliver three armoured infantry brigades in the Reactive Force and seven brigades in the Adaptive Force. This force structure will be multi-role in nature and will deliver the same Defence outputs as the Army force structure envisaged in the 2010 strategic defence and security review.

Army: Recruitment

Mr Baron: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the (a) recruitment targets and (b) levels of recruitment (including shortfalls) were for each of the Scottish regiments for each of the last 10 years; [116317]

(2) what the (a) recruitment targets and (b) levels of recruitment (including shortfalls) were for (i) 2nd

3 Sep 2012 : Column 39W

Battalion, The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, (ii) 2nd Battalion, The Yorkshire Regiment, (iii) 3rd Battalion, The Mercian Regiment and (iv) 2nd Battalion, The Royal Welsh for each of the last 10 years. [116318]

Mr Philip Hammond [holding answer 10 July 2012]: The Army sets recruitment targets at regimental level. Recruits are then allocated to the battalion within their

3 Sep 2012 : Column 40W

chosen regiment where the demand is greatest. Priority is given to battalions preparing for operations.

The following table shows the overall manning position at April of each year—by Regiment—including establishment and recruiting performance for each of the last 10 years: Recruitment targets prior to 2007 are not held centrally in the format requested.

  2003200420052006200720082009201020112012Average +/- % of strengthAverage +/- % of establishment

Scots Guards

Establishment

632

691

691

711

713

709

706

709

709

703

 

Strength

547

632

620

589

623

682

568

655

655

645

 

+/-

-85

-59

-71

-122

-90

-27

-138

-54

-54

-58

-12

-10

 

Recruiting target

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

102

146

142

172

198

 

Actual

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

101

147

139

170

143

 

+/-

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

-1

1

-3

-2

-55

              

Royal Regt Scotland

Establishment

2,704

2,760

2,759

2,766

2,780

2,788

2,818

2,782

2,775

2,764

 

Strength

2,323

2,483

2,386

2,269

2,461

2,518

2,311

2,332

2,376

2,410

 

+/-

-381

-277

-373

-497

-319

-270

-507

-450

-399

-354

-16

-14

 

Recruiting target

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

486

545

688

455

671

 

Actual

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

262

311

639

456

641

 

+/-

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

-224

-234

-49

1

-30

              

Royal Regt Fusiliers

Establishment

1,112

1,112

1,112

1,142

1,142

1,138

1,141

1,112

1,109

1,131

 

Strength

957

1,034

1,025

978

961

940

924

1,062

1,087

1,124

 

+/-

-155

-78

-87

-164

-181

-198

-217

-50

-22

-7

-12

-10

 

Recruiting target

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

310

304

289

242

256

 

Actual

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

263

289

274

242

241

 

+/-

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

-47

-15

-15

0

-15

              

Yorkshire Regt

Establishment

1,638

1,667

1,667

1,643

1,643

1,678

1,676

1,676

1,664

1,664

 

Strength

1,571

1,616

1,608

1,498

1,462

1,334

1,352

1,382

1,392

1,488

 

+/-

-67

-51

-59

-145

-181

-344

-324

-294

-272

-176

-13

-12

 

Recruiting target

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

425

450

441

387

481

 

Actual

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

280

355

426

372

371

 

+/-

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

-145

-95

-15

-15

-110

              

Mercian Regt

Establishment

1,626

1,626

1,667

1,668

1,668

1,667

1,647

1,676

1,671

1,664

 

Strength

1,506

1,491

1,476

1,352

1,344

1,384

1,453

1,552

1,498

1,440

 

+/-

-120

-135

-191

-316

-324

-283

-194

-124

-173

-224

-14

-13

 

Recruiting target

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

483

513

395

270

432

 

Actual

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

386

456

381

266

439

 

+/-

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

-97

-57

-14

-4

7

              

Royal Welsh

Establishment

1,141

1,141

1,141

1,142

1,142

1,140

1,138

1,138

1,132

1,102

 

Strength

1,108

1,108

1,027

975

908

932

1,025

1,072

1,030

1,030

 

+/-

-33

-33

-114

-167

-234

-208

-113

-66

-102

-72

-11

-10

3 Sep 2012 : Column 41W

3 Sep 2012 : Column 42W

 

Recruiting target

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

288

297

268

180

273

 

Actual

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

230

264

254

177

278

 

+/-

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

(1)

-58

-33

-14

-3

5


The recruitment target figures for 2010-11 are artificially low due to a nine-month pause in infantry training. This affected regiments differently depending on where their training slots were on the Infantry Training Centre programme during that year.

The following table shows the manning levels of specified battalions, complete with establishment and strength as at April of each year.

  2003200420052006200720082009201020112012Average +/- % of strengthAverage +/- % of establishment

2nd Btn Royal Regt Fusiliers

Establishment

526

526

526

534

534

533

536

536

533

532

 

Strength

451

496

490

439

452

435

437

519

514

523

 

+/-

-75

-30

-36

-95

-82

-98

-99

-17

-19

-9

-12

-10

              

2nd Btn Yorkshire Regt

Establishment

526

526

526

534

534

535

533

533

532

532

 

Strength

464

479

488

474

438

423

420

415

451

487

 

+/-

-62

-47

-38

-60

-96

-112

-113

-118

-81

-45

-17

-14

              

3rd Btn Mercian Regt

Establishment

545

545

586

608

608

576

576

605

605

604

 

Strength

516

538

527

458

470

501

511

555

560

507

 

+/-

-29

-7

-59

-150

-138

-75

-65

-50

-45

-97

-14

-12

              

2nd Btn Royal Welsh

Establishment

586

586

586

608

608

606

605

605

605

575

 

Strength

563

546

495

561

470

475

536

567

538

529

 

+/-

-23

-40

-91

-47

-138

-131

-69

-38

-67

-46

-13

-11

              

1 Btn Scots

Establishment

527

527

527

534

535

543

540

540

540

535

 

Strength

422

471

436

403

524

642

459

498

465

517

 

+/-

-105

-56

-91

-131

-11

99

-81

-42

-75

-18

-11

-10

              

2 Btn Scots

Establishment

527

527

527

534

535

535

533

533

533

528

 

Strength

456

463

466

423

449

459

443

451

494

448

 

+/-

-71

-64

-61

-111

-86

-76

-90

-82

-39

-80

-16

-14

              

3 Btn Scots

Establishment

590

571

571

534

538

538

608

543

537

537

 

Strength

519

524

533

516

497

465

537

447

430

520

 

+/-

-71

-47

-38

-18

-41

-73

-71

-96

-107

-17

-12

-10

              

4 Btn Scots

Establishment

530

590

590

608

612

612

604

608

608

608

 

Strength

430

509

500

508

544

500

434

446

461

460

 

+/-

-100

-81

-90

-100

-68

-112

-170

-162

-147

-148

-24

-19

              

3 Sep 2012 : Column 43W

3 Sep 2012 : Column 44W

5 Btn Scots

Establishment

530

545

544

556

560

560

533

558

557

556

 

Strength

496

516

451

419

447

452

438

490

526

465

 

+/-

-34

-29

-93

-137

-113

-108

-95

-68

-31

-91

-17

-14

Recruiting performance over the last 10 years was just one of a number of criteria used to determine which Infantry battalions would be withdrawn under Army 2020. Maintaining an appropriate and effective structure to deliver military outputs has been the major driver of the reconfiguration. The Army has also considered demographic trends over the next 10 years in each region to model future recruitment expectations. Regional and national affiliations, the merger and disbandment history of individual battalions and existing commitments of battalions to future operations was also taken into account with a requirement that no regiment should lose more than one battalion. The overriding objective has been to arrive at a solution that those currently serving in the Army will see as fair and equitable.

AWE: Research

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which universities receive funding for research commissioned by the Atomic Weapons Establishment; and what the nature is of such funded research. [113137]

Peter Luff: I will write to the hon. Member once the information has been collated.

Substantive answer from Gerald Howarth to Angus Robertson:

In his written answer to your Parliamentary Question on 10 July 2012 (Official Report, column 199W), Peter Luff promised to write to you confirming which universities receive funding for research commissioned by the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE); and what the nature is of such funded research. I am now in a position to provide you with a substantive answer.

The following universities received funding for research commissioned by AWE in the financial year 2011-2012:

Cranfield University;

Heriot-Watt University;

Imperial College (including Imperial College Consultants Ltd);

Keele University;

Loughborough University;

Queens University Belfast;

University College London;

University of Bath;

University of Bristol;

University of Cambridge;

University of Edinburgh;

University of Leeds;

University of Leicester;

University of Liverpool;

University of Manchester;

University of Oxford;

University of Portsmouth Higher Education Corporation;

University of Reading;

University of Salford;

University of Southampton;

University of Strathclyde;

University of Surrey;

University of Warwick;

University of York; and

University Court of the University Of St Andrews.

The nature of the research undertaken by the universities falls within the following areas:

Physics, which includes numerical modelling, uncertainty analysis, computational fluid dynamics, shock physics, plasma physics and solid mechanics;

Materials science, ranging from chemical synthesis of polymers and adhesives through to properties of energetics (explosives), metallurgy, computational chemistry and nuclear materials;

High performance computing focusing on the development of computer algorithms and future energy efficient computing platforms; and

Engineering and manufacturing, which includes developing sensor technologies, electronic components and integrated circuits both for experimental and project use.

In addition, AWE also commission academic involvement in the areas of nuclear detection techniques and nuclear forensics.

British Telecom

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was of the contract with BT to provide cyber security in each of the next seven years. [116823]

Mr Gerald Howarth: BT provides cyber security for the Ministry of Defence through the Watchtower contract, which runs until the end of financial year 2018-19.

The cost of the contract in each of the next seven years is as follows:

Financial yearTotal cost (£million)

2012-13

2.7

2013-14

2

2014-15

1.5

2015-16

1.5

2016-17

2.7

2017-18

1.5

2018-19

1.5

Defence Equipment and Support

Alison Seabeck: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which organisations and businesses he plans to consult regarding the proposal to bring forward a Government-owned contractor-operated body to replace Defence Equipment and Support. [118304]

Peter Luff: Once a decision on the proposed future operating model option for Defence Equipment and Support is taken later this year, we will ensure that all

3 Sep 2012 : Column 45W

interested parties have the opportunity to contribute to the debate, both in Parliament and more widely. This will involve discussion not just with industry, international partners, staff representatives and specialist organisations but with those in both Houses who have expertise in this area. We will provide further details on the way forward in the autumn to enable such discussions to take place in an informed and constructive way.

Defence: Procurement

Stephen Barclay: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with reference to the answer of 21 May 2012, Official Report, column 438W, on defence procurement, how many of the urgent operational requirements delivered, or planned for delivery, later than originally approved are projected to be more than (a) six months, (b) 12 months, (c) 18 months and (d) 24 months later than the original date. [117481]

Mr Gerald Howarth [holding answer 16 July 2012]:The information requested is currently being verified. I will write to my hon. Friend when this has been completed.

John McDonnell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the value is of the Royal Navy's contracts for (a) Type 45 destroyers, (b) Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers and (c) Astute Class attack submarines; and when each vessel being built under these contracts is due to come into service. [R] [109631]

Mr Gerald Howarth: The current value of the contracts for the Type 45 destroyers is £5.577 billion. Timescales for in-service delivery of the programme are shown in the following table:

 In-service date

Daring

2010

Dauntless

2010

Diamond

2011

Dragon

2012

Defender

2013

Duncan

2014

The current value of the contract for the Queen Elizabeth Class (QEC), excluding the engineering transition stage and Ministry of Defence project costs, is £4.45 billion. When these components are included, the agreed final target cost is £5.24 billion.

Following the decision to revert to a Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing design, the programme, including in-service dates, is currently being reviewed to develop updated costs and revised schedules for the delivery of the ships. Our aim, as set out by the Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond) in his statement on 10 May 2012, Official Report, columns 140-153, is to begin sea trials in 2017 and undertake aircraft trials in 2018. The revised programme will be subject to re-approval in due course.

Astute Class contracts are currently valued at £6.109 billion. This includes design and development, support studies and long lead items. The current timescales for in-service delivery of the Astute Class are shown in the following table:

3 Sep 2012 : Column 46W

 In-service date

Astute

2010

Ambush

2013

Artful

2015

Audacious

2018

Anson

2020

Boat 6

2022

Boat 7

2024

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what projects are on the Single Integrated Capability Priority List; and what the projected cost is of each project. [115978]

Peter Luff: The Single Integrated Capability Priority List consists of a range of programmes and enhancements to which the Ministry of Defence has made no decision to commit funds. The list will change over time in response to changing threats, emerging technologies and a range of other factors. I am withholding the information requested on the basis that its disclosure would, or would be likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the armed forces and the conduct of public affairs. Furthermore, its disclosure would, or would be likely to prejudice commercial interests.

Mr Jim Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with which firms his Department has signed contracts to provide contractors for roles in theatre since May 2010. [118055]

Peter Luff: It is assumed that “in theatre” relates to operations in Afghanistan. The following companies have been issued contracts since 1 May 2010, where all or part of the associated work has been undertaken in Afghanistan:

WYG Management Services Ltd

Contrack International Inc

Security Services Group

Defence Support Group (Ministry of Defence Trading Fund)

Thales ATM Ltd

Sippi Azarbaijani-Moghaddam

Actica Consulting Ltd

Kellogg Brown and Root Ltd

Systems Consultants Services Ltd

Marshall Specialist Vehicles Ltd

Finning (UK) Ltd

Technogym UK Ltd

L.A. International Computer Consultants Ltd

Thebigword Interpreting Services Ltd.

This list does not include those companies which may have received other miscellaneous payments, as the location of work for such payments is not recorded.

Mark Hendrick: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence with reference to the urgent question of 17 July 2012, on defence procurement, whether defence procurement is subject to European single market procurement rules. [118252]

Peter Luff: Defence procurement is subject to EU Single Market rules for public procurement, although

3 Sep 2012 : Column 47W

there are certain exclusions such as article 346 (known as the warlike stores exemption) of the Lisbon treaty which may be used in exceptional circumstances.

Depleted Uranium

Katy Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place a copy of the review into the legality of CHARM3 depleted uranium ammunition required by Article 36 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention in the Library. [118211]

Nick Harvey: The CHARM3 legal weapons review is being withheld to protect legal professional privilege, the policy-making process and relations between the United Kingdom and other states.

The review conclusion, that CHARM3 was capable of being used lawfully by UK armed forces in international armed conflict and the rationale behind it, was laid before the House in a written ministerial statement on 12 July 2012, Official Report, columns 40-41WS.

Filming

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on how many occasions property owned by his Department has been used in commercial filming in each location in each of the last five years; [117583]

(2) what estimate he has made of the income to his Department from commercial filming on its property in (a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Northern Ireland, (d) Scotland and (e) overseas in each of the last five years. [117584]

Mr Robathan: This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The responsibility for income generation is delegated locally and the details of the locations used and the income generated from filming are not distinguishable from other third-party use of the Ministry of Defence estate.

Horses

Mr Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 16 July 2012, Official Report, column 514W, on horses, what the cost of feeding and bedding ceremonial horses has been in each 12 month period since May 2010. [118400]

Mr Robathan: The cost of feeding and bedding ceremonial horses for each financial year (FY) since April 2008 is assessed as follows:

FY 2008-09 (1 April 2008 to 31 March 2009): £1 million

FY 2009-10 (1 April 2009 to 31 March 2010): £1 million

FY 2010-11 (1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011): £1 million

FY 2011-12 (1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012): £1.2 million.

Mr Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 16 July 2012, Official Report, column 514W, on horses, what the total number is of ceremonial horses used by his Department. [118401]

Mr Robathan: Military working animals play an important role working alongside our armed forces. Horses are used for ceremonial purposes throughout the year on the daily Changing the Guard and at annual events such as Trooping the Colour, the state opening of Parliament and state visits. In addition, they are regularly

3 Sep 2012 : Column 48W

called upon to undertake duties at other state ceremonial occasions such as royal weddings and funerals as well as more recently the diamond jubilee celebrations. These ceremonial activities form an important part of our national heritage and help to raise the profile of our armed forces.

The total number of horses employed on ceremonial duties as at 13 July 2012 is 417. A further 82 horses were held by the Defence Animal Centre for rest or treatment, for use as training horses, or waiting to be re-homed on their retirement. In addition two ponies are kept by the Parachute Regiment as mascots.

Horses and Dogs

Mr Kevan Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) horses and (b) dogs were euthanised by his Department in each month in 2012; and for what reasons in each case. [117067]

Mr Robathan: The Ministry of Defence's policy is to re-home all military working dogs and horses at the end of their service life wherever practicable. Regrettably, however, there are occasions when military working animals have to be put down. This action is only ever taken as a last resort, where it is judged unsafe to re-home the animal because of the risk they pose to the public or where veterinary reasons indicate that re-homing them would conflict with the animal's welfare.

Between January 2012 to June 2012, 11 horses have been put down for the following reasons:

MonthNumber of horsesReason(s)Number

January

4

Dangerous Temperament

1

  

Chronic Lameness

3

    

February

0

  
    

March

0

  
    

April

2

Chronic Lameness

1

  

Injury

1

    

May

2

Malignancy

1

  

Chronic Lameness

1

    

June

3

Colic

2

  

Chronic Lameness

1

A total of 24 military work dogs were put down during the same period, for the following reasons:

MonthNumber of dogsReason(s)Number

January

2

Aged—welfare

1

  

Malignancy

1

    

February

9

Neurological

3

  

Aged—welfare

4

  

Chronic ear disease

1

  

Abdominal catastrophe

1

3 Sep 2012 : Column 49W

March

3

Blindness

1

  

Osteoarthritis

1

  

Malignancy

1

    

April

7

Neurological

3

  

Malignancy

2

  

Osteoarthritis

2

    

May

2

Dangerous temperament

1

  

Osteoarthritis

1

    

June

1

Catastrophic wound breakdown

1

Comparative figures for the months January to June for 2009 to 2011 for the number of horses euthanised are eight, 12 and 17 respectively as detailed in the following tables:

 MonthNumber of horsesReason(s)Number

2009

January

3

Unspecified

1

   

Chronic Lameness

1

   

Aged—Welfare

1

     
 

February

3

Chronic Lameness

3

     
 

March

2

Post Op complications

1

   

Chronic Lameness

1

     
 

April

0

  
     
 

May

0

  
     
 

June

0

  
 MonthNumber of horsesReason(s)Number

2010

January

4

Untreatable fracture

1

   

Chronic Lameness

3

     
 

February

2

Chronic Lameness

1

   

Dangerous Temperament

1

     
 

March

0

  
     
 

April

1

Chronic Lameness

1

     
 

May

3

Dangerous Temperament

1

   

Chronic Lameness

2

3 Sep 2012 : Column 50W

 

June

2

Untreatable fracture

1

   

Chronic Lameness

1

 MonthNumber of horsesReason(s)Number

2011

January

2

Malignancy

1

   

Chronic Lameness

1

     
 

February

4

Chronic Lameness

1

   

Dangerous Temperament

1

   

Neurological

1

   

Untreatable fracture

1

     
 

March

0


 
     
 

April

3

Chronic Lameness

1

   

Colic

2

     
 

May

3

Neurological

1

   

Colic

2

     
 

June

5

Untreatable fracture

1

   

Chronic Lameness

2

   

Dangerous Temperament

1

   

Colic

1