---

18 Sept 2003 : Column 952W—continued

Logistical Support

Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effects he expects the changes proposed in the Government's review of logistic support to the armed forces to have on the jobs of those employed in providing this logistical support. [130785]

Mr. Ingram: The review team recently reported on the delivery of logistic support and made recommendations for improved effectiveness and efficiency. The proposed changes will have implications for Service and civilian personnel, but it is too early to say what the effects will be. These will be addressed in detail during the next phase of work, where some of the review's recommendations will be piloted and trialled. Any changes with significant investment or civilian employment implications will be subjected to thorough investment appraisals and trades union consultation before decisions are made. Personnel who are potentially affected will be kept closely in touch with developments. No changes will be made until we are confident that they can deliver better and more cost-effective logistic support to the front line.

Manning Control Review

Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers since 1997 who were subject to Manning Control (a) submitted a redress to the Army Board and were still dismissed and (b) had their redress rejected by the Board, but were retained. [130007]

Mr. Caplin: None.

Medical Personnel

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) main battle tanks and (b) other armoured fighting vehicles, broken down by type, were deployed to Iraq for the purposes of military operations there; what proportions of each of these (i) were destroyed or seriously damaged in action, (ii) were

18 Sept 2003 : Column 953W

rendered unserviceable through other causes and (iii) were operationally available at the conclusion of the fighting. [112088]

Mr. Ingram: The information requested is as follows.

116 Challenger 2 Main Battle Tanks (CR2) were deployed to theatre.


982 other armoured fighting vehicles were deployed on OP TELIC broken down as follows:

Vehicle type	Number
Challenger Armoured Recovery Vehicles (CRARRV)	26
WARRIOR—Medium Armoured Fighting Vehicles	239
CVR(T)—Light Armoured Fighting Vehicles	212
FV 430—Light Armoured Fighting Vehicles	430
AS90—155mm Artillery Piece	32
AVLB—Armoured Vehicle Launching Bridge	12
AVRE—Armoured Vehicle Royal Engineer	12
CET—Combat Engineer Tractor	19

Of the vehicles listed in the previous table, five were destroyed as follows:

Vehicle type	How destroyed
CR2	Tank Battle
CVR(T) SCIMITAR	Air Land Battle
CVR(T) SCIMITAR	Air Land Battle
CVR(T) SCIMITAR	Rolled Vehicle
CVR(T) SULTAN	Drowned Vehicle

Availability of armoured vehicle types fit for combat between the beginning of the deployment and the conclusion of decisive combat operations on 30 April varied as shown:

Vehicle type	% Availability
CR2	73–97
CRARRV	81–100
WARRIOR	74–96
CVR(T)	78–100
FV430	75–98
AS90	88–100
AVLB	75–100
AVRE	67–100
CET	11–83

Availability of armoured vehicles fit for combat at the conclusion of decisive combat operations is listed.

Vehicle type	% Availability
CR2	73
CRARRV	95
WARRIOR	78
CVR(T)	80
FV430	84
AS90	100
AVLB	100
AVRE	100
CET	53

These figures were compiled under operational conditions and may therefore be subject to further revision.

18 Sept 2003 : Column 954W

Project Isolus

Mr. David Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to select the final short-list for Project Isolus; what the extent of (a) public and (b) local authority consultation will be; and if he will make a statement. [130525]

Mr. Ingram: We expect to short-list those companies to be invited to undertake more detailed negotiations with the Ministry of Defence on Project Isolus by spring 2004. The public consultation, which will inform our evaluation of outline proposals to determine this short-list, will comprise a number of focus groups in areas near to proposed sites. A citizen's panel, made up of random members of the public and representatives from the areas affected, will also be convened. In addition, the dedicated project website will be refreshed with unclassified versions of the proposals and will provide a discussion forum for the public to express their views.

Consultation with local authorities affected by the outline proposals will be carried out and a stakeholder's group, to include representatives from local authorities and NGOs, will be convened. Lancaster University, who are running the consultation process on our behalf, are also contacting the local authorities to arrange a series of local access events such as drop-in centres or public meetings.

It is expected that detailed negotiations with short-listed companies will take up to three years to complete, and that a preferred bidder, solution and location will be selected in 2006. There will be further public consultation during this time.

Nuclear Waste

Mr. Alan Reid: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consents would be required by a private company wishing to use a site in Scotland for (a) breaking up decommissioned nuclear submarines and (b) storing nuclear waste. [130993]

Mr. Ingram: Any private company involved in breaking up or storing the radioactive waste from decommissioned nuclear submarines on sites in Scotland would be subject to regulation by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, and would require consent from the Department of Transport if the radioactive waste were to be moved by land. The break-up site would also be subject to regulation by the Chairman of the Naval Nuclear Regulatory Panel who follows the principles laid down in the Nuclear Reactors (Environmental Impact Assessment for Decommissioning) Regulations 1999. With regard to radioactive waste management, both regulation and policy are devolved and, as such, are matters for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and the Scottish Executive respectively. Planning consents are similarly devolved.

Low-Flying

Mr. Peter Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what his policy is in respect to low-flying RAF aircraft over tourism-dependent towns in coastal areas; [130458]

(2) whether the RAF training sorties are instructed to avoid coastlines. [130462]

18 Sept 2003 : Column 955W

Mr. Caplin: RAF Flying training sorties are not instructed to avoid coastlines as flying in such areas can be considered a normal part of training. However, in order to reduce the danger of bird strikes from concentrations of seabirds or waterfowl, pilots are advised as a general rule to cross coastlines obliquely, and at a minimum altitude of 500 feet. In addition they are advised to avoid crossing the coast over resorts and holiday beaches. It is not possible to completely avoid all tourist-dependent towns as to do so would increase the impact of low-flying on other nearby areas.

Rosyth Dockyard

Rachel Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the role of Rosyth dockyard in the (a) construction and (b) equipping of the (i) Type 45 and (ii) new aircraft carrier; [130664]

(2) whether Rosyth dockyard will be (a) the whole ship integration yard for the new aircraft carrier and (b) involved in the block construction of the new aircraft carrier. [130665]

Mr. Ingram: As the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 30 January, our view at this stage of the assessment process is that the future aircraft carriers should be built by a combination of four UK shipyards. In addition to the Babcock BES facility at Rosyth, we would envisage construction work being carried out by: BAe Systems Naval Ships yard at Govan; Vosper Thornycroft at Portsmouth; and Swan Hunter on Tyneside. The involvement of other United Kingdom shipyards has not, however, been ruled out. No final decisions on the allocation of work—including the construction of blocks and final assembly site—will be made until the Demonstration and Manufacture contract is let in Spring 2004.

We envisage no involvement for Rosyth dockyard in either the construction or the equipping of the Type 45 Destroyer.

Rachel Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the role of Rosyth dockyard as a strategic asset for the Naval Fleet. [130666]

Mr. Ingram: Capacity within United Kingdom industry is kept under review to ensure that the requirements of the Navy for surface warship refit and repair work can be met. Rosyth dockyard has provided a significant element of that capacity for many years, both before and since privatisation, and should continue to do so as we move towards increased competition. In addition, Rosyth dockyard is one of four yards named earlier this year as having the potential for involvement in the construction and assembly of the new future aircraft carriers.

---