|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Bob Ainsworth:
In common with all defence equipment programmes, the in-service dates for the future rapid effect system family of armoured vehicles
will be fixed at the main investment decisions. It is our policy not to release or discuss in-service dates ahead of the main investment decision.
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the Answer of 24 January 2008, Official Report, column 2138W, on AWE Burghfield, in what way the emergency arrangements infrastructure at AWE Burghfield was affected by the July 2007 flooding; and what steps have been taken to remedy the situation. 
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: As a consequence of the flooding in July 2007, the fallback incident control room, fallback medical centre and health physics support areas at AWE Burghfield sustained some damage. Contingency arrangements were put in place to ensure full emergency response could be activated if required. These were considered by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) to be adequate at all times for the activities being undertaken. On 22 April 2008, AWE Burghfield undertook its annual exercise on emergency response arrangements, witnessed by the NII, who considered that the exercise adequately demonstrated AWE Burghfields capability in this area.
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the Answer of 20 May 2008, Official Report, column 178W, on AWE Burghfield, how many of the safety shortfalls identified at AWE Burghfield by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate remain outstanding; and what the target date is for remedial work to be completed. 
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: The safety case issues to which the hon. Member refers were identified not by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, but by AWE plc in its own Periodic Review of Safety. In my answer on 15 January 2008, Official Report, column 1132W, to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), I indicated that 50 work packages were due for completion by 31 March 2008 and that the remaining 53 were scheduled to be complete by the end of the year. The 50 work packages were completed by the due date. The remainder remain on course for completion, as planned.
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: We will dispose of UK cluster munition stockpiles in accordance with the provisions in the adopted convention. We are assessing the likely costs of disposal and these will be made available to the House as soon as they are known.
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Equipment and Support in the other place on 8 January 2007, Official Report, column WA8. We will not be setting in-service dates for the joint combat aircraft (JCA) until we take the main investment decision, and we will take that decision when the project is sufficiently mature. The joint strike fighter remains our preferred solution to meet the JCA requirement and our current plans for JCA remain coherent with the CVF programme.
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: As at 26 May 2008 there were 300 UK service personnel deployed on UN operations, 280 of whom were located in Cyprus. Other locations include Georgia, Nepal, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of Congo and Liberia.
The following table shows the number of UK service personnel deployed on operations by location at 26 May 2008. The number of personnel in theatre will naturally fluctuate on a daily basis for a variety of reasons, including leave (rest and recuperation), temporary absence for training, evacuation for medical reasons, the roulement of forces and other factors.
|Number of personnel deployed by location( 1)|
|(1) Countries with 10 or more personnel are shown separately. Other countries with fewer than 10 personnel per country include Georgia, Nepal, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Democratic Republic of Congo and Liberia.|
(2) Figures for Kuwait are artificially high due to a current Operation Telic Relief In Place (RIP) operation.
UK forces are currently deployed on a wide range of missions, under differing mandates, in a number of countries across the world including those conducted under the auspices of the UN, EU and NATO. The number of UK service personnel serving in these countries is detailed above. The majority of these missions comprise, to one degree or another, activity that could be fairly described as peacekeeping.
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the value of Ministry of Defence property sold in Scotland was in the last (a) year, (b) five years, (c) 10 years and (d) 20 years. 
Derek Twigg: Disposal receipts arising from Ministry of Defence property sales in Scotland since 2000-01 total £124.6 million. This includes £23.6 million in 2007-08 (subject to final audit) and £77.4 million for property sold over the last five financial years. Figures for the years before 2000-01 are not available.
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the detailed concept design stage of the Vanguard successor submarines; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: Following the parliamentary vote in support of the Government's decisions on the future of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent on 14 March 2007, a collaborative MOD/industry team was formed to take work forward. The team is halfway through the concept phase of the programme, and is working to develop the information and realistic options needed to deliver a robust Initial Gate Business Case in late 2009.
Mr. Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to the answer of 7 February 2008, Official Report, column 1417W, on the Fairtrade initiative, what the value was of Fairtrade produce purchased at her Department's staff catering facilities in each of the last three years; and what proportion of total expenditure this represented. 
Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many heavy goods vehicles entered the UK from the EU in each of the last three years; and what taxes were imposed per lorry in road tax and other charges. 
Jim Fitzpatrick: The Department collects and publishes data on the numbers of heavy goods vehicles travelling to mainland Europe by vehicle nationality. A breakdown of the data for the last three years is provided in the following table, representing outwards journeys only. Inwards journeys are not collected.
|Powered road goods vehicles travelling to mainland Europe by country of registration|
|(1) For 2005 and 2006, does not include Bulgaria and Romania|
(2 )For 2005 and 2006, includes Bulgaria and Romania
EU law is clear that member state policy measures may not inhibit the freedom of movement of goods and may not discriminate (directly or indirectly) according to nationality of haulier or the origin or destination of a vehicle. This of itself precludes any lump-sum tax levied specifically on entry to the UK.
Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the reasons are for the (a) 50 mile per hour speed limit around the roadworks north of junction 6 on the M1 motorway and (b) 40 mile per hour speed limit at the roadworks on the M40 in the vicinity of junction 1; and if she will make a statement. 
Mr. Tom Harris: The 50 mph speed limit on the M1 north of junction 6 is in place for the duration of the widening works between Junctions 6a and 10, to ensure the safety of roadworkers and road users. The 50 mph speed limit starts at Junction 6 for traffic to flow into the contraflow and safely past the works area.
Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if she will issue guidance to the Highways Agency on operating a consistent policy towards speed limits on motorways when roadworks are taking place in different areas. 
Mr. Tom Harris: National advice on setting temporary speed limits is given in Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 8, which is developed by the Highways Agency on behalf of the Department for Transport. This identifies appropriate speed limits based on the relative risk to road users. The Highways Agency produced additional advice in July 2007 (Chief Highways Engineer Memo 203/07) on how to apply temporary speed limits at road works using the risk based approach in Chapter 8.
Mr. Greg Knight: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the reasons are for the 50 mile per hour speed limit remaining in force on the southbound carriageway north of junction 9 of the M1 motorway after the opening of four carriageways to traffic. 
Once the safety fence work has been completed, there will still be a safety concern for both the work force and the travelling public. This is because if the 50 mph speed limit is removed, it will mean that four lanes of traffic travelling at 70 mph will be merging into a 50 mph three lane section, where work is still continuing. This could result in an increase in incidents and cause further delays.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|