---

10 May 2004 : Column 127W—continued

Land Release (Hampshire)

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 22 April 2004, Official Report, column 662W on land releases (Hampshire), when he expects to complete the review on estate rationalisation relating to (a) Arborfield, (b) Deepcut and (c) Bordon/Whitehill. [170469]

Mr. Caplin: As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State advised in his written statement on 25 November 2002, Official Report, column 2WS, the Defence Training Review identified Arborfield, Deepcut and Bordon as sites that are likely to be surplus to Defence requirements.

Any decisions on any of these sites will be announced to the House in the usual way but none have been taken to date.

Low Flying

Adam Price: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been paid in compensation to farmers for livestock losses caused by low flying military aircraft in (a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales in each year since 1994. [170874]

 
10 May 2004 : Column 128W
 

Mr. Caplin: The information is not held in the format requested, but the value of compensation paid (inclusive of legal costs) in relation to livestock losses caused by low flying military aircraft in England, Scotland and Wales for each financial year since 1994 is as follows:
£

	Amount paid
1993–4	337,569
1994–5	259,814
1995–6	261,328
1996–7	169,092
1997–8	169,867
1998–9	401,326
1999–2000	220,112
2000–1	491,663
2001–2	272,334
2002–3	236,453
2003–4	330,082

Adam Price: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many training sorties have been undertaken within the mid-Wales military tactical training area by military aircraft flying below 250 feet in each year since 1994 for which figures are available. [170875]

Mr. Caplin: The amount of military low flying that takes place in the United Kingdom is better expressed in hours rather than by number of sorties, which can vary significantly from minutes to several hours. The information is only available for the last four training years, as previously the data was compiled in a different manner. The figures for the training year 2003–04 are due to be published in the next statement on the pattern of military low flying that will be available to the House in Summer 2004.

The following information reflects the actual amount of operational low flying carried out within 7T, the tactical training area in mid-Wales. These statistics are consistent with the information provided annually in the statement on the pattern of military low flying.

Training year

1999–2000—38 hours 8 minutes

2000–01—25 hours 21 minutes

2001–02—30 hours 23 minutes

2002–03—33 hours 12 minutes

Adam Price: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) representations and (b) complaints have been received by the (i) RAF and (ii) Department about low flying military aircraft in (A) England, (B) Scotland and (C) Wales in each year since 1994. [170876]

Mr. Caplin: In maintaining our records we do not differentiate between representations and complaints; all complaints, whether received centrally or at individual establishments are recorded on a central database and it is not possible to distinguish between them. Detailed records are only retained for three years; it is therefore not possible to provide the information requested for earlier years.

The number of complaints received based on information provided by the complainant for (A) England, (B) Scotland, (C) Wales regarding military low flying over the last three training years are outlined in the table.
 
10 May 2004 : Column 129W
 

	2000–01	2001–02	2002–03
England	3,003	3,194	3,248
Scotland	759	687	831
Wales	496	454	488
Isle of Man	0	1	1
No county provided	11	13	11
Total	4,269	4,349	4,579

MOD Sites (Portsmouth)

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research he has (a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on his Department's land bounded by Halliday Crescent, Melville Road and Henderson Road in Portsmouth; and if he will make a statement. [169403]

Mr. Caplin: The site formed part of the married quarter estate transfer to Annington Homes in November 1996. No trace of any records can be found on any research for the site, although legal searches into title in connection with the sale would have been completed at the time.

Nepal

Mr. Caton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the items of military equipment gifted to the Government of Nepal since January 2000. [170991]

Mr. Ingram: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 12 March 2004, Official Report, column 1789W by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Rammell) which listed all equipment gifted to the Government of Nepal under the Global Conflict Prevention Pool. In addition to this, a Departmental Minute has recently been placed before the House of Commons setting out the intention to gift two Short Take-Off and Landing (STOL) Islander aircraft, radios and Explosive Ordnance Disposal equipment to the Government of Nepal.

Mr. Caton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the methods the Government employs to ensure that military helicopters it has provided to the Royal Nepalese Army are only   used for logistical, medical and humanitarian purposes. [170992]

Mr. Ingram: A letter of agreement was signed by the Nepalese Chief of the Army Staff and by HM Ambassador. This set out the understanding on which the two MI-17 transport helicopters were being gifted to the Government of Nepal. In particular, it was specified that the helicopters were being gifted as part of the non-lethal support the UK provided to support the Government's campaign against the Maoist insurgency. It was further agreed that combat and attack roles were precluded for the lifetime of the aircraft, and that the    helicopters would only be used for logistic, humanitarian and medical purposes. We have no grounds to believe that the aircraft gifted by the UK have been misused.
 
10 May 2004 : Column 130W
 

Nuclear Weapons

Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence   pursuant to his answer of 19 April 2004, Official Report, column 339W, on nuclear contingent liability arrangements, what criteria he used to determine what constituted an objection. [171120]

Mr. Ingram: The ways in which a Member of Parliament can object to a contingent liability are as detailed in Government Accounting 2000 Paragraph 26.4.7.

Adam Price: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the importance of nuclear deterrence as a military strategy in the war against terrorism. [170212]

Mr. Hoon: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 30 January 2004, Official Report, column 577W, to the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson).

Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many NSQEP personnel in the UK are able to maintain the UK's nuclear weapons and naval nuclear reactors; what their age profile is; what their names are; and if he will make a statement; [170323]

(2) what estimate he has made of the adequacy of the supply of people suitably qualified and experienced to maintain (a) the UK's nuclear weapons and (b) the Royal Navy nuclear reactors; what steps the Government is taking to secure the supply of people with such qualifications; and if he will make a statement. [170354]

Mr. Ingram: In the United Kingdom, there are some 10,000 (as at December 2002) Nuclear Suitably Qualified and Experienced Personnel (NSQEP) who are able to support the MOD's nuclear weapon and nuclear propulsion programmes. Personal details of these individuals are not held centrally in the MOD. However, the number of shore-based NSQEP employed by the MOD in support of these programmes is some 1,400. Their average age is 49.

Throughout 2002 the MOD's NSQEP Head of Profession actively participated in a cross-Government Department Nuclear and Radiological Skills study that provided an estimate of the adequacy of personnel to support the UK's nuclear and radiological sector. The report identified that while there is no immediate overall general cause for concern, there are a number of shortages in some disciplines. There are, however, concerns about the general age profile and the supply of suitably qualified and experienced personnel to replace those who retire over the next 15 years. One aspect of the Government response to the Nuclear and Radiological Skills study, in line with the Government Skills Strategy, was the development and licensing, in March 2004, of a Sector Skills Council for the UK's nuclear sector. The MOD's NSQEP Head of Profession co-ordinates Defence Nuclear skills interests at the Industry Nuclear Skills Group and engages closely with the Sector Skills Council.
 
10 May 2004 : Column 131W
 

Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on safety reviews conducted on nuclear submarines. [171000]

Mr. Ingram: Safety reviews on nuclear submarines are conducted routinely at several levels in accordance with rigorous and well-rehearsed procedures. Prior to sailing, rigorous checks are undertaken to validate all aspects of a vessel's seaworthiness. Regular safety reviews, that comply fully with legal requirements, are also carried out on board to ensure the material state of the submarine is monitored and maintained.

Adam Price: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on research and development of low yield nuclear weapons in the UK. [170211]

Mr. Ingram: No such research or development is being undertaken.

Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated cost is of (a) designing and (b) manufacturing a new nuclear warhead; and if he will make a statement. [170337]

Mr. Hoon: The December 2003 Defence White Paper clearly stated the Government's position that decisions on whether to replace Trident are likely to be required in the next Parliament. The costs of the design and manufacture of any nuclear warhead would depend on a range of factors, and these will be considered as part of any such decision.

Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the age profile is of the staff of (a) his Department's Chief Scientific Advisor and (b) the maintenance contractor SERCO who possess the qualifications necessary to (i) maintain the design intent of the current nuclear warheads and (ii) design the next generation of warheads; and if he will make a statement. [170338]

Mr. Ingram: There are several staff working in the Chief Scientific Adviser's area in support of, and providing advice on the nuclear weapons programme, a number of whom have previously worked at AWE. However, with the exception of one AWE secondee, they are not "qualified" to conduct nuclear warhead design work, since only AWE plc, the design authority under the contract, can "qualify" people to undertake such work.

MOD's contract for the management and operation of AWE sites is with AWE Management Limited (AWE ML), a consortium of three equal partners, including SERCO. Responsibility for the day-to-day management of AWE sites is delegated to a separate company, AWE plc, which is owned by AWE ML.

It is not possible to categorise the capabilities of qualified AWE plc personnel in the way requested. However, the following table provides data on those AWE plc employees engaged in maintaining the relevant research and development capabilities who are formally qualified to degree level and above.
 
10 May 2004 : Column 132W
 

Age range	Percentage age of total formally qualified and employed in R and D	Numbers employed in R and D who are qualified to degree level and above
20 to 30	26	212
31 to 40	34	282
41 to 50	23	194
51 to 60	15	121
60 plus	2	21
Total	100	830

---