The information will take time to collate. I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available.

Substantive answer from Philip Dunne to Angus Robertson:

My predecessor undertook to write to you in his answer of 10 July 2012 (Official Report, column 199W) regarding your parliamentary question about Defence projects.

The following table demonstrates the number of procurement and support projects managed by Defence Equipment and Support involving the contractors you asked about where the projects are presently considered to be overrunning regarding time or budget.

Performance against contract can be affected by a number of reasons not all of which are in the contractor's control. For the purpose of answering this question these contracts have been limited to those with a value of £1 million or more, and where the Ministry of Defence has let a contract directly to the named company as a Prime Contractor. The locations of where the contractors are carrying out the work are also set out in the table.

[holding answer 13 July 2012]: The Ministry of Defence is currently liaising with a number of other Government Departments and Ofcom to conduct the technical and regulatory analysis required to enable the sharing of the spectrum in 870-872 and 915-917MHz. I will write to the hon. Member once the position is clearer.

Substantive answer from Philip Dunne to Chi Onwurah:

My predecessor undertook to write to you in his answer of 17 July 2012, Official Report, column 764W, regarding your parliamentary question about radio frequencies. The Ministry of Defence has decided to relinquish its management responsibility for the spectrum in the 870-872 and 915-917 MHz bands as there is no requirement to use it for military purposes now or in the future. The Government now needs to consider whether it still requires the spectrum for non-military use before the spectrum could be returned to Ofcom for assignment to other users. This process is now under way.

The information requested will take time to collate and I will write to the hon. Member when the data are available.

Substantive answer from Philip Hammond to Bridget Phillipson:

On 18 June, Peter Luff undertook to write to you regarding delays and deletions of projects within the MOD's Equipment Programme.

In answering your question, I have focused on major projects (i.e. those spending more than £20 million) which are past their Main Gate investment approval point. This is the stage at which the Performance, Time and Cost envelope is formally set and is consistent with the basis on which project performance information is reported to Parliament through the Major Projects Reports.

On that basis, the projects affected were:

Cancellation of the Nimrod MRA4 aircraft in Planning Round 11. Expected savings from the deletion of this programme are around £2 billion;

The Astute build programme was delayed in Planning Round 11, in order to manage the industrial work programme implications of the decision to defer a final decision on the replacement of the deterrent. The full implications of this measure in terms of programme delays and costs can be found in the NAO's Major Projects Report 2011. This measure should be considered alongside the decision in the SDSR to establish the Submarine Enterprise Performance Programme, which is expected to deliver more than £900 million of savings over the decade;

Two other projects which were post Main-Gate have been delayed. The details of these decisions are commercially sensitive and their release could prejudice the Department's negotiations with its industrial partners.

Such decisions were necessary in order to balance the Department's books and to transform an overheated and unaffordable equipment programme into one that is both balanced and affordable. This, together with the contingency provision of more than £4 billion and around £8 billion of unallocated provision, means that the MOD can afford everything on contract and all political commitments, and can be confident that we will deliver the Future Force 2020 set out in the SDSR.

The information requested will take time to collate and I will write to the hon. Member when the data are available.

Substantive answer from Philip Hammond to Bridget Phillipson:

On 18 June, Peter Luff undertook to write to you regarding delays and deletions of projects within the MOD's Equipment Programme.

In answering your question, I have focused on major projects (i.e. those spending more than £20 million) which are past their Main Gate investment approval point. This is the stage at which the Performance, Time and Cost envelope is formally set and is consistent with the basis on which project performance information is reported to Parliament through the Major Projects Reports.

On that basis, the projects affected were:

Cancellation of the Nimrod MRA4 aircraft in Planning Round 11. Expected savings from the deletion of this programme are around £2 billion;

The Astute build programme was delayed in Planning Round 11, in order to manage the industrial work programme implications of the decision to defer a final decision on the replacement of the deterrent. The full implications of this measure in terms of programme delays and costs can be found in the NAO's Major Projects Report 2011. This measure should be considered alongside the decision in the SDSR to establish the Submarine Enterprise Performance Programme, which is expected to deliver more than £900 million of savings over the decade;

Two other projects which were post Main-Gate have been delayed. The details of these decisions are commercially sensitive and their release could prejudice the Department's negotiations with its industrial partners.

Such decisions were necessary in order to balance the Department's books and to transform an overheated and unaffordable equipment programme into one that is both balanced and affordable. This, together with the contingency provision of more than £4 billion and around £8 billion of unallocated provision, means that the MOD can afford everything on contract and all political commitments, and can be confident that we will deliver the Future Force 2020 set out in the SDSR.

