| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
11 May 2004 : Column 219W—continued
Equipment Service Dates
Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the forecast in-service dates on 31 March 2001 were for (a) A400M Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile, (b) Successor Identification Friend or Foe, (c) Typhoon Aircrew Synthetic Training Aids, (d) Trojan and Titan and (e) Future Joint Combat Aircraft. [170362]
Mr. Ingram: I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the forecast in-service dates were on 31 March 2003 for (a) Sting Ray Lightweight Torpedo, (b) Multi-Role Armoured Vehicle and (c) Future Joint Combat Aircraft. [170364]
Mr. Ingram: I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the forecast in-service dates were on 31 March 2002 for (a) Spearfish Heavyweight Torpedo, (b) Advanced Short Range Air-to-Air Missile and (c) Future Joint Combat Aircraft. [170365]
Mr. Ingram: I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.
Future Joint Combat Aircraft
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 22 March to the hon. Member for Chorley, Official Report, columns 548–49W on the Future Joint Combat Aircraft programme, what the original (a) estimated cost and (b) delivery date of the Joint Strike Fighter was; and what the current projected final cost is. [170470]
Mr. Ingram:
The original estimated cost at the time of the US Defense Acquisition Board approval of the Systems Demonstration and Development phase of the Joint Strike Fighter was $33 billion. The current projected final cost of the phase is $41 billion.
11 May 2004 : Column 220W
The original estimated delivery date, based on the Short Take Off/Vertical Landing variant of the aircraft, was 2010.
IT Outsourcing
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when, during the process to outsource IT support and provision across his Department, he will provide to trade unions, (a) a risk strategy, (b) a scoping study, (c) an up to date procurement strategy, (d) a personnel impact study, (e) an intelligent customer strategy and (f) information on a public service comparator; and if he will make a statement. [168288]
Mr. Ingram: As previously agreed with the Council of Civil Service Unions (CCSU), a meeting is being arranged at a mutually convenient date to review the key risks identified within the Defence Information Infrastructure (DII) programme and their management. This meeting should have taken place by mid May. The DII Business Prospectus provides a comprehensive description of the intended scope of the programme. This was made available to the TUs on 3 April 2003.
A copy of the Procurement Strategy Review Note was made available to the TUs on 3 April 2003. At the request of the CCSU, on 13 February 2004 a copy of comments provided by HM Treasury on the Review Note was also provided.
A copy of the report produced at the end of the Personnel Impact Study was made available to TUs on 24 June 2003.
The work on the Intelligent Customer Strategy is in its early stages with the plan for its production currently being formulated. It was agreed with the CCSU at a meeting on 16 February 2004 that they would be directly involved in its development. The plan should be sufficiently developed by 7 May to allow the TUs to see and comment on it.
As the CCSU is aware, the work on the Public Sector Comparator is reaching a state of maturity that will enable it to be communicated to the TUs. Again, this is expected to be done by 7 May.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make it his policy to ensure that there is an in-house bidder for the support and provision of IT across his Department. [168292]
Mr. Ingram: No. A significant proportion of the Department's IT provision has been outsourced in recent years as part of wider initiatives to make greater use of the private sector in the provision of public services. The Department's policy is that when services already delivered under outsourcing arrangements are re-competed or rationalised, in-house bids should not normally be invited because the associated requirement for substantial reinvestment in management, training and support systems makes it unlikely that an in-house option would represent value for money. Where no in-house bid is invited, an estimate of the costs of a public sector option or a "status quo" option would normally be made, in order to provide a value for money benchmark.
Joint Strike Fighter
Mr. Keetch:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the current weight of the standard take-off vertical
11 May 2004 : Column 221W
landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter is; what the required weight at in-service date is; and if he will make a statement. [170353]
Mr. Ingram: Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) requirements are defined in terms of aircraft performance, which is the product of many factors, including weight, drag, and engine thrust. At current engine thrust and drag values, the Short Take Off/Vertical Landing variant of the JSF is some 3300 lbs overweight to meet its stipulated overall performance levels. Work is in hand in the United States to examine options to ensure that the overall performance requirements are met, addressing all possible options including a significant reduction in aircraft weight. This work will not mature in detail until early 2005, although an interim assessment of likely outcome in summer 2004 will enable performance against the United Kingdom's Key User Requirements to be preliminarily evaluated at that time.
Media
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what contacts (a) Defence Ministers and (b) departmental staff had with the Deputy Political Editor of The Sun in the seven days prior to 6 May; [172580]
(2) whether his Department authorised (a) Ministers and (b) spokesmen to disclose to (i) The Times, (ii) The Sun and (iii) other media that an announcement is shortly to be made concerning deployment to Iraq of Royal Marines; [172582]
(3) if he will investigate the (a) ministerial and (b) departmental origins of stories in (i) The Times and (ii) The Sun on 6 May claiming to confirm a forthcoming announcement that Royal Marines are to be deployed to Iraq. [172583]
Mr. Hoon: All contacts with the media are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code, the Code of Conduct for Special Advisers and Guidance on the Work of the Government Information Service. No decisions have been taken on the deployment of additional troops to Iraq. Should a decision be taken to commit additional forces to Iraq, I shall inform the House in the usual way.
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on service morale of imminent deployment plans to conflict zones being published in the Press. [172581]
Mr. Hoon:
When decisions are taken on operational deployments units are informed in the proper manner, through the chain of command. Recent press comment has focused on speculation concerning the Royal Marines. Morale in the Royal Marines remains very good. The Royal Marines continue, as is usual, to focus on their professional preparations for a full range of training and operations. Media speculation does however, have a considerable impact on the morale of young Service families, particularly, as happened on this occasion, when wives and children are accosted by journalists outside schools.
11 May 2004 : Column 222W
Procurement Contracts (Scotland)
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 11 March, Official Report, column 1654W, on Procurement Contracts (Scotland), what the average duration of the contract terms directly placed by his Department with companies based in Scotland was in each of the last four financial years; and what the (a) 10 longest and (b) 10 shortest running contracts were; and what the total value was of (a) and (b) . [170433]
Mr. Ingram: Data necessary to respond fully to this question prior to financial year 2003–04 are not held centrally. However, in respect of these earlier years I am able to offer the following information based on the numbers of the new contracts previously reported:
of the 724 new contracts let with companies based in Scotland during 2000–01, 205 of these contracts lasted less than one year and these 205 contracts had an average value of £9,000. 104 of the new contracts let with companies based in Scotland in 2000–01 were still running in 2003–04, and these 104 contracts had an average value of £15 million;
of the 604 new contracts let with companies based in Scotland during 2001–02,180 of these contracts lasted less than one year and these 180 contracts had an average value of £18,000. 110 of the new contracts let with companies based in Scotland in 2001–02 were still running in 2003–04, and these 110 contracts had an average value of £102 million;
of the 600 new contracts let with companies based in Scotland during 2002–03, 292 of these contracts lasted less than one year and these 292 contracts had an average value of £410,000. 308 of the new contracts let with companies based in Scotland in 2002–03 were still running in 2003–04, and these 308 contracts had an average value of £20 million.
| Contracts | |
|---|---|
| Number of new contracts | 458 |
| Total value of these new contracts | £204 million |
| Most valuable new contract let | £40 million |
| Total value of the 10 longest contracts | £53 million |
| Total value of the 10 shortest contracts | £0.058 million |
| Average duration of all new contracts let | (6)282 days |
(6) Refers to the average (mean) number of calendar days
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 11 March 2004, Official Report, column 1654W, on Procurement Contracts (Scotland), what the total projected annual cost of the procurement contracts his Department placed with companies based in Scotland in (a) 2002–03, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2000–01 was for each of the 10 years following the placing of the contracts; what the actual total cost was of the contracts placed in (i) 2002–03, (ii) 2001–02 and (iii) 2000–01 for the years for which information is available; and if he will make a statement. [170434]
Mr. Ingram: The information requested in respect of the total projected annual cost of procurement contracts placed by the Ministry of Defence with companies based in Scotland is not held centrally. These data could be provided only at disproportionate cost (Exemption 9 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information).
Details of total payments made against contracts placed with companies based in Scotland up until 2003–04 are as follows.
11 May 2004 : Column 223W
| Value of payments made in: | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000–01 | 2001–02 | 2002–03 | 2003–04 | |
| Contracts let before 2000–01 | 480 | 410 | 290 | 170 |
| Contracts let during 2000–01 | 50 | 110 | 70 | 50 |
| Contracts let during 2001–02 | — | 50 | 150 | 100 |
| Contracts let during 2002–03 | — | — | 100 | 300 |
| Contracts let during 2003–04 | — | — | — | 50 |
| Total | 520 | 570 | 610 | 670 |
Note:
The figures are exclusive of VAT and have been rounded to the nearest £10 million.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |