|Previous Section||Home Page|
Kingston upon Thames (Royal)
Metropolitan District Councils
Dumfries and Galloway
Ms. Harman : To ask the Secretary of State for Employment under what powers he ensures that those responsible for installations which might harbour legionella infection comply with the recommendations of the Health and Safety Executive regarding cleaning, maintenance and disinfection ; how it is monitored ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Nicholls : Inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have enforcement powers under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to require an employer to comply with his duties under sections 2 and 3 of the Act to ensure so far as is reasonably practicable the health, safety and welfare of his employees and the health and safety of persons not in his employment who may be affected by his work activity. These duties extend to the risk of legionnaire's disease arising from a work activity.
At pre-emptive inspection visits inspectors remind occupiers of the dangers of legionnaire's disease,
Column 39impressing on management their responsibility for preventive action in the effective treatment of likely outlets and draw their attention to HSE published guidance which sets out the precautions to be taken in respect of susceptible water systems.
Mr. Wray : To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what information his Department gathers regarding school leavers (a) unemployed or (b) waiting for training places ; and if he will give the figures for those who left school last summer.
Mr. Fatchett : To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what, on the latest available figures and for the previous three years, was the level of accidents per 100,000 employees for (a) YTS trainees and (b) employees of the same age, not on YTS courses.
Mr. Cope [holding answer 21 February 1989] : Health and Safety Executive accident figures for employed young people not on YTS relate to the 16 to 19 years age group and are available from 1 April 1986 only. They are not directly comparable with accident figures for YTS trainees ; the age groups do not match, and there are differences in occupational mix, coverage, and in the proportion of accidents reported. Certain types of accidents to YTS trainees are reportable to the Training Agency, but are not reportable to the Health and Safety Executive. Accidents reported to the HSE are subject to up
Column 40to 50 per cent. under-reporting. Independent research, taking these factors into account, has established that there are no real grounds for concluding that major injury incidence rates for YTS trainees are different from those for employed young people. The tables give the available information.
|c|Incidence rate all accidents per 100,000 trainees|c| Period |Reported YTS accidents ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 April 1985 to 31 March 1986 |805 1 April 1986 to 31 March 1987 |693 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988 |829
|c|Incidence rate all accidents per 100,000 non-YTS|c| |c|employees aged 16-19|c| Period |Reported accidents to |non-YTS employees -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 April 1986 to 31 March 1987 |502 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988 |503
Mr. Strang : To ask the Secretary of State for Employment if he will provide information on accident rates in the agricultural industry in each of the last 10 years ; and if he will provide comparable statistics for the construction industry and for manufacturing industries.
Although there are substantial numbers of self-employed people in agriculture and construction, incidence rates are calculated only for injuries to employees because of suspected under-reporting of injuries to the self-employed.
|c|Injury Incidence Rates, for injuries to employees in the Argriculture, Manufacturing and Construction Industries<1>|c| |c|Great Britain|c| Fatal Major<2> All reported<3> Year |Agriculture |Manufacturing|Construction |Agriculture |Manufacturing|Construction |Agriculture |Manufacturing|Construction ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1978 |6.7 |2.3 |13.2 |n.a. |n.a. |n.a. |1,220.9 |2,625.8 |2,975.9 1979 |9.3 |2.2 |12.4 |n.a. |n.a. |n.a. |1,111.8 |2,381.5 |2,714.7 1980 |6.7 |1.9 |13.8 |n.a. |n.a. |n.a. |1,179.0 |1,995.8 |2,529.5 1981 |8.8 |2.0 |9.7 |46.9 |66.6 |155.3 |2,310.0 |2,550.0 |4,190.0 1982 |7.8 |2.4 |9.7 |42.5 |70.1 |188.4 |2,080.0 |2,370.0 |4,070.0 1983 |8.6 |2.2 |11.6 |59.6 |77.2 |213.0 |n.a. |n.a. |n.a. 1984 |8.8 |2.7 |9.8 |83.5 |86.6 |225.0 |n.a. |n.a. |n.a. 1985 |6.1 |2.4 |10.5 |72.5 |90.0 |225.8 |n.a. |n.a. |n.a. 1986-87<4> |8.9 |2.1 |10.2 |133.8 |135.9 |261.0 |467.3 |1,194.6 |1,940.8 1987-88p<4> |5.8 |1.9 |10.1 |156.4 |132.6 |259.3 |588.2 |1,156.8 |1,914.3 Sources: Injury data: Health and Safety Executive. Employment data: Department of Employment. n.a. = not available. p = provisional. <1> Reported to Her Majesty's Factory and Agricultural Inspectorates and all other relevant enforcing authorities under the Notification of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1980 (NADOR) for 1981-March 1986, and the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1985 ( RIDDOR) for 1986-87 onwards. Injuries between 1978 and 1980 are limited to those reported to Her Majesty's Inspectorate (Manufacturing and Construction industries) and to Her Majesty's Agricultural Inspectorate (Agricultural industry). The industries are classified according to the Standard Industrial Classification, 1968 and 1980. <2> The major injury definition which was created by NADOR and came into effect on 1 January 1981, was widened by RIDDOR-from 1 April 1986. Data from 1986-87, therefore, is not comparable with that for earlier years. <3> Includes injuries causing an employee, to be absent from work for more than three days, ("over-3-day" injuries). From 1978 to 1980 and for 1986-87 and 1987-88, over 3 day injury data is based on employers' reports to enforcing authorities. Comparisons with date for 1981-82, which are based on Industrial Injury Benefit claims, suggest significant under-reporting. From 1983 to 1985, over-3-day injury data was not collected. <4> Year commencing 1 April.
Mr. Home Robertson : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the speed, height and purpose of the low-level flight by a propeller-driven aircraft two miles south-west of Ormiston, East Lothian at 1.30 pm on Friday 10 February.
Mr. Neubert : A Hercules aircraft from RAF Lyneham was authorised to carry out a low-level navigation exercise in the area at heights down to 250 ft and under the normal speed restrictions for the aircraft and type of sortie.
Mr. Home Robertson : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the speed, height and purpose of the low-level flight by a jet aircraft at 12.25 pm, on Friday 10 February over Gullane, East Lothian.
Mr. Neubert : Military aircraft are authorised as a matter of routine to carry out low-level flying training in the area mentioned at heights no lower than 250 ft and at speeds normally not exceeding 450 knots.
|c|Royal Navy/Royal Marines|c| |c|(Non-commissioned personnel only)|c| |Number ---------------------- 1983-84 |9 1984-85 |22 1985-86 |9 1986-87 |3 1987-88 |8 Notes: 1. Figures show number of personnel recruited directly from the Republic of Ireland. It is not possible to identify Irish citizens who may have been recruited in the United Kingdom. 2. It is not possible to specify if the personnel recruited from the Republic of Ireland have Irish or dual Irish/British nationality. 3. Figures for officers and for non-commissioned personnel prior to 1983-84 and details of classification by nationality could only be obtained by examining individual records at disproportionate cost.
|c|Army|c| |c|(officers and non-commissioned personnel)|c| |Number ---------------------- 1978-79 |93 1979-80 |70 1980-81 |69 1981-82 |20 1982-83 |21 1983-84 |27 1984-85 |59 1985-86 |64 1986-87 |70 1987-88 |76 Note: 1. The figures cover those recruits with Irish nationality and also include some personnel holding dual Irish/British nationality.
|c|Royal Air Force|c| |c|(officers and non-commissioned personnel)|c| |Number --------------------- 1979 |27 1980 |19 1981 |10 1982 |10 1983 |7 1984 |10 1985 |3 1986 |10 1987 |8 1988 |3 Notes: 1. The figures cover those recruits with Irish nationality and also include some personnel holding dual Irish/British nationality. 2. The figures are for calendar years; those for the RN/RM and Army are for financial years.
Mr. Neubert : A naval helicopter from HMS Gannet landed on Arran on 8 February to take on board three local residents. They were flown over the mountain rescue flying training area in order to foster understanding of the rescue team's training requirements and of the reasons why some noise and disturbance is unavoidable, and to provide reassurance that everything possible is done to keep this disturbance to a minimum.
Mr. Cohen : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if there have been any changes in eligibility for funding of civilian facilities under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation infrastructure programme in the past five years ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Boswell To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements govern the policing of United States bases and proceedings against visiting United States servicemen in the United Kingdom ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Neubert : Under the NATO status of forces agreement the United States armed forces have the right to police any camps, establishments or other premises which they occupy in the United Kingdom by agreement with Her Majesty's Government. To carry out this policing role, United States military police may take all appropriate measures to ensure the maintenance of order and security on such premises, including, where necessary, the carriage of firearms provided that they are authorised to do so by their orders. Outside those premises US military police may be employed only by arrangement with and in liaison with the civil police.
Under the agreement, the visiting force must respect the law of the receiving state ; and all personnel, including those carrying out policing duties, are subject to the provisions of United Kingdom law. Section 2 of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 permits the US service authorities and courts within the United Kingdom to exercise over
Column 43those subject to their jurisdiction the powers that are exercisable by them under United States law. Where an offence is committed against both United States and United Kingdom law there is therefore concurrent jurisdiction. Section 3 of the Act sets out the arrangements for determining who shall have primary jurisdiction in such cases. Broadly speaking, it provides that the United States authorities have the primary right to bring a member of a visiting force to trial if the alleged offence arose out of and in the course of his duty as a member of that force, or was solely against the property or person of others associated with the visiting force. It is, however, open to the United States authorities to decide not to proceed with a case under United States law ; in that case, section 3(3) restores jurisdiction to the United Kingdom courts.
Mr. Menzies Campbell : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he is considering the replacement of Ministry of Defence police by private security guards at any Ministry of Defence establishment ;
(2) if he is considering a reduction in the number of Ministry of Defence police employed by his Department ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Menzies Campbell : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what representations he has received from residents of the Republic of Germany concerning the recent manoeuvre Iron Hammer ; and if he will make a statement.
(2) if, following the recent manoeuvre Iron Hammer in Lower Saxony, he will review the operational instructions given to members of the British Army with the intention of reducing the environmental impact of such exercises.
Mr. Neubert : Exercise Iron Hammer took place from 1 to 27 November 1988 in Lower Saxony and involved 3rd Armoured Division. Great efforts were made by the exercise controllers to avoid damage to the environment. Movement of tactical vehicles was restricted to take account of poor ground conditions and CinC BAOR had agreed earlier, and very readily, to a request that an area of land which had already seen more than its fair share of exercise activity in 1988 should not be used during Iron Hammer. German local governments expressed their satisfaction with the way in which the exercise was conducted. A newly installed "hot-line" designed to enable public complaints to be received and dealt with promptly proved very effective.
Realistic exercises are essential if troops are to maintain operational effectiveness. Although some damage is inevitable and there are well- established procedures for dealing with claims, our military authorities in Germany are very aware of the need to protect the environment and take their responsibilities in this regard very seriously indeed. Before an exercise is allowed to commence all participants are carefully briefed on damage control and avoidance and are issued with written instructions. Exercise play is kept under the closest possible review by controllers, so that plans can quickly be changed if there
Column 44is a risk of undue damage. Procedures are reviewed after each exercise with a view to keeping the environmental impact of training to a minimum.
Mr. Steen : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will ensure that the tradition that there is a Royal Navy vessel to do duty as a guard ship at the Dartmouth royal regatta is maintained for 1989 ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Trotter : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what are the crew complements for escorts of each of the following classes : (a) Leander, (b) type 42, (c) type 21, (d) type 22 and (e) type 23 ;
(2) what are the annual crew costs for a Leander class frigate ; and what is his estimate of the cost on the same basis for a type 23 frigate.
|Crew numbers |Crew costs (£ million) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Leander (Batch 3B) |233 |3.2 Type 42 (Batch 3) |251 |3.6 Type 21 |178 |2.5 Type 22 (Batch 3) |234 |3.3 Type 23 |160 |2.3
Mr. Trotter : To ask the Secretary of Defence what is the estimated current total annual cost of travel, subsistence, educational and other allowances for each of the services following the changes made in the allowance system in 1988 ; what were the tables for the previous year under the former system ; and what would the latter figure be on a current basis if indexed.
Mr. Trotter : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the current annual running costs for a frigate or destroyer of each of the classes (a) Leander, (b) type 42, (c) type 21 and (d) type 22 ; and what is his estimate of the costs for a type 23 frigate.
Mr. Neubert : The average annual operating costs, at financial year 1987-88 prices, of the following classes of destroyer and frigates are : (a) Leander £3.8 million, (b) type 42 £7 million, (c) type 21 £3.8 million, (d) type 22 £4.8 million and (e) type 23 £3.6 million. These costs include personnel, fuel, spares and so on, and administrative support services, but exclude new construction, capital equipment, and refit-repair costs.
Mr. Rogers : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether it will be possible to operate the Seawolf air defence system on type 23 frigates if they are not fitted with a computer-assisted command system.