| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
TRACER
Mr. Quentin Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if the United Kingdom will continue with the development of the TRACER system if the United States ceases to participate; [110141]
- (2) what contractual provision exists for compensation to be paid in respect of incremental costs incurred by the United Kingdom in the TRACER programme in the event of the United States' withdrawal from the programme; [110142]
(3) how much money the United Kingdom has (a) spent on and (b) committed to the development of the TRACER programme to date. [110143]
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 John Howe to Mr. Quentin Davies, dated 28 February 2000:
28 Feb 2000 : Column: 31W
Mr. Hancock:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what criteria the Minister will decide between the BVRAAM European guided missile and the USA's AMRAAM; and if he will make a statement. [111012]
Mr. Hoon:
I refer the hon. Member to the reply my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence gave him on 16 February 2000, Official Report, column 554W.
Mr. Hoyle:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will take into account the Airbus Industrie partners' track record of delivering military aircraft programmes in the assessment of the A400M proposal; [111339]
(3) how many A400Ms would have to be ordered by his Department for a viable programme to be sustained. [111336]
Dr. Moonie:
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 John Howe to Mr. Lindsay Hoyle, dated 28 February 2000:
Mr. Hoyle:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact upon the United Kingdom's defence collaboration and wider strategic relations with other European partner nations should the A400M programme not proceed. [111337]
Dr. Moonie:
In deciding how to meet our future air transport requirements, we will take into account a range of factors, among which will be any implications for our international defence relations.
Mr. Menzies Campbell:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the exercises in 1999 involving (a) the Royal Navy, (b) the Army and (c) the RAF from which units or equipment were withdrawn in
28 Feb 2000 : Column: 32W
advance of the planned exercise, indicating in each case (i) the name of the exercise, (ii) the equipment or units withdrawn (iii) the estimated cost to his Department had the equipment or unit taken part, (iv) the actual cost after withdrawal and (v) the reason for withdrawal; and if he will make a statement. [111675]
Mr. Spellar:
As the information requested is lengthy, copies have been placed in the Library.
Mr. Brady:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his oral answer of 21 February 2000, Official Report, column 1231, what was the amount of ammunition provided to each of the armed services for training purposes in (a) 1999-2000, (b) 1996-97 and (c) 1997-98. [111787]
Dr. Moonie:
The overall provision levels of ammunition have remained constant. However, I am withholding specific information in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to Defence, Security and International Relations.
Mr. Key:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will publish the seventh annual edition of the compendium of current staff targets and staff requirements. [111969]
Dr. Moonie:
Our aim is to publish the updated Compendium in April.
Mr. Spring:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the value of arms exports from the UK to Indonesia in (a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998 and (d) 1999. [112328]
Dr. Moonie:
The information for 1997 and 1998 has been published in the Strategic Export Controls Annual Report, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. Corresponding information for 1996 and 1999 is not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Ms Atherton:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 February 2000, Official Report, column 607W, (1) if he will release the document containing individuals' names and medical records taken from the Nancekuke study; [111699]
Dr. Moonie:
The document requested is being withheld under Exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (Privacy of an Individual).
The document containing information on individuals' names and details of their medical records for the study of sickness and absenteeism among employees at Nancekuke is held by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) who decided not to release it as disclosure would
28 Feb 2000 : Column: 33W
breach those individuals' right to privacy. As required under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, due account was taken in reaching this decision of the nature of the information, the conditions under which it was supplied and the possible public interest in disclosure.
Ms Atherton:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 February 2000, Official Report, column 554W, what estimate he has made of the cost of identifying all archived files relating to defence activities at Nancekuke. [111700]
Dr. Moonie:
Files are stored in the Ministry of Defence archives in a variety of means, generally, by date of review and, within that, by branch. This method of storage ensures that a systematic review programme, consistent with the procedures recommended by the Public Record Office, is in place. On review, records are assessed on the basis of continuing administrative and potential historical value. Records falling into the latter category are transferred into the custody of the Public Record Office and generally become available to researchers after 30 years, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Records Act, 1958 and 1967.
I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence on the TRACER programme. These matters fall within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
On the question of contractual provisions in the event of US withdrawal from the programme, the collaborative arrangement with the United States on the TRACER programme is governed by a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU). Whilst the framework of the MoU allows for the programme to progress through to a Production Phase, neither the UK nor US Government has made any formal commitment beyond the current Project Definition phase. Accordingly, compensation would not be payable should either nation decide not to proceed beyond the current phase. However, as is normal for collaborative programmes, provisions have been made in the MoU which would allow the remaining nation to continue to the end of the current phase in the event that either partner withdraws prior to completion of it. Specifically the MoU requires that 'The terminating Participant will pay all Contract modification or termination costs that would not otherwise have been incurred but for the decision to terminate'.
On the question of whether the United Kingdom will continue with the development of the TRACER system if the United States ceases to participate, I should confirm that the Project Definition phase, a phase to which the United States and the United Kingdom remain committed, is not due to finish until July 2002. At the end of the Project Definition phase, the programme will be formally reviewed, taking account of all relevant factors, before a decision on how the TRACER requirement might be pursued is made.
On the question of programme costs, UK expenditure to date on the TRACER programme is around £39M. We currently estimate the overall cost to the UK of the Project Definition phase to be £130M.
(2) what account has been taken of Airbus Industrie's track record of delivering aircraft (a) on time, (b) on specification and (c) to cost in the assessment of the A400M proposal; [111338]
I am replying to your questions to the Secretary of State for Defence in which you asked if he will take into account the Airbus Industrie partners' track record of delivering military aircraft programmes in the assessment of the A400M proposal; what account has been taken of Airbus Industrie's track record of delivering aircraft on time, on specification and to cost in the assessment of the A400M proposal; and how many A400Ms would have to be ordered by his Department for a viable programme to be sustained. These matters fall within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
I can confirm that our assessment will take account of the track records both of Airbus Industrie itself, and, in the military sector, of the Airbus Industrie partners.
The viability of the A400 programme will depend on the offtake of several nations. We continue to discuss with our partners and Airbus Military the effect of the total offtake on visibility and costs.
Since there is a competition in being it would be inappropriate for me to go into detail at this time. We continue to aim to announce a decision on this programme in the early part of this year.
(2) what factors underlay the decision taken in 1999 not to release the individuals' names and medical records contained within the study concerning illness at Nancekuke. [111701]
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |