---

12 Sept 2005 : Column 2282W—continued

Iraq

Mike Penning: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those occasions since 2002 where aircraft flying directly back to the UK from Basrah International airport carrying Ministers had spare seating capacity. [11754]

Mr. Ingram: Flight records are kept for 24 months only, following date of departure. From mid-July 2003 to date, three direct flights carrying Ministers from Basrah have been recorded with spare seating capacity. None of these flights have disadvantaged any military personnel.
 
12 Sept 2005 : Column 2283W
 

Date	Minister	Seats available	Pax seated	Spare capacity
7 to 9 October 2003	Baroness Symons	106	76	30
6 to 8 March 2005	Adam Ingram	242	188	54
6 to 8 July 2005	Lord Drayson	242	217	25

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the accuracy of the count of civilian deaths and casualties in Iraq by (a) the Iraq Body Count, (b) the Lancet Study and (c) the Iraq Living Conditions Survey; and what effect these counts have had on procedures for casualty counts used by UK and allied forces. [14582]

Dr. Howells: I have been asked to reply.

There has been no 100 per cent. reliable and accurate assessment of casualties in Iraq over the last two years. Estimates vary according to the methods used. Reliance on media reporting used in the Iraq Body Count (IBC) Report cannot give an entirely accurate portrayal of civilian casualties in Iraq. We believe the Iraqi Government is best-placed to monitor the deaths of its civilians, and the latest statistics from the Iraqi Ministry of Health were given by my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Triesman of Tottenham) in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Garden on 8 June 2005, Official Report, column 67W, and we understand that these figures were used in the IBC Report. The casualty figures indicated in the UN Living Conditions Survey appear broadly in line with those in the IBC Report. The UK Government response to The Lancet survey is given in my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary's written statement of 17 November 2004, Official Report, columns 92–95WS.

These counts have had no effect on casualty counts used by UK forces as UK military reporting is conducted as part of standard military procedure and is not an attempt to carry out a comprehensive survey of civilian casualties. Detailed operational information for our coalition partners is a matter for their own authorities to answer.

Sir Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions between May 2002 and 19 March 2003, the UK elected not to participate in US air attacks in southern Iraq; for what reasons in each case; and if he will make a statement. [11372]

Mr. Ingram [holding answer 14 July 2005]: We do not hold records of occasions in which the United Kingdom elected not to participate in United States air attacks in Southern Iraq between May 2002 and 19 March 2003.

Sir Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account his Department took of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 concerning Iraq and Kuwait in determining the legality of air strikes carried out by Coalition aircraft in Iraq in 2002. [11374]

Mr. Ingram [holding answer 14 July 2005]: UN Security Council Resolution 688 of April 1991 condemned the repression of the Iraqi population in many parts of Iraq, and demanded an immediate end to that repression. The No-fly zones were established in 1991 and 1992 as necessary and proportionate steps to
 
12 Sept 2005 : Column 2284W
 
prevent a humanitarian crisis, and enabled monitoring of Iraqi compliance with SCR 688. UK aircraft patrolling the Iraqi no-fly zones were entitled to use force in self-defence.

UN Security Council Resolution 949 had no bearing on the entitlement to use force in self defence in monitoring the No-fly zones.

Nuclear Deterrent

Alan Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what purpose the Versatile Intermediate Pulsed Energy Reactor (VIPER) at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston is used; what its running costs were in 2004–05; what energy it consumed in that year; whether he has requested AWE Management Ltd. to conduct a sustainability audit of VIPER; and whether it has been used for collaborative work with scientists from the United States Energy or Defense Department under the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement on atomic energy matters. [14934]

John Reid: The Versatile Intermediate Pulsed Energy Reactor (VIPER) is used to test materials under intense transient neutron and gamma ray environments. The annual running costs of the VIPER facility are in the order of £1 million. The reactor's energy consumption is not separately identifiable but is estimated as negligible compared with that of the whole of the Aldermaston site. AWE has not been asked to conduct a sustainability audit on VIPER. The reactor has been used in some collaborative work with US personnel under the 1958 US/UK Mutual Defence Agreement.

Alan Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what purpose scientists from (a) his Department and (b) the Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston are engaged in collaboration with scientists at the US Sandia National Library on the SPHINX x-ray simulator. [14936]

Mr. Ingram: Ministry of Defence scientists are not engaged in collaboration with Sandia National Laboratories on the SPHINX x-ray simulator.

The SPHINX simulator has been used by AWE scientists in collaboration with Sandia National laboratories under the auspices of the 1958 Mutual Defence Agreement to conduct thermostructural response and imaging experiments.

Alan Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what purpose marginal initiation characterisation tests are conducted at Atomic Weapons Establishment Aldermaston; how many have been conducted since July 2004; and what the cost is of each such test. [14937]

Mr. Ingram: The United Kingdom Marginal Initiation Characterisation Test (MICT) has been developed as a small-scale explosives test to screen energetic materials and ultimately characterise the effects that ageing, temperature, density and composition have on their sensitivity (i.e. safety) and performance. Since July 2004, 23 tests have been undertaken. The approximate cost for a single test is £250.
 
12 Sept 2005 : Column 2285W
 

Outsourcing (Gibraltar)

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's court case regarding outsourcing in Gibraltar; and what steps the Department is taking following judgment in the case. [12992]

Mr. Ingram: A judgment has been passed by the Supreme Court of Gibraltar following an interim application to establish the jurisdiction of the litigation brought by the Gibraltar trade unions in response to the infrastructure support provider (ISP) initiative. The hearing established that the Secretary of State for Defence is the correctly named defendant for any litigation involving the MOD in Gibraltar. The case will be heard in Gibraltar. The MOD remains confident that it will be able successfully to defend the substantive case, which is due to be heard in early September 2005.

PFI/PPP Schemes

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what (a) private finance initiative and (b) public private partnership schemes he expects to achieve financial closure between 1 July and 31 December. [12173]

Mr. Ingram: HM Treasury (HMT) defines public private partnerships (PPP) as privately financed projects and other forms of joint ventures, but excludes prime contracts, partnering and other outsourcing deals. This answer is based on the HMT definition of PPP.

Based on current planning assumptions the following projects are expected to achieve financial closure between 1 July and 31 December:

Allenby-Connaught PFI—The redevelopment, including rebuild and refurbishment, of the major garrisons around Salisbury Plain and Aldershot garrison.

Portsmouth 2 Housing PFI—Proposal for 148 houses, mainly Officers' Quarters, but including some other ranks accommodation.

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what defence training activities are being considered for provision under (a) private finance initiative and (b) public private partnership schemes; and what the timescale for (i) main gate approval and (ii)financial closure is. [12174]

Mr. Touhig: HM Treasury (HMT) defines Public Private Partnerships (PPP) as privately financed projects and other forms of joint ventures, but excludes Prime Contracts, Partnering and other outsourcing deals. This answer is based on the HMT definition of PPP.

The following three projects are currently being considered for provision under PPP arrangements as defined by HMT:

Royal School of Military Engineering—a contract to provide training facilities and construction engineering training for the Royal Engineers. Main Gate approval is currently anticipated in March 2006, and financial close is currently anticipated in November 2006.

Defence Training Review—contracts to meet rationalisation objectives while providing in-service specialised military training needs. Main Gate approval is currently anticipated in July 2006, and Financial Close is currently anticipated in July 2007.

 
12 Sept 2005 : Column 2286W
 

UK Military Flying Training System—will provide tri-Service military flying training, utilising a mix of PFI and smart conventional procurement. It is currently anticipated that Main Gate approval will be sought during late 2006 and financial closure by mid 2007.

It must be emphasised that the dates provided are planning dates only and are continually being reviewed and may therefore change.

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which (a) private finance initiative and (b) public private partnership schemes have achieved financial closure so far in 2005; on what dates preferred bidders were announced; and what financial closure dates were anticipated when preferred bidders were announced. [12177]

Mr. Ingram: The C Vehicle Capability private finance initiative deal which was announced on 14 June 2005 is the only public private partnership (including PFI) project which has achieved financial closure so far in 2005. The decision to select the Amey Lex Consortium (ALC) as the preferred bidder for the C Vehicle Capability PFI project was announced on 17 December 2003. At the time of the preferred bidder announcement financial close was expected in October 2004.

This answer is based on the HM Treasury's definition of public private partnerships which includes privately funded projects and other forms of joint ventures but excludes prime contracts, partnering and other outsourcing deals.

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his policy towards (a) public private partnership and (b) private finance initiative provision. [12247]

Mr. Ingram: HM Treasury (HMT) defines public private partnerships (PPP) as privately financed projects and other forms of joint ventures, but excludes prime contracts, partnering and other outsourcing deals. This answer is based on the HMT definition of PPP.

The Department seeks to deliver high quality products and services to our armed forces using the most appropriate procurement technique while ensuring that value for money is obtained for the taxpayer. PPP's as defined by HMT form part of the Departments overall procurement strategy to achieve this.

Existing PPP contracts are delivering value for money services to the Department and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. To date the Department has committed to 53 PPP (PFI) contracts. These have resulted in £4.5 billion of private sector capital investment in defence. We have a further 12 PPP projects in procurement that will bring up to a further £6 billion of private sector capital investment in to defence if they all lead to contracts being placed.

The procurement tool used for procurement programmes or individual purchases, irrespective of their type, will be judged by the specific circumstances surrounding each procurement. For this reason the MoD does not place any dogma on the use of PPP, including PFI.

PPP and PFI specifically, will be considered for all procurements where substantial investment is needed, but PPP will not be pursued unless it can be
 
12 Sept 2005 : Column 2287W
 
demonstrated to deliver better value for money than other procurement techniques. For example, the Department has adopted HM Treasury's Value for Money Assessment Guidance to test from an early stage in the procurement that PFI is the appropriate procurement tool to deliver the prevailing requirement.

---