---

Nancekuke Base, Cornwall

Ms Atherton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on health problems suffered by former workers at the Nancekuke base in Cornwall. [103940]

Mr. Kilfoyle: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 11 November 1999, Official Report, columns 707-08W, concerning the survey conducted by the Registrar General which showed that, up to 1969, the mortality of persons who had been employed at Nancekuke was rather less than the average for England and Wales as a whole. This report was published in full in the answer given to the former hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Pardoe) on 2 November 1970, Official Report, columns 294-95W. I also refer my hon. Friend to my previous answer concerning the review of sickness and absenteeism among persons employed at Nancekuke which did not yield any valid conclusions.

Ms Atherton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's decision to allow early release of a document concerning health risks to workers at the Nancekuke base in Cornwall during the 1950s and 1960s. [103939]

Mr. Kilfoyle: The document to which my hon. Friend refers was a report of sickness and absenteeism among persons employed at Nancekuke from 1952 to 1969. The review was conducted by the Registrar General and mentioned briefly in an answer to a question from the former hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Pardoe) on 2 November 1970, Official Report, columns 294-95W. The study, which was not classified, was among a number of papers at the Public Record Office which were authorised for early release by the Office for National Statistics in response to a request from a reporter.

Ms Atherton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from former workers at the Nancekuke base in Cornwall regarding health risks caused by their contact with poisonous substances during the 1950s and 1960s. [103938]

Mr. Kilfoyle: One claim for compensation has been received by my Department from a former worker at Nancekuke who was accidentally exposed to Sarin GB. I am not aware of any other representations to my Department. I am, however, aware of the two other claims made through the then Department of Health and Social Security in the early 1970s.

11 Jan 2000 : Column: 127W

Ms Atherton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the report released by the Office for National Statistics concerning health risks to workers at the Nancekuke base in Cornwall during the 1950s and 1960s. [103941]

Mr. Kilfoyle: The report referred to was based on a review of sickness and absenteeism among persons employed at Nancekuke from 1952 to 1969. While the results could be taken to imply greater absence among industrial staff for some illnesses than might have been expected from the national figures available, the data were considered insufficiently robust to be used as firm evidence of increased ill-health among staff and the results were not published formally. Recent re-examination of the results supports the original conclusions concerning the inadequacy of the data.

Type 45 Destroyer

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he expects to let the contract for the Type 45 Destroyer; and what the timescale is for the various elements; [103922]

(2) when he expects to let the contract for the second Type 45 Destroyer; to whom it will be let; and what the timescale is for the various elements of the contract. [103923]

Mr. Kilfoyle: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 11 January 2000:

I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about contract placement for the first and second Type 45 destroyers. This matter falls to me to answer within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.

As you are aware, the contract to complete Preparation for Demonstration (PFD) for the Type 45 was placed with Marconi Electronic Systems (MES, now BAe SYSTEMS) on 23 November 1999. BAe SYSTEMS have also been appointed as the Prime Contractor for the Type 45 Programme. It is currently planned to place the Demonstration and First of Class Manufacture (DFM) contract with the Prime Contractor towards the end of 2000, to meet an in-service date for the first-of-class ship of 2007.

The detailed contractual arrangements for the build of the first and subsequent ships of the class remain under consideration with the Prime Contractor and I am therefore unable to be precise about the timing of the contract for the second T45 destroyer or to whom it would be awarded. However, value for money will be the prime factor in any such arrangement and in this regard we are keen to ensure that we retain our ability to conduct effective competition for follow-on Type 45 destroyers. To this end, both Marconi Marine (YSL) Ltd and Vosper Thornycroft will be involved in the PFD contract and, subject to satisfactory progress, also in the subsequent DFM contract with a view to allowing the efficient construction of Type 45s at both yards.

Defence Equipment Exhibition

Ann Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what actions his Department took to prevent Pakistan Ordnance Factories from exhibiting brochures at the Defence Systems Equipment International '99 Exhibition at Chertsey; [104158]

11 Jan 2000 : Column: 128W

(2) what assessment his Department made of Pakistan's ordnance factories' production, with particular reference to anti-personnel land mines, before it was invited to the Defence Systems Equipment International '99 Exhibition. [104298]

Mr. Kilfoyle: The Pakistan Ordnance Factories stand at Defence Systems Equipment International '99 (DSEi99) Exhibition was reviewed by MOD officials and, at that time, no literature promoting Anti-Personnel Mines was found. No specific action was therefore required or taken to prevent the company from exhibiting brochures at DSEi99.

Attendance of companies at the show was a matter for the organisers, DSEi Ltd., who assured HMG that they would require that all exhibitions and promotional material would comply with UK legislation, including the Landmines Act 1998, and Government policy. HM Customs and Excise are currently investigating an allegation that Pakistan Ordnance Factories referred to anti-personnel landmines in their promotional material.

Spearfish Torpedoes

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in the last six months on the mid-life of the Spearfish MoD O warshot heavyweight torpedoes; and what response he has made to suppliers concerning the performance of the torpedoes. [104110]

Mr. Kilfoyle: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock dated 11 January 2000:

I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what representations he has received in the last six months on the mid-life of the Spearfish MoD O warshot heavyweight torpedoes; and what response he has made to suppliers concerning the performance of the torpedoes. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.

The main production contract for the supply of the Spearfish Mod O warshot torpedo was placed with GEC-Marconi Ltd (now part of BAe Systems) in December 1994 and deliveries commenced in June 1999. The performance of the torpedoes is being assessed via a series of in-water Production Qualification Trials (PQTs) designed to test discrete aspects of performance within the overall performance requirements of the contract.

BAe Systems is also currently undertaking concept studies to provide support for the SPEARFISH Mod O Heavyweight Torpedo Mid-Life Update programme. No representations have been received from any other supplier about the Mid-Life Update programme.

Joint Rapid Reaction Force Vessels

Mr. Ivan Henderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what specification was set out in the invitation to tender for the Joint Rapid Reaction Force Roll-On-Roll-Off vessel PFI contract regarding the (a) use by bidders of UK seafarers, (b) commitment to recruitment by bidders of seafarers from traditional UK maritime communities, (c) use by bidders of non-UK seafarers, (d) commitment of bidders to the training initiatives recently announced by the Government, (e) training opportunities for officers and ratings to be provided on the vessels and (f) management of the health, safety and employment welfare of crews. [104088]

11 Jan 2000 : Column: 129W

Mr. Kilfoyle: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to my hon. Friend.

Letter from Sir Robert Walmsley to Mr. Ivan Henderson, dated 11 January 2000:

I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the specification set out in the invitation to tender for the Joint Rapid Reaction Forces Roll-on-Roll-Off vessel PFI contract. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.

Under PFI arrangements, it will be for bidders to provide and manage the service, including the provision of appropriately-trained crews. The invitation to tender did not cite a specification for the issues listed in the question, although bidders have been asked to price the provision of British seamen who would be eligible for call-out as Sponsored Reserves. Bidders would be free to crew the vessels as they wished when trading commercially. A decision on whether or not the MoD requires the use of Sponsored Reserves for Joint Rapid Reaction Forces operations or exercises will be taken in the light of the evaluation of the bids.

Mr. Ivan Henderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will announce the award of the PFI contract for the Joint Rapid Reaction Force Roll-On Roll-Off vessels. [104090]

Mr. Kilfoyle: Our current intention is to place a contract in summer 2000 for Roll-on Roll-off vessels to support the Joint Rapid Reaction Force.

Mr. Ivan Henderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contingency plans have been made to meet the needs of the armed forces in the event of any delay in (a) the awarding of the PFI contract for the Joint Rapid Reaction Force Roll-On Roll-Off vessels and (b) the delivery of the vessels. [104091]

Mr. Kilfoyle: The project is on track to achieve the placing of the contract in summer 2000. We have always planned to provide an interim service from October 2000, through charter arrangements, until the new service was available. In the event of a delay to the delivery of the vessels, these arrangements could be extended to cover the gap.

---