This is a regular round up of Parliamentary questions and answers from ministers relevant to defence issues In addition to oral questions, MPs and Peers can ask government ministers questions for written answer. These are often used to obtain detailed information about policies and statistics on the activities of government departments. In the House of Commons ‘ordinary’ questions do not have to be answered on a specific date. An MP will date a written question for two days after they have tabled it (ie, submitted it for answer via the Table Office). The convention is that the MP can expect it to be answered within seven days of the question being tabled.
Contents
Question
Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley, Liberal Democrat)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he plans to take to ensure that votes cast by service personnel in Afghanistan for elections to be held on 15 May 2011 reach the UK securely.
Answer
Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)
For the referendum and elections on 5 May 2011, the Ministry of Defence is working with the Cabinet Office and the Electoral Commission to utilise existing supply flights to transport postal ballot packs (subject to operational priorities). However, voting by proxy remains the most reliable means for service personnel stationed overseas to cast their votes.
Question
Penny Mordaunt (Portsmouth North, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department plans to continue to pay flying-related financial retention incentives.
Answer
Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)
holding answer 28 February 2011
Financial incentive schemes, including financial retention incentives are kept under constant review based on need. This is particularly important in a period when force structures are changing. However, no decisions have yet been taken. Information on any changes to existing schemes will be promulgated as soon as they are known.
Question
Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on which occasions representatives of the government of (a) Egypt, (b) Bahrain , (c) Libya and (d) Tunisia have attended sales and marketing events organised by his Department in the last three years; and what the status was of their attendance.
Answer
Mark Prisk (Minister of State (Business and Enterprise), Business, Innovation and Skills; Hertford and Stortford, Conservative)
I have been asked to reply.
Major UK defence and security exhibitions are organised commercially. The role of UK Trade and Investment Defence and Security Organisation (UKTI DSO) is to host official overseas Government defence and security delegations at these events. Invitations are issued with approval of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In the last three years an official delegation has attended from Bahrain at Farnborough International Air Show 2008 (FIAS ’08), Defence Equipment and Systems International 2009, and Home Office Scientific and Development Branch exhibition 2010 (HOSDB), from Egypt at Defence Equipment and Systems International 2009 and HOSDB ’10, and from Libya at FIAS ’10.
In addition, UKTI DSO has hosted inward visits from representatives of the Governments of Bahrain, Egypt and Libya. In May 2008, a Bahraini Army delegation visited UK to witness a demonstration of artillery fire control equipment. In May 2009 the Bahraini National Guard visited UK for a variety of presentations related to defence of major international conferences. In May 2009 and October 2010, a Bahraini defence delegation attended the multinational Ballistic Toolkit demonstrations of small arms and protective equipment In September 2010, Bahraini defence delegates attended an exhibition of UK military equipment as part of UK/Bahrain defence staff talks. In April 2010 an Egyptian officer attended a Ministry of Defence event to brief London-based Defence attachés on the UK approach to operational training and UKTI DSO Export Support Team demonstrated some optical equipment. In November 2009 a Libyan delegation visited a variety of UK defence companies to discuss border security issues. Some members of the Libyan delegation which attended FIAS ’10 also visited RAF establishments.
Representatives of the Government of Tunisia have not attended a defence or security exhibition, or other export related event, as guests of the UK Government over the last three years.
Question
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 20 January 2011, Official Report, columns 45-47WS, on armed forces allowances, what assessment he has made of the likely effect of the changes to local overseas allowance on the average amount payable to personnel based overseas; and if he will make a statement.
Answer
Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)
holding answer 7 March 2011
This information is not held as the rate of local overseas allowance can vary significantly depending upon where individuals are posted and which rank band they are placed in. It is expected that in the majority of cases individuals will receive less, but as a result of the reduction of rank-based bands from 13 to three, personnel at lower ranks may find that they benefit as a result of these changes.
Question
Angela Eagle (Wallasey, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of active members of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme earn (a) between £10,000 and £15,000, (b) between £15,000 and £20,000, (c) between £20,000 and £25,000, (d) between £25,000 and £30,000 and (e) £30,000 and more.
Answer
Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)
The following table provides information on the proportion of active members of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme by salary band as at 1 April 2010:
| Salary band | Proportion (%) |
| £10,000-£14,999 | 3.5 |
| £15,000-£19,999 | 19.6 |
| £20,000-£24,999 | 14.4 |
| £25,000-£29,999 | 13.5 |
| £30,000 plus | 49.0 |
Question
Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 15 February 2011, Official Report, columns 815-22W, on armed forces (redundancies), what actions (a) he and (b) Ministers in his Department plan to take to ensure that no members of the armed forces are informed of their redundancy by email.
Answer
Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)
holding answer 28 February 2011
Ministers have made clear that individuals should be informed that they are being made redundant through the Chain of Command. In exceptional cases this may be by telephone, but for the vast majority it will be face to face. In no circumstances will personnel be informed by email.
Question
Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost to the public purse was of the (a) procurement and (b) outsourcing function of (i) his Department and (ii) each (A) agency and (B) non-departmental public body for which he is responsible in the last financial year for which figures are available.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
The Ministry of Defence has made no estimates of the total cost of its procurement and outsourcing functions. We have estimated that the cost of the commercial element of the procurement function in 2009-10 was £153 million. The commercial element of the procurement function is a sub-set of the overall cost, which also includes the cost of project management, the supply chain and the costs involved over the entire life-cycle of a project, from initial requirement and concept, through to ultimate final disposal. This estimate is based on an average cost of the number of commercial staff in the main commercial areas, including overheads. The estimate for the Private Finance Unit, which is part of the outsourcing function, was £0.7 million.
Separate information for each agency and non-departmental public body could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Question
Madeleine Moon (Bridgend, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the factors determining the withdrawal of MR2 Nimrod were taken into account in his decision to cancel the MRA4 Nimrod.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
The Nimrod MR2 was withdrawn from service in March 2010. I cannot comment on the rationale for decisions taken by the previous Government, but the decision to cancel the Nimrod MRA4 project was based on a careful consideration of future costs and military priorities.
Question
Lord Luce (Crossbench)
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review has affected the United Kingdom’s defence commitments in Gibraltar.
Answer
Lord Astor of Hever (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Defence; Conservative)
Last year’s Strategic Defence and Security Review confirmed the commitment of Her Majesty’s Government to the defence of Gibraltar and to the continued maintenance by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) of the permanent joint operating base there. The MoD will maintain in Gibraltar the facilities, forces and readiness levels required to support these outcomes, while at the same time further reducing its land and estate holdings and continuing to transfer services to the Government of Gibraltar as agreed under the 2007 global agreement.
Question
Bob Ainsworth (Coventry North East, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to take a decision on which aircraft carrier to fit with cats and traps.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
Our investigations into the conversion of the Queen Elizabeth class are ongoing. We currently expect to take firm decisions on which carrier should be converted, the launch and recovery equipment to be fitted, and the overall conversion strategy in late 2012.
Question
Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North, Conservative)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what categories of personnel in (a) the Army, (b) the Royal Navy and (c) the Royal Air Force are to be exempt from consideration for redundancy under his Department’s redundancy programme.
Answer
Andrew Robathan (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Personnel, Welfare and Veterans), Defence; South Leicestershire, Conservative)
Those engaged in combat operations for which they are in receipt of operational allowance, are within six months of deploying on or are recovering from those operations, for example on post-operational leave, rest and recuperation, or those recovering from injuries, on the day when the redundancy notices are issued will not be made redundant unless they have volunteered for redundancy.
Each of the services may define selection criteria based upon their own needs but these would not be considered as exemptions.
Question
Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Typhoon aircraft to achieve full ground attack capability.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
Typhoon ground attack capability was achieved for the Tranche One aircraft in July 2008. A programme to integrate ground attack capability onto Tranches Two and Three aircraft from 2012 is also under way. Further weapon upgrades are under consideration to enable Typhoon to employ a greater variety of air-to-ground munitions in future.
Question
Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times cannibalisations of Typhoon aircraft occurred due to a parts supply shortage arising from a collaborative arrangement with partner nations in each of the last four years.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
Provision of parts for Typhoon is managed through a range of international and national supply chain contracts.
Cannibalisation is where one aircraft benefits from the removal of serviceable parts from another. It is a routine and temporary measure to ensure that the maximum number of aircraft is available for front-line duty. No record is made of the reason the part cannibalised was not available.
Question
Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the US Government on the sale of Harrier jets; and if he will estimate the per unit value of such aircraft.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
The Secretary of State for Defence has had no discussions with the US Government about the future of the Harrier aircraft. It is too early to say what the final disposal arrangements will be or to provide an indication of the unit value of the aircraft.
Question
Angus Robertson (Moray, Scottish National Party)
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the government of (a) Australia and (b) Chile on the purchase by those countries of RFA Largs Bay.
Answer
Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)
During his visit to Australia in January 2011, the Secretary of State for Defence, Dr Fox, discussed the future of RFA Largs Bay with his Australian counterpart during discussions that covered a number of defence related matters. In addition, officials from a number of governments, including Australia and Chile, recently visited the ship as part of an ongoing competition being carried out to offer RFA Largs Bay to another government.
Question
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington, Labour)
To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much his Department and its associated public bodies have spent on training of army personnel to undertake prison officer duties as part of contingency plans for potential industrial action by prison staff in the last two years.
Answer
Crispin Blunt (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Prisons and Probation), Justice; Reigate, Conservative)
There are no plans to train army personnel to operate as prison officers. However, work is underway between the Ministries of Justice and Defence to prepare military staff to support the National Offender Management Service in the event of widespread industrial action. The precise costs of this work have yet to be finalised.
If i read the question from Bob Ainsworth correctly then only one of the two carriers is to be converted to cats and traps. Which means the other may never see service.
I think a more pressing question is why are they continuing the build until 2012 if they do not know what cat and trap system to fit, as they have to either fit additional diesel generators or a steam plant both of which will likely require taking sections all ready built and re-building them on QE, plus it seems poor use of money to make carrier alliance come up with complete new engineering plans for both steam and electric catapult systems so that they can make a decision in late 2012, as I assume they are not dumb enough to leave the re-design until 2013.
I would also like to find out if both carriers are getting angled decks as that answer would tell us a lot.
“means the other may never see service”… with an air wing on it. We have an about-to-be retired placeholder for Ocean, can’t remember when between 2016-18 she is also due to be paid off (she is in refit every other year, it seems). So it leaves us two amph. ships (with no hangars)- they are only in their mid-life now (seems to be the common perception, hope they get rotated often enough, not to get rusty).
So for any kind of operation beyond a “forceful” evacuation, we can use one bigger flat top. Is it optimal, is it cost effective… another matter
There is a lot to be said (as long as you are not in the carrier strike camp) for actually taking the money for PoW and coming up with one or two LHD’s instead to replace Ocean. But then I am biased as I only really want QE to provide air defence and CAS to my dream of an enlarged amphibious capability built around a couple of BPE’s, plus Albion and Bulwark, plus our full complement of 4 Bays, plus a Bay derivative to replace Argus and at least 4 Endurance class LPD’s for more opposed landings. I would fully accept QE as a STOBAR platform with an air group of 24 LCA (N)’s, even if the LCA (N is only 8g (possibly 8.5g) platform with limited take off weight which would seriously hinder its ability to provide CAS.
Welcome to TD Bob, I noticed that as well, i think the truth is they don’t really know what they are doing
Arse meet elbow
@ TD – Looks like the Bay is going to Oz or Chile, not your HSG… mores the pity.
@TD – thanks for your welcome.
The UK has only had the capacity to run one carrier for a long time. The Invincibles have never really had a true at sea, working up/return/self refit, deep refit cycle. All smoke and mirrors. The important thing is we have two completed hulls. The biggest factor in how the carriers are used will be how keen the RAF are on operating F35.
@ X – The RAF are very keen on the F-35, but if I were a betting man I’d put money on them going for A, not C.
X See comments on open thread RAF VERY keen on F35.
But I will bet the mortgage money they will want A, and stuff interopperability with the f35 c of the FAA. (If we get it at all and a carrier with cats and traps).
@Tubby – the decision isn’t between steam and EM, but between British EM and American EM. We know that EMALS works, and that Converteam’s little UAV cats work, so the delay to 2012 is presumably to give Converteam time to prove they can build a full-size prototype, otherwise we go for EMALS.
Interesting answer though, it’s the first time I’ve seen any clarity on that front, even if the clarity is of the “no decision yet” kind.
As for the RAF and F-35, if we’re only having 40 odd then the RAF involvement is pretty minimal, you might as well just given them to the FAA and have done. Which no doubt is why they’re trying to talk up F-35 at the moment, to try and get the buy increased to the stage where a truly purple force can be justified.
Have to agree totally with El Sid, the MOD is hopefully, though this would ahow a degree of common sense, giving Converteam a chance to see if they can upscale their EM launcher. If not just buy it off the shelf from the US. I do hope QE will get the cat n trap first as, i believe it would look silly having the fleet flagship unable to launch her main aircraft (and switching the hull names is a big no no)
Although the RAF maybe interested in F-35, i would sooner the MOD tell them that they will be an all Typhoon force with money being spent on bring the Typhoon’s upto spec. 6 squadrons should be enough and would allow the RAF to deploy a flight (6 planes) continuously (slight reduction on the 8 we have in A’stan). I would much sooner see the RAF with 6 fast jet squadrons, and the FAA with 6 squadrons. (This would allow the carriers to deploy with 2 squadrons regularly). This would allow us the flexibility to go from a flight to a full squadron continuously deployed and still allow a full squadron onboard the carrier for AD.
Can somebody answer me why the buy is 40 a/c and not 45? If we intend to continously have 12 F-35c onboard then that will require 3 squadrons, ie 36 planes, which doesn’t leave room for an OCU, atleast with 45 we could have 3 squadrons and an 8 plane OCU.
Hi MCM,
Is this “switching the hull names is a big no no” some kind of superstition?
- only the third name stuck onto Cavour
@ACC – hah, only 3? Try the Tbilisi/Brezhnev/Kremlin/Kuznetsov. And the de Gaulle was originally Richelieu.
So you could say that outside the USN, renaming carriers is almost compulsory – we’ve already got a group lobbying for another Ark Royal (R07 was originally HMS Indomitable), and things might change if Liz pops her clogs before the carrier is launched. If Charles carries through with this talk of reigning as King George, that’s a name with some resonance for RN capital ships; I think it would work quite well, together with a new PoW.
@TMM – dunno where you’ve got this idea that the F-35 buy will be exactly 40, the official line seems to be 40-50 but I’d guess the exact number will depend a) on cash and b) on how much training they can do in the Hawks (qv dumping all the two-seat Typhoons)
Hi El Sid,
Anything goes… other than PoW and Repulse as a pair
Off thread again but I think we need to get some of the old ship names back; having a Ark Royal has turned into a tradition, but what about Indefatigable, Warspite, etc?
I cannot see the RAF wanting the F35A as being the USAF version, i assume it will use the boom system of IFR. We of course require probe and drogue. This is why, after the Falklands, the extra Phantoms aquired were ex US Navy ‘J’ models, not USAF ‘E’ models.
Some older USAF tactical A/C (eg F105) used both systems, but I don’t think any recent plane has.
@ Kentish Paul – ah, good point. I forgot the USN/USAF use different refuelling systems; makes our service rivalry look amateurish by comparison….
El Sid,
Thanks for clearing it up, wasnt sure as to whether they had nailed down an initial number or not. hope its around 50 so that we get 3 squadrons + OCU and few spares.
AAC,
It’s superstition nothing more.
Unless there is a major change in the way the RAF runs its aircraft fleets, 40-50 airframes will probably result in one enlarged squadron including OCU flight, a few for the OEU, probably stateside and the rest as reserves. It will split its time between carrier ops when the fully equipped CVF is at sea and land training, available for short term commitments/operations only. So 6-8 onboard for training being surged to 14-18 in needed. having only one squadrons also saves a few pennies in support and admin posts.
@ Lord Jim,
Have to agree with what you say IF the RAF get their mitts on the first batch of F-35. I’m hoping (and therefore isn’t probably going to happen, its more likely your scenario (actually I think I read an interview with AVM Bagwell a bit ago, who seems to agree with what you said and that infact didn’t even acknowledge the FAA flying any fixed wing jets). I just hope the MOD tells the RAF you have the typhoon at a very large cost, use it and let the FAA have first dibbs on the F-35c.
@ MM
The F35 isnt a gift to be bestowed on the RN because it is it’s turn. We have to be unsentimental and realise that the FAA was below the critical mass for operating (as opposed to owning) fast jets with the GR9′s so why would it be any different for the F35
@ TD
I fully acknowledge that the F-35 is not a gift to be bestowed upon anybody. However if we are to believe the SDSR (I know its hard to and i think everyone of us has managed to pint out it has more holes than a piece of Swiss cheese). It said that
1) The FAA was the main/premier (can’t remember the exact wording) operator of all things flying at sea.
2) We are “supposed” to have 12 planes (1 squadron) of F-35 onboard at all times with the ability to surge to 36 planes. Therefore the FAA needs 36 F-35C as i cannot imagine that the RAF will want their squadrons (if they get any) to be based on a carrier for 4ish months.
Id therefore sooner see the initial batch go to the FAA and instead of trying to get more than say 50 tops, the RAF spend some money on improving/upgrading typhoon first to get the most out of it. There’s plenty of time for them to buy some more F-35′s
Also read somewhere that there are about 50ish FAA Harrier pilots in total, now sitting around doing bugger all. So the FAA should just about have enough to man the first batch of F-35′s
@TD
I tend to agree with you on most things but on this i do not. The RAF should be a Typhoon force and the FAA should get the F35′s. If we’re going to have fast jets on carriers then the navy have to be in control. The navy should have never been below “critical mass” for operating fast jets. The Sea Harrier should not have been retired as it was the best radar/missile combination in UK service and a lot of the airframes were quite young.
I know we are not the US but the news that the USMC has orderd 80 F35C and 340 F35B makes me wonder what 40-50 for us are meant to be for. This order is just for the Marines let alone what the Air Force and the Navy have ordered.
I would suggest that if a carrier strike capability is to be restored in 2019 the 40 a/c were talking about would most likely have to be ordered prior to 2015 for access to delivery slots to enable the ocu, oeu an initial squadron to stand up. 4 operational squadrons is as low as you can realistically go to have a sustained squadron deployment numbers will scale to match that I would expect. The RAF will want F35 not only for the refuelling probe but also cause it has the longest range of the 3.
As far as I was aware the issue with the FAA squadrons was they had to restructure to RAF squadron standards which required more QFI than the navy would normally have.
@Mark
As to range i’m not sure which has the most, A or C. C is obviously heavier due to nose wheel tow U/C, and hook, but overall i’m not so sure. Also why do FAA have to restructure to RAF standards. They have been far advanced of RAF standards for years !