| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
21 Dec 2004 : Column 1566W—continued
Cape Wrath Range
John Thurso: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates on which the Cape Wrath range has been subject to short notice activation in (a) 2004 and (b) each of the preceding four years; and on which dates no activity took place at the range. [200921]
Mr. Caplin
[holding answer 30 November 2004]: No formal system is in place to record Short Notice Activations. A comparison between the Cape Wrath Range Notifications issued by Flag Officer Scotland Northern England and Northern Ireland (FOSNNI)
21 Dec 2004 : Column 1567W
and the local records at the Cape Wrath Range has identified just one such activation since 2000. This is as far back as FOSNNI's records go.
The occasion identified in the FOSNNI records occurred in September 2004, when FOSNNI received and approved a request to allow the aerial bombardment of Garvie Island during the week commencing 13 September.
Although bombardment of Garvie Island only took place on 14–15 September 2004, military activity did continue on the Range throughout the period covered by the Short Notice Activation.
Challenger Tank (Chain Gun)
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what circumstances led to the recent issue of instructions about the application of the safety catch to the chain gun, as fitted to the Challenger tank; [204946]
(2) under what circumstances army personnel have been ordered (a) not to apply and (b) to apply the safety catch to the chain gun, as fitted to the Challenger tank. [204947]
Mr. Ingram: The applied safety lever on the chain gun, which is mounted in the turret of the Challenger 2 Main Battle Tank, is redundant by design and incapable of operation by the crew. It has never formed part of the crew safety drills, which are designed to compensate for this. Following an undemanded firing incident in Iraq in April 2003, a review of the chain gun firing drills on Challenger 2 was carried out and a change made to further reduce the possibility of the vehicle commander inadvertently firing the gun.
The armament selector switch remains the primary safety device and the chain gun is safe to use provided operational safety instructions and drills are followed.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what action has been taken to rectify problems associated with the chain gun as fitted to the Challenger Tank. [204948]
Mr. Ingram: A single case of undemanded firing of the chain gun on Challenger 2 occurred in Iraq in April 2003. There were no injuries as a result of the incident and investigations revealed that it resulted from a short circuit in the firing system. A modification has subsequently been designed and manufactured, which has now completed trials by the Design Authority, BAE Land Systems (formerly Alvis Vickers Ltd.). The modification is due to be considered for acceptance before Christmas and, subject to acceptance, will proceed to implementation.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many incidents have been reported of the jamming of the chain gun as fitted to the Challenger Tank, in (a) Iraq and (b) elsewhere, with particular reference to instances of the gun being fired without command; and what procedure is followed when an incident occurs. [204975]
Mr. Ingram:
There have been four reported cases of jamming of the chain gun on Challenger 2 in Iraq and 51 in total since its introduction into service. Jamming/stoppages may occur during normal operation of the
21 Dec 2004 : Column 1568W
chain gun, as they do on all machine guns, and are not linked to undemanded firing, of which there has only been one reported incident. In the event of a jam or stoppage in the chain gun, Challenger 2 crews follow an established drill to clear the problem.
Correspondence
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will reply to the letters to him from the hon. Member for Vale of York, of 17 May, 6 July and 28 September, regarding the number of departmental personnel in the Vale of York. [201908]
Mr. Caplin: I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 10 May 2004, Official Report, column 126W and 25 May 2004, Official Report, column 1614W.
The Department is collating from records held at local level, although the information is not currently held in the format requested.
Deepcut
Lembit Öpik: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what (a) the terms of reference and (b) scope of the further review into the Deepcut allegations announced on 30 November are; who will lead the review; and if he will make a statement. [205371]
Mr. Ingram: I refer the hon. Member to my written ministerial statement on 15 December 2004, Official Report, column 132WS.
Dentistry
Mr. Keith Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average cost per person for emergency dental provision in the UK for dependents of military personnel was in the last period for which figures are available. [206703]
Mr. Caplin: The Defence Dental Agency (DDA) is not responsible for providing emergency dental provision in the United Kingdom for dependants of military personnel, as provision of that service falls to the NHS, rather than the Ministry of Defence.
There is therefore no cost to the MOD for such treatment.
Departmental Expenditure
Mr. George Osborne: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the running costs of the Department were in each year since 1997, broken down by (a) electricity, (b) water, (c) gas, (d) telephones, (e) mobile telephones and (f) televisions. [206675]
Mr. Caplin: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
Departmental Projects
Mr. Gerald Howarth:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all (a) category A, (b) category B and (c) category C projects of his Department that have
21 Dec 2004 : Column 1569W
received (i) Initial Gate and (ii) Main Gate approval since 31 March 1997; and when approval was achieved in each case. [199829]
Mr. Ingram:
The following table provides details of Initial Gate and Main Gate approvals given by the Investment Approvals Board. The information covers all current Category A, B and C equipment projects that have had either Initial Gate or Main Gate approval but
21 Dec 2004 : Column 1570W
which had not achieved In Service Date (ISD) as of 1 November 2004. The table shows original approval dates only and does not include any subsequent re-approvals. Before April 2002, approval for non-equipment projects was delegated to a number of different organisations within the Department. As records are not held centrally, information for non-equipment projects approved before that date could be compiled only at disproportionate cost.
21 Dec 2004 : Column 1573W
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |