---

17 Nov 2003 : Column 496W—continued

Chinook Helicopters

David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what process the Mark 3 Chinook helicopter has undergone to ascertain its readiness for release to operational service; [137492]

(2) what the latest estimate is of the cost of the Mark 3 Chinook helicopter procurement project; [137497]

17 Nov 2003 : Column 497W

(3) when the budget for the Chinook Mark 3 Procurement project was authorised; and what the total cost forecast was at contract stage; [137498]

(4) what the differences between the Mark 2 Chinook helicopter, the Chinook 47-H and the Mark 3 Chinook helicopter are; [137493]

(5) what the differences between the Mark 2 Chinook helicopter, the Chinook 47-H and the Mark 3 Chinook helicopter are; [137494]

(6) how the validation process of the FADEC system fitted to the Mark 3 Chinook helicopter differs from the validation process used to validate the FADEC system fitted to the Mark 2 and Mark 2a Chinook helicopter; [137613]

(7) how many lines of software cope were written in programming the FADEC system fitted to the Chinook Mark 3 helicopter; [137614]

(8) what operational requirement the Mark 3 Chinook helicopter was designed to fulfil when the original order was placed in October 1995; [137495]

(9) what cost-benefit analysis was conducted prior to initiating procurement of the Mark 3 Chinook helicopter; and what the results were; [137496]

(10) what software language was used in writing the software for the FADEC fitted to the Mark 3 Chinook helicopter; and what sub-contractors have been used to conduct this work; [137615]

(11) which company was contracted to fit the FADEC system into the Mark 3 Chinook helicopter; [137616]

(12) what differences there are between the FADEC system fitted to the Mark 3 Chinook and the MH47 Chinook helicopter. [137617]

Mr. Ingram: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

David Davis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the release to service of the Mark 3 Chinook helicopters. [138386]

Mr. Ingram: I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

Cluster Munitions

Norman Lamb: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) air-launched and (b) ground-launched cluster munitions his Department purchased from Israeli Military Industries in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [135857]

Mr. Ingram: No air-launched cluster munitions are purchased from Israel. Ground-launched cluster munitions, which consist of Shell 155mm HE L20A1 Extended Range Bomblet Shell (ERBS), are purchased from Royal Ordnance Defence (ROD) as the prime contractor, who sub contract the manufacture of ERBS shell to Israeli Military Industries (IMI). The fuse is fitted by ROD Glascoed where the entire round is packaged.

17 Nov 2003 : Column 498W

The following quantities of ERBS have been purchased in the last five years: 6,000 in financial year 2002–03, 20,100 in financial year 2003–04, with a further quantity of 3,009 being provided against an option on the contract.

Clyde Dockyards

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for defence pursuant to his answer of 20 October 2003, Official Report, columns 373–4W, on departmental staff, what the total number of civilian personnel working at the Clyde dockyards was at the time of transfer of management to the private sector; what the procedure was (a) leading up to the decision for the transfer to be undertaken and (b) from the time of the decision for the transfer to be undertaken to the handover to the private sector; what companies participated in the process; what commitments in relation to job maintenance in Scotland were (i) sought and (ii) given as part of the transfer; and if he will make a statement. [138570]

Mr. Caplin: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

Defence Budget (Scotland)

Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much of the defence budget was spent in Scotland in the most recent year for which figures are available (a) in actual terms and (b) as a percentage of the total defence budget; and if he will make a statement. [138573]

Mr. Ingram: The information is not held centrally in the form requested and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

HMS Colchester

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to name a Royal Navy fighting ship, HMS Colchester. [139006]

Mr. Ingram: The new class of Royal Navy destroyers (the Type 45 or D Class) are to bear names beginning with the letter 'D', so Colchester cannot be a candidate for any of these. The same applies to the new Astute Class of submarine whose names all begin with the letter 'A'.

The Ships Names and Badges Committee has the task of assessing all the possible names for new ships before making their recommendation through the First Sea Lord and Secretary of State for Defence for final approval by Her Majesty the Queen. I am sure that Colchester, of which there have been six ships previously with the name, whose last Battle Honour was at the Battle of Lowestoft in 1665, will be among the names considered for future suitable vessels.

Iraq

Mr. Tynan: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) bridges, (b) sewerage pumping stations and (c) power stations have been reconstructed and repaired by United Kingdom forces operating in Iraq. [134597]

17 Nov 2003 : Column 499W

Mr. Ingram: Responsibility for the repair of civil infrastructure lies with the Coalition Provisional Administration. Where possible, and within resource constraints, United Kingdom Forces will assist the Iraqi authorities in the reconstruction and repair of Iraqi infrastructure when requested to do so.

UK Forces have supported Iraqi engineers in the repair of sewerage pumping stations and power stations but we do not hold central records of the numbers involved. We have no record of UK Forces having repaired or reconstructed bridges in Iraq.

Mr. Tynan: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what (a) distance of (i) road and (ii) electricity transmission system has been repaired and (b) length of railway has been returned to service by United Kingdom forces operating in Iraq. [134598]

Mr. Ingram: Responsibility for the repair of civil infrastructure lies with the Coalition Provisional Administration (CPA). Where possible, and within resource constraints, United Kingdom forces will assist the provisional Iraqi authorities in the reconstruction and repair of Iraqi infrastructure when requested to do so.

We have no record of any repairs to the road network. UK forces have repaired approximately 50 kilometres of electricity transmission system. In addition, UK forces have carried out repairs to the rail network in the Um Qasr region of Iraq and supported Iraqi rail maintenance crews on a number of other occasions.

Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether all troops in the Gulf are fully equipped with desert clothing; and if he will make a statement. [122977]

Mr. Ingram [holding answer 3 July 2003]: The Ministry of Defence has previously acknowledged the difficulties faced during Operation Telic in determining the in-theatre rate of consumption of, and tracking of, desert clothing. However, I can confirm that sufficient personal equipment, including desert clothing, has been despatched to theatre to equip all deployed UK Servicemen and women.

Mr. Paul Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what compensation will be paid to the estates of Iraqi civilians who died as a result of British military action in Iraq. [125109]

Mr. Ingram: There are no plans to pay compensation to Iraqi civilians killed during combat operations in Iraq.

The handling of claims made by Iraqis for losses which do not arise in connection with combat operations are governed by section 6 of the Coalition Provisional Authority Order Number 17. This provides that any such claims shall be submitted to and dealt with by the parent state of the person whose activities are alleged to have caused the loss. The claims will then be dealt with in a manner consistent with the national laws of that parent state.

Where a claim against British troops arises from activity which would not give rise to a legal liability to pay compensation under English law, there may nevertheless be an ex gratia payment made to the injured

17 Nov 2003 : Column 500W

person or to the family of the deceased where this would be in accordance with local custom or directed to meet a particular urgent humanitarian need.

Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the mechanisms in place for the sharing of information between the British and other coalition forces involved in operations in Iraq. [133309]

Mr. Ingram: The Ministry of Defence works closely with our partner nations to ensure effective sharing of information and intelligence including through the use of embedded officers within national command structures. Within the Multinational Division (South East), which is led by the United Kingdom, there is a combined Command and Control structure that includes all partner nations.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures are followed by UK personnel in Iraq before live ammunition is fired at civilians; and whether protocols have been agreed with US forces on procedures to be followed. [133417]

Mr. Ingram: Use of lethal force by United Kingdom armed forces personnel in Iraq is governed by the extant Rules of Engagement for Operation Telic. It is not our practice to comment on Rules of Engagement and I am withholding information regarding their contents under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

We cannot comment on the Rules of Engagement used by other nations.

---