---

29 Jan 2004 : Column 503W—continued

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

Queen (Diamond Jubilee)

Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if the Government will make arrangements for a Diamond Jubilee Baton Relay should London host the 2012 Olympics; [149929]

(2) what plans she has to link the 2012 Olympic Games bid to the celebrations of the Diamond Jubilee; [150391]

(3) if she will recommend to the organisers of the London 2012 Olympic bid that they place more emphasis in their bid on the fact that 2012 will also be the Diamond Jubilee. [150392]

Tessa Jowell: The Government and the bid company, London 2012, are fully aware that it would be a momentous occasion to host the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games in the same year as Her Majesty the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. Some of the events to celebrate the Golden Jubilee were successfully integrated into the staging of the 2002 Manchester Commonwealth Games. It is too early to consider what specific celebrations will mark the Diamond Jubilee but London 2012 will consider what links could be made should we stage the Games. The IOC will select the host city on 6 July 2005.

DEFENCE

Airfield Support Service Project

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Airfield Support Service Project; when it was put out to tender; how many times bidders have been asked to resubmit their bids; what the projected date for conclusion of the bidding process was; when it will take place; and when the public sector comparator was finalised. [149056]

Mr. Ingram: The Airfield Support Services Project tender was issued on 20 September 2001.

Since receipt of their responses in April 2002, bidders have been requested to review their prices on three occasions—in December 2002, May 2003 and September 2003.

The original projected date for conclusion of the bidding process (Contract Let) was October 2003. The latest revised programme is mid-2004.

The Public Sector Comparator was originally set in September 2001 and communicated to bidders in November 2001. Since then there have been two revisions, which were advised to bidders in March 2002 and February 2003.

Colchester Garrison

Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on proposals for the building of the new garrison at Colchester; what has caused delays; and when he expects work to start. [151784]

29 Jan 2004 : Column 504W

Mr. Ingram: The project to redevelop Colchester Garrison and to provide facilities management for the site has been complex to negotiate. It is very important to our people that we secure these much needed improvements to the Garrison and we have been working hard with our preferred bidder, RMPA to resolve all outstanding issues. I expect to make an announcement on the project in the very near future.

Procurement (Outsourcing)

Norman Lamb: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's procurement policy with regard to offshore IT and call centre outsourcing; whether his Department is outsourcing IT and call centre jobs to offshore companies; to which countries his Department has outsourced these jobs; how much his Department has spent on this outsourcing in each of the last two years; and how much has been budgeted for this purpose for the next two years. [147586]

Mr. Caplin: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) on 29 October 2003, Official Report, column 220W.

Remembrance Day

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the laying of wreaths on Remembrance Day at the graves of Ulster Defence Regiment soldiers on behalf of the Royal Irish Regiment. [151613]

Mr. Caplin: There is no official policy regarding the laying of wreaths on behalf of the Royal Irish Regiment on the graves of fallen soldiers from antecedent regiments. However, this does not prevent Royal Irish Regiment battalions from carrying out individual acts of remembrance at the discretion of the Commanding Officer and where resources and appropriate personnel are available. Where it is not possible to carry on such acts and where Regimental Associations consider that a requirement still exists, the Royal Irish Regiment would encourage the respective associations to take on and carry on the tradition.

Reservists

Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions apply to the renewed call-up of a reservist who has completed a six-month operational deployment; and what time must elapse before he or she can be called up again. [150863]

Mr. Caplin: The Reserve Forces Act 1996 (RFA 96) sets specific limits for mobilised Service under different call-out orders. Under a section 52 call-out order (national danger, great emergency or attack on the UK), reservists may serve for a total of three years in five; under section 54 (warlike operations), reservists may serve for a total of one year in three; and under section 56 (essentially peacekeeping and disaster relief), reservists may serve for a total of nine months in 27.

Once mobilised, and subject to the needs of the Services and their Commanding Officer's approval, it is possible for a reservist to volunteer to extend their

29 Jan 2004 : Column 505W

mobilised Service beyond the limits set by RFA 96; usually for six months at a time. However, there are normally theatre specific limits to the period a reservist can serve. This is to ensure that no one serves too long in an operational environment.

Once demobilised, it is possible to call-out a reservist immediately, provided he has enough mobilised service available. However, in general we would not do so unless there were overriding operational reasons.

Sea King Helicopters

Mr. Tyler: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what conclusions have been reached by his Department's review of the investigation into the collision of two UK Sea King helicopters, from RNAS Culdrose in Cornwall, off Iraq on 22 March 2003; what the implications were of the non-availability of night vision goggles for the pilots; and if he will make a statement. [150198]

Mr. Ingram [holding answer 26 January 2004]: A Board of Inquiry into the circumstances leading to the collision of the two Sea Kings from 849 Naval Air Squadron on 22 March 2003, was completed last November. The purpose of the Board of Inquiry was:

to establish the facts surrounding the incident;

to discover whether there were any shortcomings in Service equipment or procedures which either caused or contributed to the incident; and

where necessary, to make recommendations.

The BOI concluded that:

Both aircraft had reported visual contact with each other, but apparently lost situational awareness and collided. The aircraft were responsible for their own safety at the time of collision.

Following the BOI operating procedures are being reviewed.

A full technical investigation by the Royal Navy Flight Safety and Accident Investigation Centre is still under way, and the report of its findings is not expected for some time.

Helicopter flight safety is achieved through a number of measures including air traffic control, radar detection of hazards, communications, lighting and lookout. Night Vision Goggles (NVG) can, in certain circumstances, enhance these capabilities. However, NVG can be operated only in aircraft that have been specifically modified for this role and from compatible ships. Naval helicopters are fitted to allow operation with NVG according to their tactical role in operations. The operational role for the helicopters of 849 Naval Air Squadron involved in Operation Telic did not require the modifications to the helicopters that are necessary for the provision of NVG. We are currently considering whether to adopt as policy a fleet-wide NVG capability.

The next of kin have been informed of the outcome of the BOI.

UK Nuclear Weapons Tests

Mr. Todd: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps have been taken to categorise into sub-groups by (a) operational activity and (b) incident

29 Jan 2004 : Column 506W

those covered by the National Radiological Protection Board study of participants in UK nuclear weapons tests. [150844]

Mr. Caplin: The results of the epidemiological studies published by the National Radiological Protection Board have been presented in terms of mortality for all types of cancer, cancer incidence and risk relative to a comparison group within the following sub-categories: (a) by operation; (b) for participants with a recorded radiation dose as well as monitored participants with no recorded radiation dose (with information provided on the relative risks for these categories plus an analysis for any trend in mortality or cancer incidence for those with a recorded radiation dose); (c) personnel identified by MOD as liable to exposure to radiation (for example those aircrew involved in sampling radioactive clouds); and (d) personnel directly involved in the minor trials at Maralinga.

Mr. Todd: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what funding has been granted to the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association to commission scientific advice on the epidemiology of exposure to nuclear tests. [150845]

Mr. Caplin: To date no funding has been granted to the British Nuclear Test Veterans Association (BNTVA) for purposes of commissioning scientific advice. The three independent studies by the National Radiological Protection Board into mortality and cancer incidence among nuclear test veterans were commissioned and funded by the Ministry of Defence.

---