| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Aircraft Carriers
17. Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): If he will make a statement on the level of aircraft carrier provision. [135560]
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): The United Kingdom's aircraft carrier capability is currently provided by three CVS class vessels. As decided in the strategic defence review, and subsequently confirmed by the new chapter, our plan is that they will be replaced by two larger and more capable CVF class vessels with target in-service dates of 2012 and 2015. The carriers will be the biggest and most powerful warships ever constructed in the UK and the most capable carrier force outside the United States.
Mr. Bercow : I am grateful to the Minister of State, but I am afraid that that soothing bromide is no better for me than that which he offered a few moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). The Secretary of State for Defence told the House in January that the new aircraft carriers would
- "rank alongside the most formidable and complex weapons systems deployed by any country anywhere in the world."—[Official Report, 30 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 1026.]
Mr. Ingram: I hesitate to comment to the hon. Gentleman that size seems to matter to him, and I hesitate to use the word "bromide" in relation to that. In my earlier explanation, I tried to point out that that is a maturing design and capability measurement—"maturing" means getting the best capability. What the Opposition have said is that they have taken a figure given in the strategic defence review, which was between 30,000 and 40,000 tonnes for the size of the ships, against the earlier announcement, and they are now saying that that will be the size of the ships. However, we
should wait and see what outcome the whole design process delivers. The truth is that the new ship will still be two and a half times the size of the current carrier—a formidable aircraft carrier capability, alongside that which will be delivered from its decks.Resource Accounting
18. Mr. Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney): If he will make a statement on the impact on his Department and its agencies of adopting the resource accounting system. [135561]
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): In the current financial year, 2003–04, the Ministry of Defence completed the change to full resource accounting and budgeting from the old budgeting system, after a transitional period from April 2001 to March 2003. Resource budgeting uses accruals-based principles to plan and control spending. The introduction of resource accounting and budgeting has been a major change programme in its own right. With its huge and diverse asset base worth some £86 billion, the Ministry of Defence has been particularly affected by the move to full resource accounting and budgeting. That has raised issues such as how quickly it might use resources released by reducing the asset base to fund other priorities. As I indicated to the House on 16 October at columns 280–81, factors such as that and
exchange rate fluctuations have led to a requirement to make some adjustments to ensure that the MOD continues to operate within its budget.
Mr. Havard : I thank my right hon. Friend, a lawyer, for giving me the accountant's answer. I want to deal with the perhaps unintended consequences of introducing the policy in three particular areas. I would like to know whether revaluations of assets have led to or are likely to lead to reductions in acquisition spend; whether there has been an effect in relation to stock reductions, in terms of the ability to respond when there is a point of conflict; and whether the political consequences are properly understood by the bean counters of both the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury. It seems to me that if we are not careful we will end up understanding the price but not the real value of our industrial policy, our political intentions and the operational safety and capacity of our armed services. I would like some assurances on those matters.
Mr. Hoon: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for taking such a serious interest in what is obviously a vital issue not only for the Ministry of Defence but right across government. I want to remonstrate with him for his suggestion that lawyers are somehow more interesting than accountants. Clearly, there would be a great debate about that. Although I know on which side of the argument I would fall, I recognise that there is a great deal to be said for accountants, particularly when they determine the MOD's considerable budget. Although my hon. Friend comments on the political implications of this, I am confident that we have taken them fully into account.
Decommissioning (American Ships)
3.30 pm
Mr. David Lidington (Aylesbury) (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the role of the Environment Agency in approving the decommissioning of American ships by Able UK, Hartlepool.
The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): Hon. Members will be aware that Able UK, a company based on Teesside, won a contract for the dismantling of 13 redundant naval auxiliary vessels from the James river fleet. The contract was awarded by the US Maritime Administration—MARAD—the statutory body in the US responsible for the decommissioning of the James river fleet.
As the decommissioned vessels are classed as waste, their export from the US to the UK would be subject to controls on the trans-frontier movement of waste. In this case, as the waste is moving for recovery between two Organisation for Economic Development and Co-operation countries, the movement is subject to the controls under an OECD decision, which is implemented in the European Union through the EC waste shipments regulation.
Under the rules, the notifier of the waste, in this case MARAD, is required to inform the UK competent authority, in this case the Environment Agency, of the intention to export the vessels from the US and import them to the UK. The agency may raise reasoned objections to such notifications—for example, if the process is not actually going to recover the waste, but instead simply dispose of it. The Environment Agency consented to the proposed shipment on 22 July.
The agency was satisfied that the facility had the technical and physical ability to deal with the ships in an environmentally sound manner. The company concerned has in recent years dismantled several oil rig platforms, including ones containing hazardous waste. The proposal was that the ships would be dismantled in dry dock conditions.
Hon. Members will be aware that, since the consent for the trans-frontier movement was issued, the operator of the site applied for a modification to the waste management licence regulating the site, to increase the annual quantity of waste, including ships, able to be treated there. The agency assessed this modification on the basis that the dismantling would take place under dry dock conditions. Included in that process was an assessment of the impact of the modification on the local special protection area as required under the habitats directive. However, it has since been announced by the local authority that the operator of the site does not have the required planning permission for a dry dock at the site, though I understand that the company disputes this.
The agency's legal advice is that the waste management licence modification is invalid and the site reverts to the existing waste management licence. It is the agency's view that a new waste management licence would be required to increase the allowed throughput of waste at the site. Given the situation with the waste management licence and the planning permission for the
site, the agency's legal advice is that this calls into question the approval for the trans-frontier shipment of the waste.The Environment Agency met the company concerned on 30 October to inform it of the situation as regards the approvals for the site, and it has also informed the notifier for the waste shipment, the US Maritime Administration. The Environment Agency continues to work closely with both these contractors—MARAD and Able UK—urgently to identify a way forward. The Government and other relevant authorities—for example, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—are being regularly updated on developments.
Hon. Members will wish to note that the EC waste shipment regulation—article 25 of 259/93—provides that, in cases where the shipment of waste to which the competent authorities have consented cannot be completed in accordance with the terms of the consignment note or contract, either the waste must return to country of export, or the waste can be dealt with in an alternative and environmentally sound manner. In the meantime, four of the vessels continue to be towed towards the UK while the agency and the contractors urgently seek a sensible solution.
I should emphasise that the vessels have been professionally verified as seaworthy and that they contain only relatively small quantities of hazardous substances, which are common to all ships of that age. They are not carrying any form of cargo—toxic or otherwise. The remaining nine ships in the contract will remain in the United States.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |