I assure my hon. Friend that the question of the levels of defence spending among NATO allies and commitments to future defence spending will be an important theme at the NATO summit in Wales later this year.

Is there any evidence that the recent developments in Ukraine are impressing upon all of our NATO allies the importance of spending at least 2% of their GDP on defence?

The Ministry of Defence does not report the costs of recruitment marketing separately. The costs detailed in the following table show the total cost of regular recruiting by service and include manpower costs; marketing campaigns (specific advertising); marketing operations (provision of the recruiting process i.e. call centres and website maintenance), and contract costs (i.e. medical and fitness testing). It should be noted that despite the redundancy notice, the armed forces are required to constantly recruit every year to maintain the levels of young personnel entering the three services.

Details of overall Ministry of Defence expenditure with small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) are available at the following link:

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/index.php/publications/finance-and-economics/MOD-contracting-with-small-and-medium-sized-enterprises/financial-year-2012-13

A breakdown of SME expenditure by UK region is not, however, routinely produced as part of this publication. This information will take additional time to collate and I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

Substantive answer from Mr Dunne to Alison Seabeck:

Further to the answer I gave on 6th January 2014, (Official Report, column 13W) to your recent question about expenditure with Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs), I am now able to provide you with a substantive response.

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) does not routinely record information on the geographic location of its supply chain. The information extracted from the management information systems picks up payments made by the MOD to individuals and businesses by their billing address, which therefore does not necessarily identify the location where the work was undertaken.

The level of direct MOD expenditure placed with SMEs in each of the English regions and other constituent parts of the UK in each of the last three financial years (FY) for which data is available is shown in the following table. This also shows the number of SMEs in each region that were paid directly by the MOD in each of these years. The rise in the number of SMEs engaged by MOD across these years reflects the availability of more accurate data to enable SMEs to be correctly categorised.

The analysis is based on direct expenditure with companies positively identified as SMEs who have a UK billing address with a valid postcode recorded by the MOD. It does not include payments made (a) on behalf of other government departments, (b) by the MOD'S Trading Funds and Executive Non Departmental Public Bodies, (c) locally by the Department, or (d) through third parties such as prime contractors or other government departments. For these reasons, it only provides a partial assessment of total direct MOD expenditure by region and does not represent a replication of the official statistics on direct MOD expenditure by Government Office Region which were discontinued in 2008. These statistics were based on a different methodology and coverage including MOD personnel costs by region and adjustments for pan-MOD or pan-Government expenditure, amongst other items.

You should also note that, unlike the answers I previously gave to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson), on 12th December 2013 (Official Report, column 343W), on SME expenditure in Scotland and to the hon. Member for Poole (Robert Syms) on 25th November 2013 (Official Report, column 36W), on SME expenditure in the South West, the above figures include miscellaneous non-contract payments and are not restricted to contracts worth over £5 million.

A copy of this letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

The information available on the operating costs of the Army Personnel Centre is as follows:

This information will take time to collate. I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

The level of direct Ministry of Defence expenditure placed with small and medium sized enterprises in each of the English regions and other constituent parts of the UK in each of the last three financial years will be placed in the Library of the House.

We currently have no plans to publish regional expenditure statistics on the gov.uk website.

Air Command is not required to produce financial records in the format requested at Basic Level Budget level.

However, I am placing in the Library of the House operating cost statements and balance sheets for the Air Command Top Level Budget for financial years (FY) 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 and the Statement of Changes in Taxpayers' Equity (this expanded set of information replaced the statement of recognised gains and losses in 2009-10) and cash flow statements for the Air Command Top Level Budget for FY 2010-11 and 2012-13. The Statement of Changes in Taxpayers' Equity and cashflow statements were not produced for Top Level Budgets for FY2011-12 across the Department.

The fixed asset register could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Air Command is not required to produce financial records in the format requested at Basic Level Budget level.

However, I am placing in the Library of the House operating cost statements and balance sheets for the Air Command Top Level Budget for financial years (FY) 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 and the Statement of Changes in Taxpayers' Equity (this expanded set of information replaced the statement of recognised gains and losses in 2009-10) and cash flow statements for the Air Command Top Level Budget for FY 2010-11 and 2012-13. The Statement of Changes in Taxpayers' Equity and cashflow statements were not produced for Top Level Budgets for FY2011-12 across the Department.

The fixed asset register could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

I am withholding the plans as their release would, or would be likely to, prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of our armed forces.

I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

Substantive answer from Dr Murrison to Kevan Jones:

Philip Dunne undertook to write to you in response to your Parliamentary Question of 22 January (Official Report, column 220W) about the Ministry of Defence's spending on external accountancy support in each financial year since 2010-11. I set out this information for 2012-13 and 2013-14 to date in the table below. Comparable information before 2012-13 would be available only at disproportionate cost.

We are increasingly able to do this type of accountancy work ourselves.

Current forecast costs, including planned Submarine Enterprise Performance Programme efficiency measures, indicate that we remain within the 2006 White Paper estimates of £11 billion-£14 billion (at 2006-07 prices) for the Successor platform costs (assuming a four boat fleet). This equates to some £25 billion at out-turn prices.

I refer the hon. Member to the Ministry of Defence Major Projects Report for 2013, published today by the National Audit Office, which includes the latest estimate of costs for the Astute programme.

The in-service costs of the UK's nuclear deterrent, which include the Atomic Weapons Establishment's costs, are around 5-6% of the defence budget.

The Department's budget beyond 2015-16 has not been agreed and will be subject to consultation in the next spending review. Additionally, estimates on individual projects are subject to ongoing negotiations with industry. Therefore, I am withholding details of the proposed spending and annualised percentages at project level, as to release this information would be likely to impact upon the formulation of Government policy and future negotiations with industry. The Department annually publishes detail on equipment expenditure for the next 10 years in the Defence Equipment Plan. The latest version was published in 2012 (DMC00575 01-13) and I expect to publish the 2013 version in the near future.

Current forecast costs, including planned Submarine Enterprise Performance Programme efficiency measures, indicate that we remain within the 2006 White Paper estimates of £11 billion-£14 billion (at 2006-07 prices) for the Successor platform costs (assuming a four boat fleet). This equates to some £25 billion at out-turn prices.

I refer the hon. Member to the Ministry of Defence Major Projects Report for 2013, published today by the National Audit Office, which includes the latest estimate of costs for the Astute programme.

The in-service costs of the UK's nuclear deterrent, which include the Atomic Weapons Establishment's costs, are around 5-6% of the defence budget.

The Department's budget beyond 2015-16 has not been agreed and will be subject to consultation in the next spending review. Additionally, estimates on individual projects are subject to ongoing negotiations with industry. Therefore, I am withholding details of the proposed spending and annualised percentages at project level, as to release this information would be likely to impact upon the formulation of Government policy and future negotiations with industry. The Department annually publishes detail on equipment expenditure for the next 10 years in the Defence Equipment Plan. The latest version was published in 2012 (DMC00575 01-13) and I expect to publish the 2013 version in the near future.

Annual expenditure on the Trident nuclear weapons system, comprising D5 missile and warhead costs only, cannot be separately identified.

Certain costs, such as some expenditure at Her Majesty's Naval Base Clyde, relate to multiple activities, which cannot be broken down into individual elements.

The European Defence Agency budget's operational element is used to fund operational projects and studies. The functional element funds the agency personnel and general running costs, such as facilities and travel.

I am interested that the hon. Lady has given us an opportunity to highlight the amount of money that was spent on external consultants under the previous Administration. While this Government have undertaken transformational change in this Parliament and spent £45 million last year on external specialist advice, the previous Government did no transformation in defence and spent £120 million in 2007-08.

While the Government are making cuts to the armed forces, how can they justify spending £66 million on consultants? Is it true that much of that £66 million was spent on the Secretary of State’s failed GoCo procurement? Will he be asking for the money back?

I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

Details of overall Ministry of Defence expenditure with small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) are available at the following link:

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/index.php/publications/finance-and-economics/MOD-contracting-with-small-and-medium-sized-enterprises/financial-year-2012-13

A breakdown of SME expenditure by UK region is not, however, routinely produced as part of this publication. This information will take additional time to collate and I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

For the proportion of expenditure on Defence procurement contracts with UK small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 7 November 2013, Official Report, column 305W, to the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock).

It is not possible accurately to provide the proportion of expenditure of defence procurement contracts valued in excess of £5 million placed with small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Scotland without incurring disproportionate cost.

However, expenditure that can be identified as with SMEs in Scotland is set out in the following table:

This analysis is based on expenditure with companies positively identified as SMEs who have a billing address in the Scotland geographic region. It does not include payments made on behalf of other Government Departments, by Ministry of Defence trading funds and Executive non-departmental public bodies, locally by the Department, through third parties such as prime contractors or other Government Departments, in relation to collaborative projects where the payments are made through international procurement agencies or overseas Governments or by Government procurement card.