The information requested will take time to collate and I will write to the hon. Member when the data are available.

Substantive answer from Philip Hammond to Bridget Phillipson:

On 18 June, Peter Luff undertook to write to you regarding delays and deletions of projects within the MOD's Equipment Programme.

In answering your question, I have focused on major projects (i.e. those spending more than £20 million) which are past their Main Gate investment approval point. This is the stage at which the Performance, Time and Cost envelope is formally set and is consistent with the basis on which project performance information is reported to Parliament through the Major Projects Reports.

On that basis, the projects affected were:

Cancellation of the Nimrod MRA4 aircraft in Planning Round 11. Expected savings from the deletion of this programme are around £2 billion;

The Astute build programme was delayed in Planning Round 11, in order to manage the industrial work programme implications of the decision to defer a final decision on the replacement of the deterrent. The full implications of this measure in terms of programme delays and costs can be found in the NAO's Major Projects Report 2011. This measure should be considered alongside the decision in the SDSR to establish the Submarine Enterprise Performance Programme, which is expected to deliver more than £900 million of savings over the decade;

Two other projects which were post Main-Gate have been delayed. The details of these decisions are commercially sensitive and their release could prejudice the Department's negotiations with its industrial partners.

Such decisions were necessary in order to balance the Department's books and to transform an overheated and unaffordable equipment programme into one that is both balanced and affordable. This, together with the contingency provision of more than £4 billion and around £8 billion of unallocated provision, means that the MOD can afford everything on contract and all political commitments, and can be confident that we will deliver the Future Force 2020 set out in the SDSR.

The Ministry of Defence will need to consult BAE Systems Maritime—Naval Ships to consider release of the documents requested. I will write to the hon. Member when this consultation has been completed.

Substantive answer from Philip Dunne to Angus Robertson:

On 16 May 2012 in response to Parliamentary Question (Official Report, column 166W) my predecessor Peter Luff MP (Mid Worcestershire), undertook to provide a substantive reply to your question to place in the library of the House of Commons a number of documents referenced in Schedule 9 of the Department's 2009 Terms of Business Agreement with BAE Systems (BAES). You may recall that before I could provide you with a final answer, it was necessary to review the documents to determine whether their release would prejudice the commercial position of either the Ministry of Defence (MOD) or the company. This review involved detailed consultation with BAES.

I can advise you that this work is now complete and it has been determined that release of the documents at this time is likely to prejudice the commercial position of both the company and the MOD. I regret therefore that I am unable to release the documents you have requested and that you have had to wait so long to receive this reply to your original question.

As part of their fully integrated role under Army 2020, it is intended that from 2015 onwards, reservists will participate in the major regular exercises in larger numbers than they do currently. In addition, there will be increased sharing of instructors and resources, which will include regular participation in reserve training events, both routine and annual. The reserves will benefit from an extra £1.8 billion investment in training and equipment.

In the meantime, the Army has started overseas reserve training exercises at company level, with 26 exercises planned this year.

I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 13 July 2012, Official Report, column 410W.

Approximately 20,000 regular and 2,000 reserve personnel will be permanently allocated to the reaction force and approximately 12,500 regular and 8,000 reserve personnel will be permanently allocated to the adaptable force. The remaining personnel will be either supporting ‘Force Troops’ (which includes, for example, the artillery, engineers and intelligence units); or allocated to other front line tasks (such as the permanent presence in Cyprus); Falklands, or allocated to non-front line tasks (such as training).

Under the Army 2020 concept, the integrated army reserve will be ready and able to deploy routinely at sub-unit level and in some case as formed units on an enduring stabilisation operation as part of both reaction and adaptable forces.

I will write to the hon. Member once the information has been collated.

Substantive answer from Gerald Howarth to Angus Robertson:

In his written answer to your Parliamentary Question on 10 July 2012 (Official Report, column 199W), Peter Luff promised to write to you confirming which universities receive funding for research commissioned by the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE); and what the nature is of such funded research. I am now in a position to provide you with a substantive answer.

The following universities received funding for research commissioned by AWE in the financial year 2011-2012:

Cranfield University;

Heriot-Watt University;

Imperial College (including Imperial College Consultants Ltd);

Keele University;

Loughborough University;

Queens University Belfast;

University College London;

University of Bath;

University of Bristol;

University of Cambridge;

University of Edinburgh;

University of Leeds;

University of Leicester;

University of Liverpool;

University of Manchester;

University of Oxford;

University of Portsmouth Higher Education Corporation;

University of Reading;

University of Salford;

University of Southampton;

University of Strathclyde;

University of Surrey;

University of Warwick;

University of York; and

University Court of the University Of St Andrews.

The nature of the research undertaken by the universities falls within the following areas:

Physics, which includes numerical modelling, uncertainty analysis, computational fluid dynamics, shock physics, plasma physics and solid mechanics;

Materials science, ranging from chemical synthesis of polymers and adhesives through to properties of energetics (explosives), metallurgy, computational chemistry and nuclear materials;

High performance computing focusing on the development of computer algorithms and future energy efficient computing platforms; and

Engineering and manufacturing, which includes developing sensor technologies, electronic components and integrated circuits both for experimental and project use.

In addition, AWE also commission academic involvement in the areas of nuclear detection techniques and nuclear forensics.

The Government's White Paper, ‘National Security through Technology’, stated that the Ministry of Defence investment in science and technology will focus on achieving six critical outcomes. The planned investment during 2012-13 against the outcomes is shown in the following table:

Every effort is being made to ensure ground lines of communication (GLOCs) (overland routes into, and out of, Afghanistan) remain open. The Pakistani Government recently announced that it will reopen the Pakistani GLOC following a telephone conversation between US Secretary of State Clinton and Pakistan Foreign Minister Khar.

NATO has also secured the necessary memorandums of understanding (MOUs) with the central Asian republics that facilitate the northern distribution network (the northern entry or exit point to and from Afghanistan) which has been further reinforced by UK bilateral MOUs.

Where there are no time pressures, low grade materiel equipment and supplies would be recovered by surface means in shipping containers. However, recovery by air forms a significant part of the UK redeployment plan particularly for protected mobility vehicles, sensitive materiel and outsized loads.

The approximate costs of the redeployment of surface containers range from £5,000 to £12,000 per container. For the air line of communication, costs range between £10,000 and £30,000 per container equivalent, either returning directly to the UK by air or by a combination of air and other options. The detailed costs would vary depending on the scenario and would be subject to commercial in confidence considerations between the Ministry of Defence and partnered contractors.

That is our intention, and since the decision to revert to the short take off and vertical landing aircraft variant was announced in May 2012, the Ministry of Defence and Aircraft Carrier Alliance have been working to understand the challenges of integrating a shipborne rolling vertical landing capability into the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers.

The short take-off vertical landing (STOVL) variant of the Joint Strike Fighter and the Harrier are currently the only aircraft capable of landing vertically on aircraft carriers.

Once a decision on the proposed future operating model option for Defence Equipment and Support is taken later this year, we will ensure that all

interested parties have the opportunity to contribute to the debate, both in Parliament and more widely. This will involve discussion not just with industry, international partners, staff representatives and specialist organisations but with those in both Houses who have expertise in this area. We will provide further details on the way forward in the autumn to enable such discussions to take place in an informed and constructive way.

The Single Integrated Capability Priority List consists of a range of programmes and enhancements to which the Ministry of Defence has made no decision to commit funds. The list will change over time in response to changing threats, emerging technologies and a range of other factors. I am withholding the information requested on the basis that its disclosure would, or would be likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the armed forces and the conduct of public affairs. Furthermore, its disclosure would, or would be likely to prejudice commercial interests.

It is assumed that “in theatre” relates to operations in Afghanistan. The following companies have been issued contracts since 1 May 2010, where all or part of the associated work has been undertaken in Afghanistan:

WYG Management Services Ltd

Contrack International Inc

Security Services Group

Defence Support Group (Ministry of Defence Trading Fund)

Thales ATM Ltd

Sippi Azarbaijani-Moghaddam

Actica Consulting Ltd

Kellogg Brown and Root Ltd

Systems Consultants Services Ltd

Marshall Specialist Vehicles Ltd

Finning (UK) Ltd

Technogym UK Ltd

L.A. International Computer Consultants Ltd

Thebigword Interpreting Services Ltd.

This list does not include those companies which may have received other miscellaneous payments, as the location of work for such payments is not recorded.

Defence procurement is subject to EU Single Market rules for public procurement, although

there are certain exclusions such as article 346 (known as the warlike stores exemption) of the Lisbon treaty which may be used in exceptional circumstances.

The US Government is currently reviewing all its defence spending plans for the next decade. Our assessment is that the F35-B variant will not be cancelled and that the US is committed to all three variants of the F35, and this was confirmed most recently by the US Secretary for Defence, Leon Panetta, when he met the Secretary of State for Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), in the US. The UK remains committed to the F35-B programme.

Information on the expenditure against the principal support and maintenance contracts for each type of aircraft in each of the last three financial years is contained in following table:

It is not possible to disaggregate expenditure for each aircraft type by location as the contracts are not let on this basis.