| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Weinberg Estate, Germany
14. Sir David Madel (South-West Bedfordshire): What is his Department's policy in relation to the future development of the Weinberg housing estate near Fallingbostel, Germany; and if he will make a statement. [117893]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The Weinberg estate comprises 474 flats, of which the British forces lease 392. On expiry of two of the current leases at the end of 2001, it is planned to hand back 158 properties to the respective landlords to reflect a reduced housing requirement. For the remaining 234 properties, my officials are actively involved in negotiation with both the landlords and relevant German authorities with a view to effecting improvements both to the overall condition of the estate and to individual properties.
Sir David Madel: Does that answer mean that part of the estate will be knocked down and rebuilt, possibly with a private finance initiative arrangement with a German construction company? Can the Minister give a bit more detail on the time scale for making the very necessary improvements to those flats which house service men's families?
Dr. Moonie: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I share his concern about the quality of our accommodation; I made it known during a debate last week that that is one of our highest priorities for improvement. With that in mind, I have to say that all the service families accommodation on the Weinberg estate is categorised as below the ideal standard set by the Department. Upgrades to the properties already effected include double glazing for all, the provision of new kitchens for 222 flats, new bathrooms for 258 flats and replacement hot water and heating systems for the same number. Four blocks of flats have been reclad externally; the remainder are to be completed within two years.
The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that a survey of residents on the estate showed that 80 per cent. of those families surveyed would prefer to remain there than to move to other service families accommodation. On the specific point that the hon. Gentleman made, as far as I am aware, there are no plans for such a scheme.
Atomic Weapons (Safety)
15. Mr. David Rendel (Newbury): What reduction will take place in the number of safety-related jobs at AWE Aldermaston and AWE Burghfield during the 12 months from 1 April. [117894]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): In the event that the contractor's proposals lead to a reduction in the number of safety-related jobs, the contractor will need the separate approval of the independent regulators--the nuclear installations inspectorate and the Environment Agency--and of the Ministry of Defence compliance office. Neither the
Ministry of Defence nor either of the agencies will give its approval if it judges that the changes will have an adverse impact on safety standards.
Mr. Rendel: The Secretary of State does not appear to know how safety will be managed over the next year at AWE. What on earth were the Government doing handing over AWE to two firms like BNFL and Lockheed Martin, which have such appalling safety records, if he does not even know how they will manage safety?
Mr. Hoon: I have just made it clear in my answer to the hon. Gentleman that we monitor safety standards, and that any change in safety standards or in the number of personnel will have to be considered carefully both by the Department and by the two agencies in the light of its effect on safety. Before the initial bids for managing AWE were considered, any bidder had to satisfy safety criteria involving 28 separate components, 20 of which were regarded as crucial to the process. Not only did the successful contractor meet those criteria, but theirs was the best of the three bids in that area.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) rose--
Madam Speaker: Does the hon. Lady want to ask a question now?
Aircraft Carriers
17. Ms Dari Taylor (Stockton, South): What progress has been made in plans to procure replacements for the current Invincible class of aircraft carriers. [117896]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford, North (Ms Perham) and for Plymouth, Sutton (Mrs. Gilroy) earlier today.
Ms Taylor: May I thank my right hon. Friend for the announcement that he has given the House today, because it is excellent news for British shipbuilders? Given the time delay before construction, is there any chance that he might indicate which shipyards will be considered? As I represent Stockton, South, may I persuade him to consider giving work to the excellent shipbuilders on the Tees? We believe that 30 or more warships will be built; will he give us some idea when and how they will be built so that our shipbuilders and workers are again given hope?
Mr. Hoon: I have certainly made it clear that an extensive programme of shipbuilding is under way. It could amount to 30 large ships and, certainly, they will all be built in the United Kingdom. As there are yards around the country, I would risk creating difficulties if I picked out some and not others. However, I assure my hon. Friend that full consideration will be given to all
British shipyards and all will be given the opportunity to tender. I look forward to that work providing for a revitalised British shipbuilding industry.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): I apologise, Madam Speaker, for confusing you earlier.
I am most grateful to the Secretary of State for his earlier reply suggesting that BAE Systems will contribute to the replacement for Invincible and I am delighted that it has a base in Sutton-on-the-Forest in the Vale of York. Will he put the minds of those who work there at rest by assuring them that a merger with Boeing will not compromise the contract that he has in mind?
Mr. Hoon: I have seen press speculation about the prospects of a merger between BAE Systems and Boeing but, as far as I am aware, it is no more than press speculation.
Balkans
21. Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West): What plans he has to increase the United Kingdom forces serving in the Balkans. [117900]
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Spellar): We believe that flexibility and capability are the keys to successful operations in the Balkans. We keep our operational commitments under constant review and have the flexibility to adjust our commitment to match the security situation.
We have agreed to deploy to Kosovo a Phoenix battery of some 170 personnel to operate unmanned aerial surveillance drones, and two additional Gazelle helicopters equipped with specialist surveillance equipment to reinforce our contribution to KFOR.
Mr. Swayne: On the very question of flexibility and the need to maintain flexibility, will the Minister reflect on the evidence produced last year that, in the first nine months of last year, 40 per cent. of the reservists supporting our forces in the Balkans theatre were infantrymen? As the decision in the strategic defence review was to cut the fighting capability of the infantry reserves by half, will he now review that decision in light of the need to maintain the flexibility to which he referred?
Mr. Spellar: As I have told the hon. Gentleman previously, we hope that a higher percentage of the reserve forces in Kosovo will come from the specialist arms. That reflects shortages elsewhere in the availability of those groups and the economic pressures on some of them. I pay considerable tribute to those not just in Kosovo, but in Bosnia who are engaged on the infantry side. I met some of them a couple of months ago when I was there. They perform an excellent job, which is well appreciated by their counterparts in the regular forces, and they thoroughly enjoy doing it.
On the overall picture for the reserve forces, we have to consider all the arguments that we gave when we restructured the Territorial Army, in particular, and examine where the priorities lie. Home defence is no longer the reserve forces' key priority. As the hon. Gentleman rightly identified, their priority is to form part
of the overall force and to play their part in the more expeditionary nature of our forces. They are doing that well, but that does not undermine in any way the restructuring and reshaping of the Territorial forces.
Mr. Paul Keetch (Hereford): Given that the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps, which was in control of Kosovo until recently, has now been replaced by the Eurocorps, will the Minister join me in congratulating ARRC on the excellent role that it performed in Kosovo, which I saw when I was there a few weeks ago? How is the transfer to Eurocorps going, and does the Minister agree that the role played by Eurocorps will demonstrate the ability of European forces to work together in co-operation, without American support being necessary?
Mr. Spellar: I join the hon. Gentleman--and, I am sure, the whole House--in paying tribute to the role played by the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps under British leadership, not only in the immediate past, but during the Kosovo engagement. I also welcome the introduction of Eurocorps; the transition is working well. The important message is that it is not only ARRC that is capable of undertaking such tasks. That is welcome, because it reduces the pressure on our armed forces. It also helps to reinforce the main argument that we have advanced in the context of the European security and defence identity, which is the importance of the defence capability initiative in ensuring that European forces can undertake such roles. Demonstrating their ability to do so will be critical in maintaining the long-term stability of the alliance.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |