Tag: Emily Thornberry

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emily Thornberry on 2016-02-10.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 18 December 2015 to Question 20110, what specific benefits the UK derives from membership of (a) the European Defence Agency’s Military Airworthiness Authorisation Forum, (b) European Defence Agency helicopter training programmes and (c) the Single European Sky initiative.

Mr Julian Brazier

The Military Airworthiness Authorisation Forum (MAWA) improves military aviation safety, reduces military air system acquisition costs, and increases interoperability through harmonisation of military airworthiness regulations. Significant cost savings in the Eurofighter Typhoon programme are likely because of MAWA work led by the UK, and our active involvement in the MAWA Forum provides the UK a position of influence across the Military aviation community.

The helicopter training programmes carried out under the European Defence Agency include Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK, and have derived unprecedented levels of interoperability.

Using standard operating procedures, derived in large part from UK methods, several hundred helicopter aircrew from across Europe have been exposed to, instructed in, and are now following the same procedures as UK aircrew. This means that future operations, be it under NATO, EU, or other coalition – are being de-risked through increased ability and greater interoperability. Our forces can use other nations’ helicopters safely, including for medical evacuation, confident of their in-combat ability while operating in the same manner as UK assets.

The Single European Sky and Air Traffic Management Research programme is analysing the implications for military operations of new legislation and equipment upgrade programmes supporting increased commercial aviation out to 2035.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emily Thornberry on 2016-02-23.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what his policy is on replacement of Vector protected patrol vehicles.

Mr Philip Dunne

Vector was finally removed from service in 2015 and is currently awaiting disposal. Protected mobility capability is currently provided by a range of vehicles from the existing core fleet, including former Urgent Operational Requirement platforms retained in service following their return from Afghanistan. In the longer term, the Multi Role Vehicle (Protected) series of platforms will provide a light to medium protected vehicle capability.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emily Thornberry on 2016-02-23.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many Vector protected vehicles were in operational use by the army in each year since 2007.

Mr Philip Dunne

Information is not available in the format requested. However, in May 2009 a total of 130 Vector vehicles were in operational use in Iraq and Afghanistan. Vector was withdrawn from use on operational tasks in 2009.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emily Thornberry on 2016-02-23.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to paragraph 4.46 of the National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence Review 2015, how much additional funding the Government plans to provide for investment in (a) equipment and (b) training for the reserves; and when he expects such funding to be provided.

Mr Julian Brazier

As a result of the Government’s response to the 2011 Commission on Reserves and the 2013 White Paper we committed an additional investment in the Reserves of £1.8 billion over 10 years, and the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015 confirmed our commitment to recruit and maintain a trained Reserve force of 35,000 by 2019. Our investment in the Reserves ensures that they have the same access to equipment and technology as their regular counterparts, and receive high-quality and challenging training. This year the Army is offering 22 bespoke overseas training exercises where Reserve and Regular units are paired together to improve interoperability and cohesion.

We have been improving the offer we make to individual Reservists. They already receive pay for the days they train, an annual tax-exempt bounty for successfully completing their training commitment, along with medical assistance and access to welfare support for their families when on operation.

In addition, since 1 April 2015 Reservists have been eligible for the new Armed Forces Pension Scheme for non-mobilised service, based on paid attendance. We have also introduced in the last two years an annual paid leave entitlement, occupational health support for injuries incurred during training, accredited training and access to Standard Learning Credits.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emily Thornberry on 2016-03-01.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many new recruits who have joined the Army Reserve since 1 April 2015 have (a) started and (b) finished phase (i) one and (ii) two training.

Mr Julian Brazier

Both Reserve and Regular recruits undertake initial Phase 1 training in order to become effective soldiers and then proceed to Phase 2 training, where they receive the specific training they need to carry out their defined role. On successful completion of Phase 2, they join the Army Reserve Trained Strength.

For Reserve recruits, Phase 1 initial training consists of two components; Phase 1(A) is delivered as a single week long course or over four weekends. Phase 1(B) is a 15.5 day long course. Phase 2 role-specific training courses are delivered over one period not exceeding 16 days.

Army Reserve recruits are expected to commence Phase 1 training as soon as possible after enlistment. However, factors such as arranging time off work, exam attendance, family commitments, injury or medical clearance can delay a recruit from starting Phase 1 training. Some new soldier entrants are enlisted at risk whilst waiting to be declared medically fit. These entrants are described as Phase 0.

Army Reservists are required to attend at least one period of annual continuous training per year not exceeding 16 days. It is therefore expected that Army Reservists will complete Phase 1 during their first year of service and Phase 2 during their second year of service. Some Army Reservists however are able to complete Phase 1 and Phase 2 training during their first year of service, as demonstrated by the information in the table below concerning the 2015 entrants.

The figures in the table below are as at 1 January 2016 and have been rounded to the nearest 10.

	January-December 2015	April- December 2015
New Entrants to the FR20 Army Reserves	3,640	2,740
Phase 0/Phase 1 Trainee	2,700	2,250
Phase 2 Trainee (completed Phase 1)	500	280
On Trained FR20 Strength (completed Phase 2)	310	130
Left Army Reserves	140	70

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emily Thornberry on 2016-03-24.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether it is his policy for the House to be informed after his Department’s cyber strike capability has been used in cases where urgent action has been required such that it has not been possible to inform the House in advance.

Penny Mordaunt

We continue to develop the ability of our Armed Forces to deploy a broad range of offensive cyber capabilities as an integrated part of military operations. As with other sensitive defence capabilities, we do not reveal specific details in order to safeguard national security. As we have previously made clear in the context of the war powers convention, we do not propose to define the circumstances in which we would consult Parliament about the use of particular military capabilities.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emily Thornberry on 2016-04-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 9 February 2016 to Question 25082, how many unauthorised entries to military bases were (a) investigated by a military police force, (b) investigated by Ministry of Defence Police and (c) referred to a local civilian police force for investigation in 2015.

Mark Lancaster

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) treats all unauthorised entries to military bases very seriously. They are investigated to a level commensurate with their complexity and impact by Military Police, MOD Police or local constabulary.

A breakdown of how unauthorised entries to military bases recorded within the MOD for 2015 were investigated is set out below.

Unauthorised Entries recorded in 2015

Investigated By Military Police Force 14

Investigated By Ministry of Defence Police 5

Referred to a local Civilian Police Force 27

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emily Thornberry on 2016-04-20.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many (a) serving military personnel and (b) civilian staff were seconded to (i) the Joint Intelligence Organisation’s Assessments Staff and (ii) the National Security Secretariat within the Cabinet Office during 2015.

Mark Lancaster

The Ministry of Defence is able to confirm that one member of civilian staff was seconded to the Joint Intelligence Organisation’s Assessments Staff and two members of civilian staff were seconded to the National Security Secretariat within the Cabinet Office during 2015. For information on Service personnel seconded to these bodies, I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emily Thornberry on 2016-05-18.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of the capacity of the Royal Navy’s Astute-class submarines for under-ice operations.

Penny Mordaunt

The Astute class submarines are the largest, most advanced and most powerful attack submarines ever operated by the Royal Navy, combining world-leading sensors, design and weaponry in a versatile vessel. The Royal Navy maintains world-wide deployability with its submarines, this includes under-ice capability.

We do not discuss the detail of such submarine operations, as this would, or would be likely to, prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the Armed Forces.

The below Parliamentary question was asked by Emily Thornberry on 2016-06-13.

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, with reference to the oral contribution of the Minister of State, Earl Howe, House of Lords Official Report, 27 April 2016, column 1201, and his announcement of a review by the Service Justice Board into the procedures for handling allegations of sexual assault in the armed forces, what the (a) current membership of the Service Justice Board is and (b) terms of that review are.

Mark Lancaster

The established membership of the Service Justice Board is as follows:

Minister for Defence Personnel and Veterans – Chair

Minister of State for Policing, Fire, Criminal Justice & Victims

Solicitor General

Judge Advocate General

Director of Service Prosecutions

Chief of Defence People

2nd Sea Lord

Deputy Chief of the General Staff

Air Member for Personnel

MOD Central Legal Services

Director Army Legal Services

Commander Navy Legal Services

Director RAF Legal Services

Provost Marshal (Army)

Provost Marshal (RAF)

Provost Marshal (Navy)

Chief Constable Ministry of Defence Police

Director Military Courts Service

Other officials may be invited to attend as and when necessary.

The review into the procedures for handling allegations of sexual assault in the Armed Forces is to consider whether all, or any, of the offences of: sexual assault, exposure, voyeurism, or sexual activity in a public lavatory should be added to Schedule 2 to the Armed Forces Act 2006. The views expressed in both Houses during the passage of the Armed Forces Act 2016, and by external organisations such as Liberty, are an important factor in the on-going work on this issue.