To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Answers by Lord Tunnicliffe on 11 February (Official Report, House of Lords, cols. 114–15) on the funding of military equipment intended for Afghanistan, whether the net costs of operations are met from the contingency reserve. [HL1912]

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Answers by Lord Tunnicliffe on 11 February (Official Report, House of Lords, cols. 114–15) on the funding of military equipment intended for Afghanistan, what is their definition of the net costs of the war being met from the reserves. [HL1913]

The Ministry of Defence claims from the reserve the net additional costs of military operations which it incurs. The costs that the department would have incurred regardless of the operation taking place, such as salaries, are not included. Net figures can also take account of savings from activities that have not occurred because of the operation such as the cancellation of a training exercise.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Answers by Lord Tunnicliffe on 11 February (Official Report, House of Lords, cols. 114–15) on the funding of military equipment intended for Afghanistan, whether the cost of replacing a helicopter worn out through wear and tear is met by the contingency fund. [HL1914]

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Answers by Lord Tunnicliffe on 11 February (Official Report, House of Lords, cols. 114–15) on the funding of military equipment intended for Afghanistan, whether, when the use of helicopters, aircraft and military vehicles is increased as a result of conflict, they will consider using the contingency reserve to meet the cost of replacing such equipment; and whether they do so at present. [HL1915]

While on current operations, all equipment costs that result from a level of activity that is higher than that programmed in the core budget are funded by the reserve.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Answers by Lord Tunnicliffe on 11 February (Official Report, House of Lords, cols. 114–15) on the funding of military equipment intended for Afghanistan, whether they provide the armed forces with the necessary equipment to successfully fulfil their mission in Afghanistan. [HL1916]

We have an impressive, well-equipped force in Afghanistan. The quality and versatility of the equipment we issue to our troops is far higher than it has ever been and we are continually working to improve it.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether military equipment intended for Afghanistan is insured; and, if so, whether the cost of insuring such equipment is borne by them or the contractors or by anyone else. [HL1935]

Military equipment intended for Afghanistan is not insured by the Ministry of Defence. The Ministry of Defence, like other government departments, does not purchase commercial insurance, but instead covers its own liabilities from current expenditure. However, the standard policy for any military materiel being carried by civilian contractor to an operational theatre is that the Ministry of Defence requires the contractor to take out insurance against loss, and in these circumstances the contractor would be responsible for the financial loss. For stages of the journey where the contractor finds that the risks are uninsurable, the financial loss would be recovered from the contingency fund.