| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Radiation Testing
Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what records his Department maintains in respect of when tests of radioactive material on humans began at the atomic research establishments at (a) Harwell and (b) Aldermaston. [8288]
Mr. Soames: Other than to emphasise that Harwell is not a MoD establishment, I have nothing to add to the response I gave to the hon Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on 2 December 1996, Official Report, column 534.
Dr. Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what monitoring (a) has taken place and (b) there is currently of the health of people who were the subject of tests on the effects of radioactive material. [8295]
Mr. Soames: I have nothing to add to the response I gave to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) on 2 December 1996, Official Report, column 534-35).
Dr. Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the basis for the letter dated 9 February from the manager, administration and public relations at Aldermaston in respect of radiation experiments on human subjects at Aldermaston. [8289]
Mr. Soames: I assume the hon. Member is referring to a letter dated 9 February, 1994, which was sent by the manager administration and public relations, AWE Aldermaston, in response to an inquiry from Dr. A. Victorian about human radiation experiments at AWE. It was considered by my Department at the time that his inquiry had been prompted by publicity about unethical experiments conducted by the US authorities
10 Dec 1996 : Column: 158
many years ago; hence the terms of the reply. Details of Aldermaston's involvement in a number of entirely ethical experiments carried out in the 1980s were forwarded to Dr. Victorian in December last year in response to his subsequent inquiries. The suggestion of denials does not therefore arise.
Dr. Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are in place for compensating people subjected to experimental exposure to radioactive material if they subsequently develop health problems associated with such exposure. [8290]
Mr. Soames: My Department will pay compensation whenever it is properly due. We are not aware of any compensation claim in which a claimant could show, either to my Department or in a court of law, that he has an injury or illness which was, more likely than not, caused by experimental exposure to radiation.
Mid-Air Collisions
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent assessment he has made of the probability of a mid-air collision involving RAF fast jets over United Kingdom air space. [8212]
Mr. Soames: I refer the hon. Member to the answers given to his previous questions on this subject, on 9 January, Official Report, column 96 and 17 January 1996, Official Report, column 581. The study referred to in these answers is still under way and now expected to be completed in early 1997.
Radioactive Waste
Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the references in the United Kingdom radioactive waste inventory to the option of storing complete submarine reactor compartments ashore; and what review Her Majesty's Government are making of the policy of dismantling such reactor plant for storage at the proposed Nirex repository. [7464]
Mr. Arbuthnot: The Government consider that it is appropriate for decommissioned nuclear-powered submarines to be stored safely afloat at the location where they are decommissioned, pending final disposal. This policy is kept under review to take account of technical or other developments. Our current assessment is that interim storage afloat provides a safe and cost effective route to final disposal.
As is stated in the UK NIREX 1994 radioactive waste inventory other alternatives to interim storage afloat, including the removal of the rector compartment in one piece and its storage on land, are kept under review.
The perceived final disposal route for the intermediate level waste remaining in the reactor compartments of decommissioned submarines is the deep repository being developed by NIREX, early next century.
Mr. Luff:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of the West Indies Guardship in inhibiting the flow of drugs from South America. [7951]
10 Dec 1996 : Column: 159
Mr. Soames:
In addition to her other duties, the West Indies Guardship--WIGS--together with her Royal Fleet Auxiliary tanker, makes a very considerable and valuable contribution to the international fight against drug trafficking in the Caribbean, which is one of the major trafficking routes for drugs from South America. WIGS has, in recent years, been directly involved in the interception of substantial amounts of illegal drugs in the region.
Mr. George:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to receive the latest annual report of the chief constable of the Ministry of Defence police. [7973]
Mr. Soames:
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State expects to receive the chief constable's annual report for financial year 1995-96 within the next two weeks. Copies will be placed in the Library of the House.
Mr. Llew Smith:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his policy towards compensation claims made by volunteers in experiments conducted by agencies for which he is responsible. [8615]
Mr. Soames:
My Department will pay compensation whenever it is properly due. We are not aware of any compensation claim in which a claimant could show, either to my Department or in a court of law, that he has an injury or illness which was, more likely than not, caused by experiments conducted by agencies or establishments for which my Department is responsible.
Mr. Cousins:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution he has made to the costs of the joint strike fighter project of the United States and in which year those costs were incurred; what were the financial terms of the contribution; and under what circumstances the contribution can be reclaimed. [8511]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
The Ministry of Defence has contributed $13,022,539 to the United States joint strike fighter programme. These costs were incurred this year. We have agreed to contribute a total of $200 million to the programme between 1996 and 2000. This contribution represents 10 per cent. of the cost of work related to the short take-off, vertical landing variant of the aircraft during the concept demonstration phase of the programme. We expect British companies to gain work of at least equivalent value in this phase of the programme. The terms of the United Kingdom's contribution are set down in a memorandum of understanding with the United States Department of Defence which was signed in December 1995, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House. We do not currently envisage any circumstances under which the United Kingdom's contribution would be reclaimed although continuation of work on the programme is subject to evidence of satisfactory progress.
10 Dec 1996 : Column: 160
Mr. Milburn:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the individuals appointed by his Department to public positions in the last year were first identified by the public appointments unit. [8543]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
In the last year, amongst the Department's public bodies as listed in "Public Bodies", two individuals originally identified by the public appointments unit were reappointed to their positions on the Advisory Committee on Conscientious Objectors.
Mr. Jamieson:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make an announcement on the privatisation of Devonport dockyard. [8454]
Mr. Arbuthnot:
It is hoped to make a further announcement on the proposed privatisation of Devonport royal dockyard within the next few weeks.
Mr. Hendry:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on defence agency status for the Navy's DG Ships organisation. [8703]
Mr. Soames:
The Directorate General Ships was formed within the naval support command in October 1995 to gather together different elements of the Royal Navy's engineering and material support functions. The organisation is responsible for directing the in-service support of surface ships and submarines and their equipments; for ensuring that proper consideration is given to support issues and marine engineering design requirements in the procurement of new naval platforms; and for the ownership and management of the naval stores inventory except for fuel and food. It contributes to the operational capability of the Royal Navy, together with other areas of the naval support command, to ensure the overall material availability, reliability and maintainability of front line military equipment. The main internal customer is the Commander-in-Chief Fleet, although the organisation is also closely engaged with the procurement executive in minimising the support costs of new vessels and equipments.
Internal review since its formation has shown that the services of the organisation will be most effectively delivered in the future by establishing it as a defence agency. It is therefore being launched on Wednesday 11 December as the Ships Support Agency. As a defence agency it remains part of the Department, but the chief executive has been delegated the necessary powers to discharge his responsibilities.
The Ships Support Agency comprises a headquarters at Foxhill, Bath, and currently occupies six other main sites--at Copenacre, Devonport, Eaglescliffe, Portsmouth, Rosyth and Weymouth. It employs some 2,800 staff, of whom 2,450 are civil servants, with the balance being military. Between 1996 and 2001 it is intended to collocate the organisation on the site occupied by the procurement executive at Abbey Wood, in Bristol, although project contract management staff will remain at Devonport and Rosyth naval dockyards and at Portsmouth naval base.
10 Dec 1996 : Column: 161
The Ships Support Agency has developed a comprehensive set of performance indicators in conjunction with its owner and customers. These include measures to monitor the quality, timeliness and efficiency of the agency's outputs. The targets which have been agreed, for the period up to March 1997, are:
Copies of the corporate plan and framework documents have been placed in the Library of the House.
Materially Available Vessel Days (MAVDs)
1. To provide the Royal Navy with the agreed percentage of materially available vessel days: 62 per cent.
Pounds per MAVD
2. To provide the agreed Fleet availability cost-effectively: £5,000 per MAVD
To refine the £ MAVD Performance Indicator
3. Progress Report: March 1997
Upkeep Period Timeliness
4. To deliver upkeep periods within specified tolerances of the agreed programme: + 5 per cent.
Upkeep Period Costs
5. To contain the outturn cost of programmed upkeep periods within tolerance of the predicted cost: +/-5 per cent.
Upkeep Material Performance
6. To introduce a performance indicator to quantify material state at the conclusion of upkeep periods Progress report. March 1997
Fleet Time Material Performance
7. To limit the average number of outstanding operational defects per vessel in fleet time: 4
8. To introduce a performance indicator to measure the percentage of fleet time that vessels are unable for material reasons to meet their programmed task: March 1997
Efficient Stockholding
9. To improve stockholding to stock issue ration. 2.6:1
Resource Accounting
10. To ensure the implementation of the MOD accruals accounting system within the agency--progress report: March 1997
Through Life Costs
11. To create an effective through life cost model--Progress report. March 1997
Private Sector Involvement
12. To complete a review of the options for further Private Sector involvement in the support of vessels, equipment and weapons--Progress report. March 1997
Benchmarking
13. To draw up a comprehensive benchmarking programme: March 1997
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |