2 Feb 2000 : Column: 583W
Written Answers to Questions
Wednesday 2 February 2000
DEFENCE
A400M Project
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the UK-based companies with potential to benefit from contracts if the Airbus Military Company's A400M proposals are accepted by his Department; and if he will estimate how many jobs the project would create in the United Kingdom. [104420]
Dr. Moonie: BAE Systems, as one of the Airbus partners, would expect to play a significant role in the A400M programme if the Government were to select this aircraft as a solution to the RAF's Future Transport Aircraft (FTA) requirement. Beyond that, there is potentially large scope for UK aerospace suppliers to participate in the A400M programme. However, it would not be possible for me to list specific companies at this stage as the selection of suppliers would be properly a matter for the commercial judgment of Airbus Military (as Prime Contractor) during the aircraft development programme.
We are taking account of employment forecasts for competing options for the FTA requirement. As the Minister for Competitiveness advised the hon. Gentleman, Official Report, 15 December 1999, column 208W, the FTA competition is as yet undecided and it would be inappropriate to publish information supplied by companies. I must therefore withhold commercially sensitive information under Exemption 13 (third party's commercial confidences) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.
ASTOR System
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which UK-based companies will be contributing towards development of the Raytheon ASTOR system. [104408]
Dr. Moonie: 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 2 February 2000:
Mr. Hancock:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long he expects the new Raytheon ASTOR system to be in service with the RAF. [104400]
2 Feb 2000 : Column: 584W
Dr. Moonie:
We expect the new Raytheon ASTOR system to be in service about 30 years.
Mr. Hancock:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects (a) the final delivery of the Raytheon ASTOR system to be made to the RAF and (b) the system to be in service. [104401]
Dr. Moonie:
I expect delivery of the final Airborne Stand-Off Radar (ASTOR) air platform to be delivered in 2007, and the system's In-Service Date to be 2005.
Mr. Jack:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals are currently being considered by his Department to help to sustain and develop the viability of rural and urban sub post offices. [105906]
Dr. Moonie:
I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given him on 20 January 2000, Official Report, columns 519-20W, by my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness.
Mr. Hancock:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of the Hagglunds BV206 vehicles being delivered to the Royal Marines. [106151]
Dr. Moonie:
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 2 February 2000:
Mr. Hancock:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of installing the UK/VSC 501 satellite system on the Hagglunds BV206 vehicles being delivered to the Royal Marines. [106153]
Dr. Moonie:
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 2 February 2000:
2 Feb 2000 : Column: 585W
Mr. Hancock:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of equipping the SEPECAT Jaguar reconnaissance aircraft with the Vicon 18 Series 601 GP (1) electro-optic pods; and how many aircraft will be fitted with the pods. [106155]
Dr. Moonie:
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 2 February 2000:
Mr. Hancock:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what were the reasons which underlay his decision not to limit the equipment and systems for the Type 45 to the three former common new generation frigates partner contractors; and if he will make a statement; [107040]
(3) what were the reasons involving the Horizon Programme which underlay the decision not to use a single prime contractor; and if he will make a statement. [107043]
Dr. Moonie:
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 2 February 2000:
2 Feb 2000 : Column: 586W
I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the ASTOR programme. 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.
Over 80 UK based companies will be involved in the ASTOR programme. The major companies being Raytheon Systems Limited (UK), BAe Systems, Short Brothers, Motorola UK, Marshall SV, Matra Marconi, Ultra, and Rolls Royce.
I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the cost of the Hagglunds BV206 vehicles being delivered to the Royal Marines. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
The Hagglunds BV206 vehicle has been in service with the Royal Marines for over ten years and no new vehicles of this type are being procured. However, the Defence Procurement Agency is currently in contract negotiations with Hagglunds for the procurement of an All Terrain Vehicle (Protected), known as (ATV(P)), for the Royal Marines. Once accepted into service, this vehicle will provide a protected manoeuvre capability additional to that of the BV206 vehicles. Since the price is still under negotiation, I am withholding information on the cost of this project in accordance with Exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to effective management and operations of the public service.
I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the cost to the Ministry of Defence of installing the UK/VSC 501 satellite system on the Hagglunds BV206 vehicles being delivered to the Royal Marines. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
The total procurement cost for the two UK/VSC 501 satellite communications terminals, each of which were installed in a MOD owned Hagglunds BV206, was just under £3.2m. This cost includes the procurement of spares, training, documentation and supporting infrastructure. The vehicles were delivered to the Royal Marines last April.
I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the cost of equipping the SEPECAT Jaguar reconnaissance aircraft with the Vicon 18 Series 601 GP(1) electro-optics pods, and how many aircraft will be fitted with the pods. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
The cost of equipping the Jaguar GR3a reconnaissance aircraft with the Vicon 18 Series 601 GP(1) electro-optics pod is expected to be £19.2m. This covers the provision of 14 pods, 4 Ground Imagery Exploitation Systems, the integration of the pods onto the aircraft, clearance activities and project support.
The 14 pods will be capable of being fitted to any single seat Jaguar GR3a aircraft.
(2) who will have control of the equipment selection for the new Type 45 warship; and if he will make a statement; [107041]
I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Type 45 destroyer and Horizon frigate programmes. These matters fall to me to answer within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
We did not limit equipment and systems for the Type 45 to the three "CNGF" former partner contractors because there were elements in their design that were superfluous to UK requirements. For example, as I said in evidence to the House of Commons Defence Committee on 16 June 1999, the unit production cost of an electronic warfare system for a national warship is planned to be about one third of that envisaged for the Horizon frigate.
Nevertheless, as a consequence of GEC (Marconi)'s membership of the now disbanded Horizon International Joint Venture Company, BAE SYSTEMS is able to make maximum use of the work accomplished during the Horizon design definition phase and, as I said in my letter dated 10 January 2000, have indicated that they will make use of some 70% of the work done for the Horizon programme. It will be for BAE SYSTEMS, as the Prime Contractor for the Type 45 programme, to make many of the decisions on equipment selection for the Type 45. However, the Company will be required to demonstrate value for money through competitive procurement of equipment and systems for the ship and to show that the equipment selected provides the required capability. This will take account of competitions already undertaken for Horizon equipment whilst moving forward with the national programme at an affordable cost.
With regard to your question concerning the continuing industrial difficulties with the Horizon Programme which underlay the decision not to use a single prime contractor, the information requested was given in the supplementary memorandum submitted by the MoD to the House of Commons Defence Committee (HCDC), Session 1998/99:
"The key difficulty in forming an effective industrial organisation centred on the selection of a Prime Contractor able to direct its subcontractors to the extent required to manage the overall risk. In essence, the very wide range of companies involved could not agree on one of them becoming an effective leader. This prevented the nomination of an empowered prime contractor taking full responsibility for the project, which is fundamental to best procurement principles." (HCDC's eighth report, session 1998/99 (page 54).
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |