Asked by: Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party - Moray)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the low-level performance of the P-8 Maritime Patrol Aircraft.
Answered by Philip Dunne
No assessment of the P-8 performance has been undertaken.
Asked by: Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party - Moray)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what aircraft his Department is considering for the future Maritime Patrol Aircraft capability.
Answered by Philip Dunne
There are several aircraft in the marketplace at varying levels of development. No decision has been taken to acquire a replacement maritime patrol capability and the key user requirements for such a replacement have yet to be settled. This will be a decision for the Strategic Defence and Security Review.
Asked by: Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party - Moray)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how much was spent on the Nimrod MRA4 project in each financial year from 1994 to 2014.
Answered by Julian Brazier
Available expenditure information on the Nimrod MRA4 aircraft programme is provided below:
Financial Year | £ million |
Pre 1996-97(1) | 5 |
1996-97 | 72 |
1997-98 | 78 |
1998-99(2) | 451 |
1999-2000 | 192 |
2000-01 | 307 |
2001-02(3) | 58 |
2002-03 | 251 |
2003-04 | 444 |
2004-05 | 414 |
2005-06 | 304 |
2006-07 | 380 |
2007-08 | 308 |
2008-09 | 278 |
2009-10 | 310 |
2010-11(4) | 87 |
Notes:
(1) Total cost of the assessment phase as at 31 March 1996. Earlier data is no longer available.
(2) Accruals accounting introduced to Ministry of Defence accounts.
(3) The variance between 2001-02 and 2002-03 in part reflects an accruals adjustment.
(4) As at 31 December 2010.
In addition, costs of £0.5 million were incurred in disposing of Nimrod MRA4 airframes, against a corresponding receipt of £1 million.
Available financial information has not identified payments relating to the programme after 20 October 2012.
Information on payments made to BAE Systems in respect of work undertaken on the Nimrod MRA4 programme is no longer centrally held and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I am withholding details of costs associated with the cancellation of the Nimrod MRA4 programme as its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice commercial interests.
The Nimrod MRA4 support solution was in the assessment phase at the time the programme was cancelled. At that time, the approved cost of the support solution was £146 million. Estimated support costs for each year from 2009 to 2020 are no longer centrally held and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party - Moray)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how much British Aerospace was paid for work on the Nimrod MRA4 project in each financial year from 1994 to 2014.
Answered by Julian Brazier
Available expenditure information on the Nimrod MRA4 aircraft programme is provided below:
Financial Year | £ million |
Pre 1996-97(1) | 5 |
1996-97 | 72 |
1997-98 | 78 |
1998-99(2) | 451 |
1999-2000 | 192 |
2000-01 | 307 |
2001-02(3) | 58 |
2002-03 | 251 |
2003-04 | 444 |
2004-05 | 414 |
2005-06 | 304 |
2006-07 | 380 |
2007-08 | 308 |
2008-09 | 278 |
2009-10 | 310 |
2010-11(4) | 87 |
Notes:
(1) Total cost of the assessment phase as at 31 March 1996. Earlier data is no longer available.
(2) Accruals accounting introduced to Ministry of Defence accounts.
(3) The variance between 2001-02 and 2002-03 in part reflects an accruals adjustment.
(4) As at 31 December 2010.
In addition, costs of £0.5 million were incurred in disposing of Nimrod MRA4 airframes, against a corresponding receipt of £1 million.
Available financial information has not identified payments relating to the programme after 20 October 2012.
Information on payments made to BAE Systems in respect of work undertaken on the Nimrod MRA4 programme is no longer centrally held and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I am withholding details of costs associated with the cancellation of the Nimrod MRA4 programme as its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice commercial interests.
The Nimrod MRA4 support solution was in the assessment phase at the time the programme was cancelled. At that time, the approved cost of the support solution was £146 million. Estimated support costs for each year from 2009 to 2020 are no longer centrally held and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party - Moray)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what estimate he has made of support costs for the Nimrod MRA4 in each financial year from 2009 to 2020.
Answered by Julian Brazier
Available expenditure information on the Nimrod MRA4 aircraft programme is provided below:
Financial Year | £ million |
Pre 1996-97(1) | 5 |
1996-97 | 72 |
1997-98 | 78 |
1998-99(2) | 451 |
1999-2000 | 192 |
2000-01 | 307 |
2001-02(3) | 58 |
2002-03 | 251 |
2003-04 | 444 |
2004-05 | 414 |
2005-06 | 304 |
2006-07 | 380 |
2007-08 | 308 |
2008-09 | 278 |
2009-10 | 310 |
2010-11(4) | 87 |
Notes:
(1) Total cost of the assessment phase as at 31 March 1996. Earlier data is no longer available.
(2) Accruals accounting introduced to Ministry of Defence accounts.
(3) The variance between 2001-02 and 2002-03 in part reflects an accruals adjustment.
(4) As at 31 December 2010.
In addition, costs of £0.5 million were incurred in disposing of Nimrod MRA4 airframes, against a corresponding receipt of £1 million.
Available financial information has not identified payments relating to the programme after 20 October 2012.
Information on payments made to BAE Systems in respect of work undertaken on the Nimrod MRA4 programme is no longer centrally held and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. I am withholding details of costs associated with the cancellation of the Nimrod MRA4 programme as its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice commercial interests.
The Nimrod MRA4 support solution was in the assessment phase at the time the programme was cancelled. At that time, the approved cost of the support solution was £146 million. Estimated support costs for each year from 2009 to 2020 are no longer centrally held and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Asked by: Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party - Moray)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many service personnel have been overpaid after they applied for accelerated incremental progression payments; how much has been overpaid; how much will have to be paid back by service personnel; what the average amount to be repaid by a serviceman or woman is; and by what date such repayments must be made.
Answered by Anna Soubry
Accelerated Incremental Progression (AIP) allows a Service person an immediate progression in their pay level as a result of a work-related course or a qualification. Each individual can qualify and claim for two AIPs during their career, at a point of their choosing.
Our Service personnel do a difficult job and it is important they receive accurate pay for the hard work they do. While the majority of awards are made correctly, misinterpretation of the published qualifying criteria for AIP has resulted in some individuals receiving an incorrect award. Unfortunately, payment errors occur occasionally. We obviously regret such occurrences. It is right that we correct identified errors and ask for repayment of monies wrongly received. Allowing individuals to keep money that they are not entitled to would be unfair to both taxpayers and other Service personnel who did not receive this payment. It would also be inconsistent with HM Treasury instructions on the management of public money.
If an individual overpayment to a Service person is equal to or less than four days’ gross pay then the full sum is recovered, without notification, from the next monthly salary payment. For overpayments greater than four days’ gross pay, a notification is made on the next available monthly payslip that a debt has been incurred. Recovery action is then scheduled after two subsequent pay periods, and any overpayments recovered are made at no more than four days’ gross pay per month.
Service personnel who wish to challenge the reason for any recovery of an overpayment may submit a case through their Chain of Command to Defence Business Services. In addition, processes are in place for Service personnel: to agree to pay back any overpayment over a shorter period; to make a formal objection against recovery on hardship or other grounds and; to argue that the debt be written off or repaid over a longer period. All recoveries are postponed while casework or objections are being considered.
Errors in the payment of AIP are dealt with in the same way as any other payment error - the account is corrected and any overpayment recovered. The calculation of money owed is simply the difference between what has been paid and what should have been paid had the error not occurred. AIP does not occur at a particular rate or have a defined cash value.
Courses and qualifications which are eligible for AIP payments are listed in Joint Service Publication (JSP) 754 (Tri-Service Regulations for Pay and Charges), which is updated biannually as required to meet Service manning requirements. The single Services are responsible for decisions on which courses or qualifications should qualify for AIP payments. It is not possible to quantify the number of people who may have erroneously applied for AIP payments on the basis of the criteria relevant to any particular edition of this JSP. Overpayments can occur for a number of reasons which do not necessarily arise from changes to eligibility criteria set out in JSP 754, although erroneous claims for courses which are no longer eligible can be a factor.
Information about the number of Service personnel who have repaid money as a result of AIP payment errors since 2010 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, our records indicate that 488 Army personnel who received erroneous AIP payments have repaid or are making repayments and 423 Royal Navy personnel who received an overpayment through the misapplication of Qualification Points have repaid or are making repayments. Additionally, approximately 1,500 Royal Air Force (RAF) personnel have been identified as having received erroneous AIP payments, which are required to be repaid; this represents 15% of all RAF AIP payments made.
The total that has been overpaid and which is being paid back is in the region of £3.1 million. Each Service person or ex-Service person is required to repay the amount owed. As described above, each case may be subject to challenges and objections. The average amount to be repaid per person is in the region of £1,285 and the date by which payment must be paid varies according to the specific circumstances of each case.
Asked by: Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party - Moray)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the potential merits of forgiving debt owed by service personnel who applied for accelerated incremental progression.
Answered by Anna Soubry
Accelerated Incremental Progression (AIP) allows a Service person an immediate progression in their pay level as a result of a work-related course or a qualification. Each individual can qualify and claim for two AIPs during their career, at a point of their choosing.
Our Service personnel do a difficult job and it is important they receive accurate pay for the hard work they do. While the majority of awards are made correctly, misinterpretation of the published qualifying criteria for AIP has resulted in some individuals receiving an incorrect award. Unfortunately, payment errors occur occasionally. We obviously regret such occurrences. It is right that we correct identified errors and ask for repayment of monies wrongly received. Allowing individuals to keep money that they are not entitled to would be unfair to both taxpayers and other Service personnel who did not receive this payment. It would also be inconsistent with HM Treasury instructions on the management of public money.
If an individual overpayment to a Service person is equal to or less than four days’ gross pay then the full sum is recovered, without notification, from the next monthly salary payment. For overpayments greater than four days’ gross pay, a notification is made on the next available monthly payslip that a debt has been incurred. Recovery action is then scheduled after two subsequent pay periods, and any overpayments recovered are made at no more than four days’ gross pay per month.
Service personnel who wish to challenge the reason for any recovery of an overpayment may submit a case through their Chain of Command to Defence Business Services. In addition, processes are in place for Service personnel: to agree to pay back any overpayment over a shorter period; to make a formal objection against recovery on hardship or other grounds and; to argue that the debt be written off or repaid over a longer period. All recoveries are postponed while casework or objections are being considered.
Errors in the payment of AIP are dealt with in the same way as any other payment error - the account is corrected and any overpayment recovered. The calculation of money owed is simply the difference between what has been paid and what should have been paid had the error not occurred. AIP does not occur at a particular rate or have a defined cash value.
Courses and qualifications which are eligible for AIP payments are listed in Joint Service Publication (JSP) 754 (Tri-Service Regulations for Pay and Charges), which is updated biannually as required to meet Service manning requirements. The single Services are responsible for decisions on which courses or qualifications should qualify for AIP payments. It is not possible to quantify the number of people who may have erroneously applied for AIP payments on the basis of the criteria relevant to any particular edition of this JSP. Overpayments can occur for a number of reasons which do not necessarily arise from changes to eligibility criteria set out in JSP 754, although erroneous claims for courses which are no longer eligible can be a factor.
Information about the number of Service personnel who have repaid money as a result of AIP payment errors since 2010 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, our records indicate that 488 Army personnel who received erroneous AIP payments have repaid or are making repayments and 423 Royal Navy personnel who received an overpayment through the misapplication of Qualification Points have repaid or are making repayments. Additionally, approximately 1,500 Royal Air Force (RAF) personnel have been identified as having received erroneous AIP payments, which are required to be repaid; this represents 15% of all RAF AIP payments made.
The total that has been overpaid and which is being paid back is in the region of £3.1 million. Each Service person or ex-Service person is required to repay the amount owed. As described above, each case may be subject to challenges and objections. The average amount to be repaid per person is in the region of £1,285 and the date by which payment must be paid varies according to the specific circumstances of each case.
Asked by: Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party - Moray)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what information his Department has given to service personnel who have been overpaid because they applied for an accelerated incremental progression; when the guidelines for who was eligible for such payments were changed to invalidate the extra pay; how many people applied for such payments before the guidance in Joint Service Publication 754 was changed; and who was responsible for changing that guidance.
Answered by Anna Soubry
Accelerated Incremental Progression (AIP) allows a Service person an immediate progression in their pay level as a result of a work-related course or a qualification. Each individual can qualify and claim for two AIPs during their career, at a point of their choosing.
Our Service personnel do a difficult job and it is important they receive accurate pay for the hard work they do. While the majority of awards are made correctly, misinterpretation of the published qualifying criteria for AIP has resulted in some individuals receiving an incorrect award. Unfortunately, payment errors occur occasionally. We obviously regret such occurrences. It is right that we correct identified errors and ask for repayment of monies wrongly received. Allowing individuals to keep money that they are not entitled to would be unfair to both taxpayers and other Service personnel who did not receive this payment. It would also be inconsistent with HM Treasury instructions on the management of public money.
If an individual overpayment to a Service person is equal to or less than four days’ gross pay then the full sum is recovered, without notification, from the next monthly salary payment. For overpayments greater than four days’ gross pay, a notification is made on the next available monthly payslip that a debt has been incurred. Recovery action is then scheduled after two subsequent pay periods, and any overpayments recovered are made at no more than four days’ gross pay per month.
Service personnel who wish to challenge the reason for any recovery of an overpayment may submit a case through their Chain of Command to Defence Business Services. In addition, processes are in place for Service personnel: to agree to pay back any overpayment over a shorter period; to make a formal objection against recovery on hardship or other grounds and; to argue that the debt be written off or repaid over a longer period. All recoveries are postponed while casework or objections are being considered.
Errors in the payment of AIP are dealt with in the same way as any other payment error - the account is corrected and any overpayment recovered. The calculation of money owed is simply the difference between what has been paid and what should have been paid had the error not occurred. AIP does not occur at a particular rate or have a defined cash value.
Courses and qualifications which are eligible for AIP payments are listed in Joint Service Publication (JSP) 754 (Tri-Service Regulations for Pay and Charges), which is updated biannually as required to meet Service manning requirements. The single Services are responsible for decisions on which courses or qualifications should qualify for AIP payments. It is not possible to quantify the number of people who may have erroneously applied for AIP payments on the basis of the criteria relevant to any particular edition of this JSP. Overpayments can occur for a number of reasons which do not necessarily arise from changes to eligibility criteria set out in JSP 754, although erroneous claims for courses which are no longer eligible can be a factor.
Information about the number of Service personnel who have repaid money as a result of AIP payment errors since 2010 could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, our records indicate that 488 Army personnel who received erroneous AIP payments have repaid or are making repayments and 423 Royal Navy personnel who received an overpayment through the misapplication of Qualification Points have repaid or are making repayments. Additionally, approximately 1,500 Royal Air Force (RAF) personnel have been identified as having received erroneous AIP payments, which are required to be repaid; this represents 15% of all RAF AIP payments made.
The total that has been overpaid and which is being paid back is in the region of £3.1 million. Each Service person or ex-Service person is required to repay the amount owed. As described above, each case may be subject to challenges and objections. The average amount to be repaid per person is in the region of £1,285 and the date by which payment must be paid varies according to the specific circumstances of each case.
Asked by: Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party - Moray)
Question to the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, what military equipment has been gifted to Ukraine in the last two years; and what estimate he has made of the value of that equipment when it was gifted.
Answered by David Lidington
The UK Government has gifted £1.266m in protective gear (helmets, body armour), medical kits, winter clothing and winter fuel to the Ukraine Armed Forces. In addition to this, 10 armoured vehicles at a cost of £1.2m were also gifted to the OSCE’s Special Monitoring Mission.
Asked by: Angus Robertson (Scottish National Party - Moray)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assets have been assigned to (a) Standing NATO Maritime Group 1, (b) Standing NATO Maritime Group 2, (c) Standing NATO Mine Countermeasures Group 1 and (d) Standing NATO Mine Countermeasures Group 2 since May 2014; and for how long each such asset has been so assigned.
Answered by Mark Francois
There have been no Royal Navy ships assigned to Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 or Standing NATO Maritime Group 2 since 2012.
The ships assigned to the Standing NATO Mine Countermeasures Group (SNMCMG) 1 and 2 since May 2014 were HMS Blyth, HMS Chiddingfold, HMS Grimsby and HMS Pembroke. The period of support is between one month and four months per ship.
In addition, the Royal Navy provides regular contributions to maritime NATO exercises, supports Operation ACTIVE ENDEAVOUR in the Mediterranean using transiting surface vessels and submarines, and allows other NATO vessels in the Gulf region to refuel using the on station UK Royal Fleet Auxiliary Tanker.