asked Her Majesty’s Government:

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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?

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 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.