| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Nuclear Tests
Mr. Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the United States Department of Energy will share with the United Kingdom the data derived from the planned subcritical nuclear tests, Rebound (1) and Holog (1). [11720]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
Rebound (1) and Holog (1) are the names which have been given to subcritical hydrodynamic experiments planned by the US for later this year. As regards the arrangements allowing for the exchange of nuclear weapons-related information, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 23 November, 1995, Official Report, column 261.
26 Jan 1996 : Column: 468
Mr. Flynn:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what conditions tanks, armoured personnel carriers and mobile guns are sold to private individuals and dealers; and how many have been sold in each of the past five years. [12200]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
Current practice is to scrap surplus tanks and armoured personnel carriers. A limited number have been sold recently in a restricted access auction. Mobile guns are not now sold to individuals and dealers, and the majority of declarations have been the subject of a Government-to-Government sale. Previously, armoured vehicles have been sold by invitation to tender to approved individuals and traders, including collectors and museums; to UK defence companies; or they have been scrapped.
Where fighting vehicles normally carry armaments of any sort, the status of the final user will determine whether the vehicle is deactivated or not. Only those individuals or companies, including scrap dealers in the UK, who hold an appropriate licence under the Firearms Act 1968 may receive an active vehicle. Otherwise, the vehicles are demilitarised, (and officially certified or confirmed as such) in such a way as to render their ordnance unserviceable or inoperative--by barrel slotting, breach cutting/welding etc. The acquisition of parts which are essential to a weapon being fully operative are themselves the subject of the Firearms Act and current departmental policy is not to offer them for sale within the UK. Vehicles sold on the express condition that they are to be broken up or smelted are subject to confirmation that this has been done.
Buyers of MOD's vehicles for other purposes are required to formally seek my Department's permission before on-selling.
The following quantities of vehicles have been sold in the last five years:
Mr. Arbuthnot:
The sales process requires either deactivation of residual ordnance or production of an appropriate firearms licence. After-sale responsibility lies with the purchaser to observe the law concerning ownership and use of the vehicle.
Mr. Flynn:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average original cost of (a) tanks, (b) armoured personnel carriers and (c) mobile guns sold by the services in each of the past five years; and what was the average price for which they were sold. [12201]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
Vehicles declared for disposal have been in service for many years and records of original costs have been destroyed. Prices achieved depend on
26 Jan 1996 : Column: 469
market forces. It is not MOD's policy to reveal individual prices achieved. The value of receipts for armoured vehicles and guns for each of the five years is:
Mr. Flynn:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what precautions his Department takes to ensure that surplus tanks, armoured personnel carriers and mobile guns sold to dealers and the public are not used for criminal or other anti-social acts. [12202]
1991: 15
1992: 205
1993: 403
1994: 583
1995: 758.
| Number | £ | |
|---|---|---|
| 1991 | 15 | 16,250 |
| 1992 | 205 | 255,685 |
| 1993 | 403 | 390,477 |
| 1994 | 583 | 4,384,079 |
| 1995 | 758 | 984,523 |
Bosnia
Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the British bases as part of the implementation force operating in (a) Bosnia and (b) Croatia; and how much Britain is charged for these bases to be situated in each of those areas. [12114]
Mr. Soames: British forces contributing to the IFOR operation in Bosnia and Croatia occupy 34 major sites and a number of smaller buildings. Some of these sites are transitional and may be relinquished when the dispositions of troops within the British area of operations is finalised. Others have been occupied only recently and in many cases, negotiations with owners, where known, are continuing. The details of the bases and the charges so far agreed, are as follows:
| Monthly charge | |
|---|---|
| Location--Croatia | |
| Split--Divulje Barracks | No charge. Croatian Government property. |
| Split--port sites and facilities | Remains under UN lease at present. |
| Split--port warehouses | £17,045 |
| Split--Dalma warehouse complex | £83,681 |
| Split--workshops and warehouse | £44,545 |
| Split--factory | £42,610 |
| Location--Bosnia | |
| Tomislavgrad--factory and warehouse | £25,000 for warehouse, charge for factory not yet known. |
| Lipa | Not yet known. |
| Kupres | £34,090 |
| Gornji Vakuf--3 factories | £15,909 for one factory, others not yet known. |
| Sipovo--3 factories, sawmill and hotel | Not yet known. |
| Bugojno--factory | Not yet known. |
| Glamoc--sawmill and transport depot | £2,272 for saw mill, charge for depot not yet known. |
| Sanski Most--2 factories | Not yet known. |
| Mrkonjic Grad--2 factories, sawmill and dam | Not yet known. |
| Banja Luka--factory and offices | Not yet known. |
| Vitez--bulk fuel installation (BFI) and school | £636 for BFI, charge for school not yet known. |
| Jajce--factory | Not yet known. |
| Kljuk--depot | £909 |
| Bosanski Petrovac--depot | Not yet known. |
| Krupa--factory | £2,500 |
Overseas Units (Media Visits)
Mr. Flynn:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the total cost in each of the past five years of
26 Jan 1996 : Column: 470
visits by journalists to service units abroad funded by (a) the armed services and (b) his Ministry. [11622]
Mr. Soames:
This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
In the majority of cases, journalists travelling abroad to visit service units/naval ships are expected to fund their costs.
However, financial assistance is given, principally to journalists from provincial or regional media who could not otherwise afford to travel and where coverage is considered to be in the interest of the armed service.
Mr. Flynn:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what journalists, from which (a) newspapers and (b) other media organisations, were guests of (i) his Department and (ii) the armed services on visits to service units abroad in each of the past three years. [11623]
Mr. Soames:
This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Mr. Home Robertson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the timing of his plan to close RAF Turnhouse; how many civilian staff are still employed there; and when he intends to notify redundancies. [11991]
Mr. Soames:
Our proposal to close RAF Turnhouse by 1 April has been the subject of formal consultation. I hope to make an announcement shortly.
Sir John Cope:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will seek a second and independent opinion on the advice that no United Kingdom-designed and sourced super-computer could perform the task required for nuclear weapons simulation at atomic weapons research establishment, Aldermaston. [11617]
Mr. Arbuthnot
[holding answer 24 January 1996]: The technical assessment of the responses to the statement of requirement was made on purely technical grounds by AWE assisted by an independent firm of technical consultants. The SOR had been issued to all known massively parallel processor suppliers and placed in the MOD contracts bulletin. The SOR made it clear that the mini-proposal was not a tender, nor would it guarantee suppliers the right to tender.
Only one bid came from a United Kingdom company. It was based on a design not in manufacture and which did not reach the required specification; it was; therefore, rejected. The tenderer was de-briefed to this effect in May 1995.
Mr. Viggers:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when it is planned that new landing platform dock ships, replacing HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid; will enter service; [11852]
26 Jan 1996 : Column: 471
Mr. Arbuthnot:
The Ministry of Defence is currently in no acceptable price, no contract--NAPNOC--negotiations with VSEL to replace HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid. The size and timing of any order, and therefore the exact date of entry into service, depend on a satisfactory outcome to these discussions. Assuming this can be achieved, we would envisage entry into service around the turn of the century.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |