|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Kevan Jones: The information is not held in the format requested. Centrally held information relates to the number of Absent Without Leave incidents and not to the number of personnel. Additionally, data are only available by month in respect of the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force. In respect of the Army, only the year to date total is held centrally and to obtain this information by month will require a manual search of records which could only be provided at disproportionate cost. The available figures are provided in the following table.
AWOL statistics are recorded by the number of incidences reported, because the figures may include Service Personnel who have been AWOL on more than one occasion. Furthermore, following the reporting of an incidence of AWOL, information may later come to light of extenuating circumstances for that unauthorised absence, such as compassionate, hospitalisation or travel delays beyond the individual's control. In such cases a service person may not be formally charged but the incidence is still recorded.
|Royal Navy||Army||Royal Air Force|
|(1) This is the number of recorded incidences, not the number of people AWOL or the number of charges brought.|
Figures for the Royal Navy and Army rounded to nearest 5.
In many areas of Defence, civil servants work alongside serving members of the Armed Forces. This makes it impossible to distinguish between energy used by HM Armed Forces and that used by civil servants. As such, the figures provided are for the MOD as a whole.
|Motive f uel|
|Estate e nergy||Ground||Aviation||Marine||Business administrative t ravel||Total|
These data have been calculated using the DEFRA 2008 conversion factors. This is to ensure that Estate emissions data are comparable with previous years, enabling us to demonstrate a 12.5 per cent. reduction against our 1999-2000 baseline-thus meeting the Government target two years early.
Danny Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will bring forward proposals to build new soldier accommodation in (a) Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey constituency, (b) the Highlands and (c) Scotland. 
Mr. Kevan Jones: The Department is in the process of finalising its 2010 Planning Round which sets out its plans for the coming years. It would be premature to provide details but the building of new accommodation in Scotland will be given due consideration in the context of other defence priorities.
Danny Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many houses owned by his Department in (a) Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey constituency, (b) the Highlands and (c) Scotland are rated as grade (i) one, (ii) two, (iii) three and (iv) four. 
Mr. Kevan Jones: Service family accommodation (SFA) is assessed by Standard for Condition (SfC), an objective assessment of the physical condition of the property. Properties are rated from S1fC (the highest) to S4fC (the lowest). The Ministry of Defence (MOD) no longer allocates properties at S4fC, and no family is required to live in properties at S4fC other than by personal choice.
Properties at S3fC are only allocated where no other property is available. The MOD aims to have all UK SFA at Standard 1 or 2 for Condition by 2013, and all properties at S1fC by 2020. It is not possible to provide the information in the format requested, however, current SfC data for Scotland are provided in the following table:
|Standard for Condition (SfC)||Number|
In addition, SFA is assessed by Grade for Charge (GfC), an assessment that sets the level of charges that families pay. This assessment takes into account not only the physical condition of the property but also environmental factors, such as noise and proximity to local amenities. It is therefore possible for SFA to have a high SfC assessment but a low GfC. Again, it is not possible to provide the information in the format requested, however SFA in Scotland is at the following GfC:
|Grade for Charge||Number|
Danny Alexander: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) overpayments and (b) underpayments of salary there were to armed forces personnel resident in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey constituency in each month since January 2008; and of what amount in each case. 
Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many veterans receive pensions under the provisions of the (a) Gurkha Pension Scheme, (b) Armed Forces Pension Scheme 2005 and (c) Armed Forces Pension Scheme 1975; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Kevan Jones: As at 30 September 2009 the number of members and dependants receiving pensions under the Gurkha Pension Scheme was 24,164, the Armed Forces Pension Scheme 2005 was 1,281 and the Armed Forces Pension Scheme 1975 was 371,140.
Mr. Kevan Jones: I received a letter dated 11 November 2009 on behalf of the British Atomic Veterans Claimant Group. I understand that a similar letter was sent to all Members of Parliament with one or more atomic veterans in their constituency.
The letter explains that many of the veterans view recognition as more important than substantial compensation. I should therefore like to reiterate the statement I made in the House on 22 October 2008, Official Report, columns 421-24, which is that the Ministry of Defence recognises the debt of gratitude we have to the servicemen who took part in the nuclear tests. They were important tests that helped to keep this nation secure at a difficult time in terms of nuclear technology. There is a memorial to British Nuclear Test Veterans at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire.
"The Government is, of course, pledged to settle legal cases by alternative dispute resolution in all suitable cases whenever the other party agrees to it. In my view, this is such a case".
The Ministry of Defence has adhered to the judge's wish but, unfortunately, I cannot reveal the contents of the negotiations because this would breach the confidentiality agreement between the parties. However, I can say that genuine negotiations have taken place between the parties respective counsels and a settlement proposal was made by the Ministry of Defence (although I cannot disclose the amount). To date, no response has been received from the claimants' counsel or the law firm representing them (Rosenblatts). This is obviously disappointing, but we remain open to meaningful discussions. In the meantime, we have been left with no option but to proceed with our appeal for which the High Court judge has given us permission. I understand the appeal is listed for a three week window starting on 4 May 2010.
Mr. Touhig: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether any contracts between Capita Group plc and his Department have been cancelled before completion since 1997; and whether Capita Group plc has been liable for any penalties arising from failings in the administration of contracts since 1997. 
Mr. Touhig: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions Capita Group plc tendered for contracts let by his Department in each of the last five years; how many such tenders were successful; how much his Department paid to Capita Group plc for the execution of contracts in each such year; how many contracts which terminate after 2010 Capita Group plc hold with his Department; and what the monetary value is of all outstanding contracts between his Department and Capita Group plc. 
Mr. Quentin Davies: Information regarding how many occasions Capita Group plc has tendered for contracts let by MOD in each of the last five years, and how many such tenders were successful, is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
Rounded to nearest £100,000
The MOD Financial Management Shared Service Centre (FMSSC) contracts database currently shows seven contracts with Capita Group plc that are expected to terminate after 31 December 2010 at a current total value of £52 million (rounded to the nearest million).
Bill Rammell: The United States Visiting Force (USVF) stores various weapons in the UK. The USVF inventory of weapons is declared annually to the Ministry of Defence who ensure all weapons are appropriately licensed and stored. For operational and security reasons, and to ensure relations between the UK and US are not prejudiced, it would be inappropriate to disclose the numbers, types and locations of such weapons.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|