| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
6 Dec 2006 : Column 444W—continued
Military Campaign Medals
Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which data protection regulations prevent him from naming media recipients of the Iraq campaign medal. [104502]
Derek Twigg: Media recipients of the Iraq campaign medal were given no indication that their personal data would be placed in the public domain. Disclosure of the relevant names would therefore breach the first and second data protection principles (see Schedule 1 to the Data Protection Act 1998), which require that data subjects must not be deceived or misled about the purposes for which personal data is processed.
Military Vehicles
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the expected running costs per mile are of the BvS10 Viking all-terrain vehicle, including routine maintenance; [102634]
(2) what the cost is of the BvS10 Viking all-terrain vehicle (a) as supplied and (b) with slatted armour as delivered to Camp Bastion in Helmand Province; [102636]
(3) what the maximum speed is of a BvS10 Viking all-terrain vehicle when driven on paved roadways; [102644]
(4) what the cost is, excluding that of the weapon, of providing the general purpose machine gun station on the BvS10 Viking all-terrain vehicle; and what protection the station affords from sniper fire. [102645]
Mr. Ingram: The BvSl0 Viking all-terrain vehicles entered service in April 2006 and vehicle capitation (mileage) rates are not yet available.
There are three variants of the BvSl0 Viking; the Troop-Carrying variant; the Command variant; and the Repair and Recovery variant. The average capital cost per vehicle across all three variants is £348,000. The cost per vehicle for the additional armour and the general purpose machine gun station is estimated at £11,000 and £20,000 respectively. The vehicle has a maximum road speed of 65km/h.
I am withholding information relating to the level of protection afforded by the general purpose machine gun station as disclosure would compromise operational security.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the price is of a BAe Land Systems RG-31 Mine Protected Vehicle. [102635]
Mr. Ingram: The information requested cannot be disclosed, as it would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of this defence contractor.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors were taken into account in deciding to fit a remote weapon station to the Panther Future Command Liaison vehicle. [102642]
Mr. Ingram: The role of the vehicle, the surveillance requirements and the threat environment on operations were the factors taken into account.
Mr. Paterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what (a) data on running costs and (b) other economic data were obtained in relation to the vehicles evaluated during the Future Command Liaison Vehicle procurement; and whether the RG-31 was one of the vehicles evaluated. [102646]
Mr. Ingram: Indicative whole life costs were received from the contractors during the assessment phase, in relation to the vehicles evaluated. This included the RG-31 which was offered as part of the assessment phase in 2001 for the Future Command and Liaison Vehicle. The three bids for demonstration, manufacture and support contained a more detailed lifecycle cost model as part of their tender, but the RG-31 was not one of those bids.
Minehunters
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what factors were taken into account when the decision was made not to fit remote environmental monitoring units to all Royal Navy minehunters; and which minehunters will not be included in the REMUS programme. [104291]
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 29 November 2006]: Remote environmental monitoring units are man-portable and can be deployed from a number of Royal Navy platforms, including minehunters. However, there is no requirement to fit them to minehunters as all have a highly capable onboard environmental monitoring capability which fulfils their operational purpose.
Non-operating Appropriations
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why he intends to increase non-operating appropriations in aid for subhead Request for Resources 1-J. [105964]
Mr. Ingram: The non-operating appropriations in aid for Request for Resources 1-J are being increased to reflect the anticipated receipts from planned estate disposals.
Outstanding Equipment Orders
Mr. Godsiff: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which equipment orders are outstanding for UK forces in (a) Iraq and (b) Afghanistan; and when the orders will be delivered. [106215]
Mr. Ingram: As the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan are still ongoing, much information regarding operational equipment remains sensitive, and its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the security of our armed forces.
The equipment on order for UK forces in Iraq and Afghanistan that is not operationally sensitive covers
such a wide range of areas that the information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Phoenix Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Mr. Ellwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Phoenix unmanned aerial vehicles are in service; what the cost to purchase was; and what assessment he has made of their performance. [106102]
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 4 December 2006]: There are currently 73 Phoenix unmanned aerial vehicles in service. The procurement cost of the programme was £248 million. Phoenix underwent assessment and trialling prior to entering service and has been successfully deployed on operations in Kosovo and Iraq.
Private Finance Initiative
Mr. Francois: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total capital value is of each private finance initiative scheme overseen by his Department which has reached financial close; over what period repayments will take place; and what the total cost of repayment will be. [103605]
Mr. Ingram: The following table sets out the centrally held information on PFI projects. These are projects that fall within the scope of the definition of PFI, set out in the HMT document “PFI: Meeting the Investment Challenge” (July 2003) i.e. PFI projects that do not predominantly involve Information Technology and those generally with a capital value above £20 million.
| Project name | Estimated capital value (£ million) | Contract length (Year) | Total estimated contract payments (£ million) |
The Department has signed a further 25 deals, that are either below £20 million or involve a significant IT/IS element. Information is not held centrally on them and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
R and D Costs
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the estimated research and development costs are for the (a) Type-45 destroyer and (b) Astute submarine programme. [101436]
Mr. Ingram: The estimated Design and Development costs for the Type-45 destroyer are £1,562 million and for the Astute submarine programme, £1,104 million (outturn prices).
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |