8 Jan 2007 : Column 1

House of Lords

Monday, 8 January 2007.

The House met at half-past two: the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.

Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham.

Iraq and Afghanistan: Troop Transport

Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What progress has been made in improving the air bridge for transporting troops to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in offering sincere condolences to the families and friends of all those killed and injured in operations over the Recess.

Troop movement is generally working well. Between April and December 2006, 80 per cent of strategic air transport flights were on time or delayed by less than three hours. For Iraq this figure was 86 per cent and for Afghanistan it was 75 per cent. Recent improvements include refurbishing the runway at Kandahar airfield, which was completed in November 2006. This now allows troops to fly direct rather than via Kabul, which reduces journey times and increases C130 availability.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, from these Benches, we join the Minister in sending condolences to the families of those soldiers killed.

The Minister will be aware that I have raised this issue a number of times from this Dispatch Box. Despite what he says, soldiers tell me that the situation has not improved. Vintage VC10s and Tristars continue to break down, leaving soldiers stranded sometimes for days on end, which is utterly demoralising for them and their families. Who is responsible for the air bridge? If, as I suspect, several different people and groups share responsibility for this unacceptable state of affairs, will the Government take the necessary steps to appoint one senior responsible owner, whose only responsibility would be to get this essential service right?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I agree that air transport for our troops is a vital area. The noble Lord is right that some of our aircraft are aged. Taking into account the operational tempo with which the RAF is having to cope and the age of some of the fleet, I believe that the RAF is doing an excellent job. The number of troop passengers carried over the past year has gone up by more than 40 per cent, which reflects the tempo that is being coped with.

None the less, it is important for us to do whatever we can to improve the situation, which I and the RAF are aware is not as good as we would like it to be. In December, the AOC of 2 Group implemented an initiative to put more focus on the experience, if you like, for our troops in transportation. We hope that this will provide improvements in a number of areas. For example, we are investing in Brize Norton to improve the experience for passengers while they wait. None the less, I will look at what further work we can do to improve this.

Lord Garden: My Lords, from these Benches we also offer our sincere condolences concerning those who have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan over the break, and to those who have been injured we wish a speedy recovery. Can the Minister explain why, in the public service agreement that his Ministry has signed, the target for improving the deploying, sustaining and recovering of force elements in this area is set at only 5 per cent over a three-year period? Furthermore, how did he manage to achieve the data that he has just given us, given that that public service report in the annual accounts says that a method by which to measure such data has not yet been designed?

8 Jan 2007 : Column 3

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the data that I quoted are about the proportion of tasked flights for transportation which have been either on time or within the three-hour delay period. That information that I have shared with the House is recorded and is for April to December 2006. The number of Tristar aircraft defined as being fit for purpose to meet the tasking is hitting very close to the 4.75 to 4.8 target. I shall look at the figures relating to the PSA, to which the noble Lord referred. I am not aware of them but, if I can give him any further information, I shall write to him.

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, the Minister acknowledged that the air transport force is working extremely hard—much harder than programmed for—with a very aged fleet, but all that was known well before the forces were committed to a second front in Afghanistan. Is it not outrageous that troops are being left waiting for long periods due to the inability of these aged airframes to be kept serviceable, no matter how hard the Royal Air Force service ground crews work? Is that not just another example of overcommitment of our Armed Forces over a very extended period, and should it not have been taken into account before we were committed to Afghanistan?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord knows from his own experience the importance of this air transport fleet. The RAF’s total transport fleet for passengers, freight and air-to-air refuelling is 70-odd aircraft. If we look at the decisions taken by the Government to invest in new aircraft, be they C17s or the A400M, we see that it takes some time for those aircraft to come on stream. The most important project for the air passenger side is the FSTA project. The noble and gallant Lord is absolutely right that that is urgent, and I am well aware that we need to make a decision on it quickly.

Lord Naseby: My Lords, will the Minister answer the question that my noble friend asked from the Front Bench? Will he and the Government consider appointing a single entity to be totally responsible for all these average movements?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, in answering the noble Lord’s question, I referred to this new initiative, which was set up in December. However, I will look further at whether there is an increased advantage in focusing more closely on this area. Although, on the face of it, the figures that I quoted look like a pretty good performance, I recognise that the troops have experienced delays, so I will see whether further improvements can be made.

Lord Rogan: My Lords, over the past 12 months, on average per flight, how many service personnel, having been given firm movement orders and a confirmed booking, have been bumped? How are these personnel being dealt with to and from the two theatres and Brize Norton?

8 Jan 2007 : Column 4

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the noble Lord will recognise that flight delays are not limited to the RAF, as we have seen with passenger flights over the break. We recognise the importance of aircraft maintainability but other factors, such as the weather, are issues in certain areas in Afghanistan. However, we think that the move that we have made recently will improve flight performance. I shall write to the noble Lord with an answer to his question about specific numbers as I do not have that detail in front of me.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, can the Minister say at what date the flying scrapheaps known as the Tristar aircraft will be replaced?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, our intention is to bring the future strategic tanker aircraft into service at the end of the decade. Therefore, the existing aircraft need to continue flying until those aircraft come into service.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, quite rightly, we focus on the requirements of the troops serving on operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that is not the only place where troops are serving. Can the Minister assure us that the same care will be taken to look at the requirements of those in Bosnia and in other such places who are subject to exactly the same sort of problems as have been raised in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Lord Drayson: Yes, my Lords, I shall make that undertaking. Troop movements are crucial to all troops, wherever they serve on operations, as they affect the amount of time that troops have at home with their families. Improving that is at the top of our priority list. I have given the House the data which I think show that, with this level of operational tempo, the RAF does a very good job. Those aircraft are old—some of them go back to the 1960s—so we need to bring new aircraft into service as quickly as possible, as we are committed to do, and we must ensure that we provide the best possible service. The increased focus that the RAF has made on this, as I have just mentioned to the House, is something on which we shall keep a very close eye.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, why does the Minister think that the picture of the equipment and resources made available to our forces in Afghanistan and Iraq which the Government present is so different from the picture that comes from former senior and current officers in the armed services? Does he think there is a communication problem between him and our forces on the ground?

Lord Drayson: No, my Lords, I do not think there is a communications problem. I do not accept that a wholly different picture is being presented. The Government recognise the pressure on our Armed Forces; that is absolutely clear and we accept it. We also recognise that the environment in which our Armed Forces operate is changing at a faster rate than

8 Jan 2007 : Column 5

we have seen for a long time. That puts a lot of pressure on the Armed Forces as regards reforms, changes to equipment, tactics and procedures to meet the threat. I believe that we are doing a good job in responding to that. However, there are areas in which we need to improve. We are providing a very clear focus on taking action—for example, on the equipment side—to make those improvements. We listen very clearly to what the Armed Forces say to us at all levels, from a ministerial perspective and from the perspective of the Chiefs of Staff. It is important that we do so. There is no failure of communication.

Waste Management: Aluminium Recycling

2.47 pm

Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What steps they are taking to ensure that the recovery of scrap aluminium sent from the United Kingdom to areas outside the European Union for recycling is carried out in an environmentally sound manner and to the standard required for recycling industries operating within the United Kingdom under the European Union integrated pollution prevention and control regulations.

The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, it is for producers, local authorities, waste management contractors and transporters to ensure that their waste is properly managed through all the steps in the recycling chain, including its final destination, wherever that may be. Defra wrote to all waste collection and disposal authorities in March 2005 regarding the illegal export of waste to European Union and other countries.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. That very guidance note from Defra has been part of the problem. I understand, and the Minister should be able to confirm, that Defra said that if there was any oil on aluminium—more than 0.1 per cent—it had to be classified as contaminated waste. At the moment in this country there is higher car production than for many years, the greatest amount of aluminium is being recycled, and every car uses more than 100 kilograms, of which 90 per cent is recycled. By sending that aluminium abroad, as we are obliged to do because in our requirement that there be no oil we are exceeding the EU obligation, we are losing jobs and our economy is being damaged. Will Defra look again at that guidance note to see why we are going that much further than the EU demands?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am more than happy to do that. As the noble Baroness is aware from her membership of the All Party Group on the Aluminium Industry, this is a complicated issue. The note, with its annexes, is quite complicated, but the competent authorities in all the countries to which we export for recycling—no disposal is involved—have to

8 Jan 2007 : Column 6

follow environmentally sound rules and regulations. They may not be exactly the same as the IPPC regulations, referred to in the Question, but they are broadly similar. I shall have the note looked at again, given the detailed point that she has raised.

Lord Brookman: My Lords, further to the Minister’s Answer, is he aware that the United Kingdom exports almost four times as much aluminium scrap outside the European Union as the whole of the rest of the EU? Is there an explanation for this? If so, can the House hear it?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, there probably is an explanation, but it is not for the Government but the industry itself to give. People are carrying out a legal trade of export. It is all regulated. Aluminium is not a designated hazardous waste therefore we do not have all the figures we would have if it were.

We benefit a lot from the recycling of aluminium wherever it is produced, because a huge amount of electricity is used to create it in the first place; therefore, the more that is recycled the better. Where it is recycled, however, is essentially up to the industry.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government have a role in ensuring that much more aluminium from small things such as drinks cans is recycled? It is currently less than half. As the Minister said, the environmental issue is that it takes about 90 per cent more energy to produce primary aluminium than it does to recycle it and it can be recycled many times.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. The figures for aluminium can recycling are 2 per cent in 1989 and 42 per cent in 2001—that figure is somewhat old, but it is still less than half. Recycling aluminium consumes only 5 per cent of the electricity and energy used in primary aluminium production. A kilogram of recycled aluminium saves six kilograms of bauxite, four kilograms of chemicals and 15 kilowatt hours of electricity. There is a lot to be gained and, I understand, no limit to the number of times aluminium can be recycled.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, have the Government had discussions with the industry about the conflicting views on the need to save energy and on transporting a relatively heavy material out of this country to be recycled? Perhaps the Minister could have a word with members of the industry. If he did, and they were receptive, we might save jobs in this country and, of course, reduce CO2 and other emissions.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, this is a matter of international trade. We use about 900,000 tonnes of aluminium; we only smelt about a third of that. There is a gap in what is known to be lost: too much is going into landfill from domestic waste. There is a lot to be gained in looking at the flow. China and India, where it is going, will of course use that waste as a primary

8 Jan 2007 : Column 7

product. As the noble Lord says, however, CO2 emissions from travelling around the world must be taken into account.

Zimbabwe

2.53 pm

Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether they expect the European Union targeted measures against Zimbabwe to be continued when they expire in February 2007.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the Government expect that targeted measures against Zimbabwe will be renewed in February. Since their rollover last February, the situation in the country has only worsened: peaceful demonstrations have been violently disrupted, the economy continues to be grossly mismanaged and the opposition and independent media remain suppressed. Until democracy, the rule of law and full human rights are restored in Zimbabwe, it is right that Mugabe and his regime should continue to be isolated by the international community.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there is any substance in media reports of the past few weeks that a number of European Union countries, particularly Portugal and France, are in favour of abandoning the sanctions? Have not the people of Zimbabwe shown enormous courage in the past few weeks in demonstrating peacefully on the streets against the Mugabe regime? They have suffered from being thrown into prison cells and having their legs broken and have been beaten up.

Is it not also true that other countries have subscribed to the sanctions against Mugabe which the European Union has adopted? Does that not mean that if sanctions were to be abandoned, we would be letting down both those countries and the people of Zimbabwe with whom we should have solidarity? The European Union would be letting itself down by spoiling its own reputation and authority in the wider world.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the Government wholeheartedly agree that we must maintain solidarity with the brave people of Zimbabwe. Regarding the weakening of the European Union position, I maintain that the EU stands firmly in agreement on the crisis in Zimbabwe. We fully expect the ban to be renewed in February. Other countries, as the noble Lord rightly says, impose sanctions; but from our perspective as members of the European Union, it is particularly important to maintain the solidarity of the European Union as a whole.

Lord Kinnock: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm the importance of sustaining the established and consistent policy, both of Her Majesty’s Government and the European Union, on targeted

8 Jan 2007 : Column 8

measures against the Mugabe regime? Will she and her ministerial colleagues try to ensure that there is no breach of established policy under any EU presidency? Is my noble friend aware that if, for instance, Mugabe were to go to Portugal for the EU-Africa conference in the second half of this year, it would hold up the EU policy to derision and give his regime an unwarranted propaganda victory? That would hugely dismay and demoralise the courageous members of the Movement for Democratic Change, who are trying to secure peaceful change in their country. Consistency is essential; consistency from the whole Union is vital.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the Government agree that we absolutely must maintain the targeted measures that have been agreed and will continue to be agreed. There must be no breach of established policy. My noble friend is right to say that consistency is essential.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Government propose to the German presidency that additional measures be taken to inform African leaders and the public in African states, particularly in SADC, that there never have been European Union sanctions against Zimbabwe, but that there are sanctions against 126 named individuals whose policies are to undermine human rights, freedoms and the rule of law? Has the Minister seen the remarks attributed to ex-Minister Jonathan Moyo last week on radio SW Africa, when he said that even Zanu-PF leaders are beginning,

“to ask fundamental questions about the state of the economy, the state of the country, and ... the state of their party”?

Is it not therefore time to strengthen the restrictions on the ability of those people to travel out of the country or to secrete in foreign banks the assets that they have stolen from their people?

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right to say that when talking of sanctions we are talking of a travel ban, not of economic sanctions. We will certainly make that clear to our colleagues in the African Union. Indeed, the travel ban has been strengthened four times since 2002, to include others who have supported the Government of Zimbabwe’s efforts to suppress the people. As the noble Lord said, nothing has changed and the situation, as Jonathan Moyo pointed out, is worse. We will discuss with our European partners how the renewed common position should reflect this.

Baroness D'Souza: My Lords, can the Minister suggest any ways in which Zimbabwean civil society organisations, particularly those in this country, might play a role in helping to sustain or maintain the European Union sanctions against Zimbabwe?

---