| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Army Technical Support Agency
Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from (a) hon. Members, (b) local authorities and (c) trade unions concerning the proposed collocation of ATSA at Chertsey; and if he will make a statement. [16650]
Mr. Soames: In addition to those from a number of right hon. and hon. Members, my Department has received representations from the following local authorities and trade unions:
London borough of Greenwich
Broxtowe borough council
Malvern Hills district council
Melton borough council
Hereford and Worcester county council
Council of Civil Service Unions.
22 Feb 1996 : Column: 213
Mr. Soames: Various options are being considered for the future location of ATSA, including a "do minimum" option collocation at a number of different single sites and a joint site option. The building works and other relevant costs were incorporated into an investment appraisal of all the options considered over a projected 25-year period. This appraisal listed the options in order of cost, with the Malvern-Chertsey twin site the most expensive, and the Chertsey single site the least expensive over the 25-year period. We are now considering the results of the consultative process which ended on 19 February.
Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what appraisal he has made of the possible location of ATSA on (a) the Royal Arsenal east site and (b) the Royal Arsenal west site; and if he will make a statement. [16651]
Mr. Soames: The possibility of ATSA collocation in Woolwich was considered at an early stage in the study. The costs of providing the agency's office, technical, messing, and married quarters accommodation, however, were assessed to be higher than that for collocation at either Chertsey or Malvern. With this in mind, as well as the additional heritage and planning implications associated with many of the MOD's sites in Woolwich, and the fact that collocation there would not best satisfy the agency's business needs, it was decided not to subject a Woolwich collocation option to detailed scrutiny.
Mr. Austin-Walker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with English Partnerships regarding the future location of the ATSA based in Woolwich. [16653]
Mr. Soames: In view of the decision not to subject a Woolwich collocation option to detailed scrutiny, we did not specifically discuss with English Partnerships, the potential owners of the Royal Arsenal west site, the opportunities for ATSA's collocation in Woolwich. Nevertheless, our discussions with them and the London borough of Greenwich as to the future of the Royal Arsenal west site continue, with the aim of achieving a comprehensive solution for the transfer of the site into civilian use so as to maximise local employment prospects.
Naval Support Command Headquarters
Mr. Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence further to paragraph 3.15 of the June 1995 consultation document, what is his latest estimate of the upfront capital costs for the additional building at Abbey Wood and the refurbishment of Ensleigh on the collocation of the naval support command headquarters at Abbey Wood/Ensleigh (Bath); at what cost opportunity costs for spare capacity at Abbey Wood were included in this estimate; and if he will make a statement. [16419]
Mr. Soames: Our estimate for the upfront capital cost for the additional building at Abbey Wood and the refurbishment of Ensleigh remains at about £40 million at 1995 prices and inclusive of VAT. The allowance for the opportunity cost of spare space at Abbey Wood separately included in the investment appraisal was based on the capital cost of the buildings concerned.
Mr. Foster:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his current plans for the refurbishment of Ensleigh; what is his latest estimate of the cost of the
22 Feb 1996 : Column: 214
refurbishment; what was the estimated cost in June 1995; and if he will make a statement. [16341]
Mr. Soames:
Further work is being undertaken on the scope of the Ensleigh refurbishment programme following the decisions announced last September. Some refurbishment work is already under way. The estimate for the costs of the work is commercially confidential, but the estimate for the overall upfront capital costs of Ensleigh refurbishment and the new building at Abbey Wood remains about £40 million.
Mr. Foster:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his current estimate of (a) the number of staff who will seek household removal and (b) the cost of excess daily fares in respect of the collocation of the naval support command headquarters at Abbey Wood-Ensleigh (Bath); and if he will make a statement. [16342]
Mr. Soames:
The consultation document on the NSC headquarters accommodation options assumed, in the appraisal of the Abbey Wood-Ensleigh option, about 100 house moves by Bath-based staff. The transport study which informed this assessment has recently been updated and the results will soon be available. No significant change is expected in the number of staff who may elect to move home. The latest estimate of the total cost of excess fares for the Abbey Wood-Ensleigh option is £5.8 million.
Mr. Foster:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are his latest estimates of the costs of the collocation of the naval support command headquarters at Abbey Wood-Ensleigh (Bath); what are the significant changes from the cost estimates presented in the June 1995 consultation document; and if he will make a statement.[16343]
Mr. Soames:
The net present value--NPV--figure for the costs of NSC relocation is £132 million at the latest price base. Other than the price base uplift, from 1994 to 1995 prices, there are no significant changes from the NPV figure presented in the consultation document.
Mr. Llew Smith:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will commission an inquiry into the underwriting of the export of artillery shells from British companies to Iran since 1985. [15625]
Mr. Oppenheim:
I have been asked to reply.
Export licences for export of weapons to Iran have not been available since 1980, and therefore the ECGD would not have underwritten applications for export of artillery shells to Iran during the period since 1985.
Mr. Janner:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how he responded to communications received from Mr. Christopher Muttukumaru; what were the dates of letters; and if he will deposit copies in the Library. [16551]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
My officials have responded to a number of letters from Mr. Muttukumaru. Sir Richard Scott is free to publish any documents he considers relevant to his report, consistent with his procedures. I understand that he proposes to do this as soon as possible.
22 Feb 1996 : Column: 215
Mr. Janner:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what communication he received from the secretary of the Scott inquiry concerning the time needed by the Opposition parties to scrutinise the Scott report; on what date he received such communications; what was the nature of the contents of letters; and if he will deposit copies of those letters in the Library. [16634]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
I refer the hon. and learned Member to the answer given to him by right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade earlier today.
Mr. Tony Banks:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the members of his Department who saw the report of the Scott inquiry before it was presented to the House; and when each saw the report. [16524]
Mr. Hain:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the allocation of persons in his Department to the consideration of the Government's response to the Scott inquiry. [16575]
Mrs. Jane Kennedy:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many persons and at what level in his Department were involved in considering the Government's response to the report of the Scott inquiry. [16557]
Mrs. Golding:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make changes in the personnel of his Department following criticisms contained in the report of the Scott inquiry. [16566]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
I refer the hon. Members to the reply given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
22 Feb 1996 : Column: 216
Mr. Madden:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what hour and minute of what day the report of the Scott inquiry was delivered to his office. [16541]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
During the afternoon of Wednesday 7 February 1996.
Mrs. Dunwoody:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he first saw the report of the Scott inquiry.[16593]
Mr. Portillo:
It was delivered to me on Wednesday 7 February 1996.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |