| Previous Section | Home Page |
Depleted Uranium Exports
Dr. Thomas : To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what depleted uranium from (a) British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. stockpiles and (b) United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority stockpiles has been exported from the United Kingdom and used in anti-tank shells, tank protective armour and other non-nuclear military uses ; when and to which countries.
Mr. Michael Spicer [holding answer 13 June 1989] : Since 1979, one such export has been authorised for the specific purposes mentioned. Details are commercially confidential.
Orimulsion
Mr. Blair : To ask the Secretary of State for Energy (1) what information he has on the sulphur content of orimulsion ; (2) how many tonnes of orimulsion were imported into Britain in the current calendar year ; and whether there are any plans to introduce a policy to encourage the conversion of power stations to orimulsion.
Mr. Parkinson : The sulphur content of orimulsion varies between 2.2 per cent. and 2.8 per cent. by weight. Twenty six thousand tonnes have been imported so far this year. Decisions on the conversion of power stations to this fuel are a matter for the commercial judgment of the CEGB.
Fuel Reprocessing
Mr. Alan W. Williams : To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has on the consideration given by the Central Electricity Generating Board to cancellation of contracts with British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. for reprocessing spent AGR fuel at Sellafield.
Mr. Michael Spicer : I have no such information.
Thermal Oxide Reprocessing
Mr. Hardy : To ask the Secretary of State for Energy for how long spent fuel rods can safely be stored before thermal oxide reprocessing.
Mr. Michael Spicer : I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) on 20 June 1989 at columns 90-91.
Electricity Supply (Computer Systems)
Mr. Tony Blair : To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what is the cost of installing the new computer systems to be introduced into the electricity supply industry as a result of privatisation.
Mr. Parkinson : This is a matter for the electricity supply industry. I have asked the chairman of the Electricity Council to write to the hon. Member.
Column 363
Energy Conservation
Mr. David Tredinnick : To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what representations he has received about the conservation of energy ; and whether he proposes to act on any of those representations.
Mr. Peter Morrison : I have received a number of representations regarding energy conservation and energy efficiency all of which have been taken into account in reviewing the programmes of the Energy Efficiency Office as well as the Government's proposals for the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.
CEGB (Disabled Staff)
Mr. Blair : To ask the Secretary of State for Energy what information he has as to what percentage of the work force employed by the Central Electricity Generating Board are registered as disabled.
Mr. Parkinson : This is a matter for the Central Electricity Generating Board. I shall ask the chairman of the CEGB to write to the hon. Member.
Column 364
DEFENCE
BNFL (Open Day)
Mr. Flynn : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if any Ministers or officials in his Department attended the thirtieth anniversary open day celebration of the opening of British Nuclear Fuels plutonium and tritium production reactors at Chapelcross in Annan on 13 May.
Tornado (Accidents)
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Royal Air Force Tornado major accidents have been caused by teething problems with the introduction of the aircraft ;
(2) if he will list all major accidents to Royal Air Force Tornado aircraft since its entry into service, specifying the cause of each accident.
Mr. Neubert : The information requested is given in the following table :
Column 363
Major accidents to RAF Tornados
Date |Accident |Location |Category |Cause
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12 May 1982 |Accident on landing |RAF Conningsby |4 |Not positively identified
27 September 1983 |Accident on descent |Wolferton |5 |Technical fault
28 October 1983 |Accident on descent |Off North Norfolk Coast |5 |Not positively identified
14 November 1983 |Heavy landing |RAF Honington |4 |Air crew error
6 February 1984 |After Lightning strike, unnecessary ejection|Federal Republic of Germany |5 |Air crew error
12 July 1984 Mid air collision Off Sheringham (Norfolk coast) 5 Air crew error
18 July 1984 |Flap failure |Goose Bay, Canada |5 |Technical fault
8 November 1984 |Unnecessary command ejection |Federal Republic of Germany |5 |Air crew error
12 December 1985 |Flew into Sea |Flamborough Head |5 |Not positively determined
2 December 1986 |Damage to electrical systems |Near Diss |5 |Not positively determined
|5
10 December 1986 |Mid air collision (2 Tornados) |Near Thorney |Air crew error
|4
30 March 1987 |Failure of locking mechanism |Federal Republic of Germany |5 |Technical fault
3 June 1987 |Failure of mechanical and electrical systems|Manby, 5 nm East of Louth |5 |Technical fault
17 June 1987 |Mid-air collison |3 nm South East Keswick |5 |Operational
27 July 1987 |Hydraulic system failure |Fadmoor, Near Pickering |5 |Technical fault
30 March 1988 |Accident on exercise |Nevada Desert |5 |Air crew error
10 May 1988 |Flew into ground |Federal Republic of Germany |5 |Air crew error
|5
9 August 1988 |Mid-air collision (2 Tornados) |Appleby, Cumbria |Still under investigation
|5
13 January 1989 |Mid-air collision |Federal Republic of Germany |5 |Still under investigation
Notes:
1. Category 4 Damage not repairable on site.
2. Category 5 Aircraft is damaged beyond repair or is missing.
The accidents on 27 September 1983, 18 July 1984 and 2 December 1986 were attributed to teething problems with the aircraft.
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what figures he can provide for the rate of major accidents per 10,000 flying hours for Tornado aircraft in Italian air Force service, excluding the Tornado tri-national training establishment ; (2) what figures he can provide for the rate of major accidents per 10,000 flying hours for Tornado aircraft in German air force service and German navy service excluding the Tornado tri-national training establishment.
Mr. Neubert : The public release of national aircraft accident statistics is a matter for the respective Government.
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the overall rate of major accidents per 10,000 hours for Royal Air Force Tornado GR1 aircraft, excluding those assigned to the Tornado tri-national
Column 364
training establishment ; and if he will provide a breakdown of this figure into annual major accident rates for each year since 1981.Mr. Neubert : It is not our policy to publish such information.
Anti-tank Weapons and Artillery
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list all changes in the definitions used to calculate the numbers of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Warsaw pact (a) anti-tank weapons and (b) artillery, between those used to compile the tables in chapter six of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988", and those used to compile the tables in chapter six of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989".
Column 365
Mr. Archie Hamilton : Until 1988, United Kingdom definitions were used to calculate these figures, but in the interests of consistency within the Alliance figures 8 and 9 in chapter 6 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989", Cm. 675-I, were compiled according to the definitions and counting rules used by NATO. The changes involved the transfer of anti-tank guns from the artillery to the anti-tank weapons category ; the exclusion of armoured infantry fighting vehicles and helicopters equipped with anti- tank guided missiles from the anti-tank weapons category ; and the inclusion of mortars with a calibre size equal to or exceeding 100 mm in the artillery category.
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the reasons for the change in his Department's assessment of the numbers of anti-tank guided weapons deployed by the Warsaw pact in the central region, portrayed in figure 15 on page 61 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988" and figure 9 on page 47 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989".
Mr. Archie Hamilton : In the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988", Cm. 344-I, the figure for the number of anti-tank guided weapons deployed by the Warsaw pact in the central region was based on the United Kingdom definition and counting rules. In the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989", Cm. 675-I, NATO definitions and counting rules are used, in the interests of consistency within the Alliance.
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide figures for the number of anti-tank weapons held by the Warsaw pact in the central region in late 1988, counting crew-served systems and helicopter or vehicle-mounted systems, but excluding those that may be fired through the gun barrel of Soviet tanks.
Mr. Archie Hamilton : The overall number of anti-tank weapons held by the Warsaw pact in the central region in late 1988, excluding those that may be fired through the gun barrel of tanks, is assessed to be 13,700.
Chemical Weapons
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will list those Warsaw pact countries which were formerly producing chemical warfare agents but which have now ceased production ; (2) which Warsaw pact countries are currently manufacturing chemical warfare agents.
Mr. Archie Hamilton : The Soviet Union is the only member of the Warsaw pact to have admitted producing chemical warfare agents, and it has also claimed that such production has ceased. The other Warsaw pact countries have stated that they do not produce such agents, but none has provided any evidence to support its claims.
All the non-soviet Warsaw pact countries have chemical industries with the capability to produce chemical warfare agents and we believe that some have produced chemical weapons. The details of our assessments of individual countries' programmes are classified.
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what year the Soviet Union first deployed chemical
Column 366
weapons in any non-Soviet Warsaw pact country ; and whether (a) Soviet chemical warfare agents, (b) Soviet chemical weapons and (c) unfilled Soviet chemical munitions are currently deployed in any Warsaw pact country other than the Soviet Union.Mr. Archie Hamilton : In spite of Soviet claims, we have good reason to believe that the Soviet Union has stationed chemical weapons in Eastern Europe. I am not prepared to comment in detail for security reasons, but there is an obvious need for the Soviet Union to make available much more information about its chemical warfare capabilities.
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has on the supply of (a) chemical warfare agents and (b) precursors for chemical warfare agents by Warsaw pact countries to non- Warsaw pact countries.
Mr. Archie Hamilton : We have no evidence that in recent years any Warsaw pact country has supplied chemical warfare agents to any non-Warsaw pact country.
The Warsaw pact countries have very large chemical industries whose products are exported worldwide. Many of the precursors for chemical warfare agents are common chemicals which have a variety of legitimate uses. These are traded widely by many countries, including those of the Warsaw pact. The Warsaw pact countries have stated that they impose export controls on a number of the immediate precursors to chemical warfare agents, and we have no evidence that controls are being contravened.
Warsaw Pact (Aircraft)
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the portrayal of information in current and past editions of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" on the numbers of embarked and shore-based aircraft assigned for naval operations in the Warsaw pact's (a) northern fleet, (b) Baltic fleet and (c) Black sea fleet ; and if he will publish figures showing the numbers of aircraft in these categories in each fleet for each year since 1979.
Mr. Archie Hamilton : Revised figures for embarked and shore-based aircraft, fixed-wing and helicopters, assigned for naval operations in the Warsaw pact's Northern, Baltic and Black sea fleets from 1979 to 1989 are approximately as follows :
|Northern Fleet |Baltic Fleet |Black Sea Fleet
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1979 |350 |270 |260
1980 |360 |290 |270
1981 |370 |270 |300
1982 |400 |280 |300
1983 |400 |280 |320
1984 |420 |280 |330
1985 |400 |270 |300
1986 |450 |300 |300
1987 |425 |270 |300
1988 |425 |270 |300
1989 |425 |270 |280
Since 1985, the definitions of the type of aircraft included have altered and, as is the case with all estimates, the figures published in previous Statements on the Defence Estimates are subject to revision as new material becomes available.
Column 367
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the figures for Warsaw pact aircraft deployed west of the Urals on page 51 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989" include aircraft from front- line units which are undergoing maintenance and modification in addition to mission-ready aircraft.
Mr. Archie Hamilton : The aircraft figures quoted reflect the complete strength of the unit, which includes those undergoing maintenance and modification.
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the reasons for the decline between late 1986 and late 1987 in the numbers of Warsaw pact SRINF aircraft deployed west of the Urals, as depicted in figure 16 on page 68 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1987" and figure 19 on page 67 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988".
Mr. Archie Hamilton : The change in deployment numbers is the result of the reorganisation of the Soviet air and air defence forces. A number of air regiments were transferred from tactical aviation forces, which have a nuclear role, to the strategic air defence force which does not have a nuclear attack role.
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the reasons for the differences between the figures for Warsaw pact SRINF aircraft as at the end of 1988 provided in (a) the reply from the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) of 2 March, Official Report, column 254, and (b) figure 12 on page 51 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989", volume 1.
Mr. Archie Hamilton : The figures given in the answer on 2 March 1989 by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) at column 254 did not include the Frogfoot aircraft. This type of aircraft was included in figure 12 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989", Cm. 675-I, following a further assessment of its possible roles.
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the reasons for the change in the numbers of Warsaw pact long-range INF aircraft between the end of 1987 and the end of 1988, as depicted in figure 18 on page 66 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988" and figure 12 on page 51 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989".
Mr. Archie Hamilton : The reduction in the numerical strength of Warsaw pact LRINF medium bombers between 1987 and 1988 is due to the modernisation programme that has been undertaken by the Warsaw pact, with the continuing introduction of the Backfire
Column 368
supersonic dual-capable bomber. With the deployment of this superior weapon system, the Warsaw pact has been able to retire an increasing proportion of their ageing and obsolescent Badger medium bombers. Therefore, although the overall size of the aircraft component of the LRINF is gradually being reduced, its overall operational capability is being improved.Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the number of (a) Badger, (b) Blinder and (c) Backfire aircraft deployed by the Warsaw pact west of the Urals at the end of each year since 1979, excluding those with a primary maritime role.
Mr. Archie Hamilton : The approximate numbers were as follows :
|Badger |Blinder |Backfire|Totals
------------------------------------------------------
1979 |420 |160 |40 |620
1980 |450 |160 |70 |680
1981 |450 |160 |70 |680
1982 |450 |160 |80 |690
1983 |420 |160 |100 |680
1984 |410 |160 |100 |670
1985 |410 |160 |120 |690
1986 |350 |160 |130 |640
1987 |290 |160 |150 |600
1988 |290 |150 |160 |600
1989 |210 |150 |180 |540
HMS Chatham and HMS Norfolk
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the portrayal of the operational status of the Royal Navy vessels HMS Chatham and HMS Norfolk in annex A of volume 1 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989".
Mr. Archie Hamilton : HMS Chatham and HMS Norfolk are due to be accepted into service later this year, as is made clear at paragraph 324 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989, Cm 675-I. As such, they should have been marked by an asterisk in annex A. Unfortunately they were not, due to a printing error.
Warsaw Pact (Weapons)
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish in the Official Report a table updating the information contained in the table entitled "Weapons Production for Warsaw Pact Forces" on page 62 of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988 ;" and if he will include in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation figures the production of weapons by France and Spain.
Mr. Archie Hamilton : Estimated total production between 1979 and 1988 is as follows :
Column 367
|Soviet Union |Non-Soviet Warsaw Pact|Total Warsaw Pact |Total NATO
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Main Battle Tanks |26,000 |5,400 |31,400 |11,000
Other Armoured Vehicles |48,000 |6,300 |54,300 |20,800
Field Artillery, Mortars and
Rocket Launchers |25,000 |6,500 |31,500 |5,800
Tactical Combat and Interceptor
Aircraft |7,300 |1,200 |8,500 |6,400
Major Surface Warships |83 |23 |106 |175
Attack Submarines |64 |2 |66 |59
Note:
The above table is taken from the United States Secretary of Defence's Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1990. French and Spanish
production is not included.
Backfire Bombers
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the figures for the numbers of Backfire bombers in his answer to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) of 2 March, Official Report, column 255, included maritime-assigned Backfires ; and if he will provide figures showing the numbers of Backfire aircraft deployed in operational units in each year since 1985, excluding those with a maritime role.
Mr. Archie Hamilton : The figures given in the answer on 2 March by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) at column 255 include maritime-assigned aircraft. The number of Backfire aircraft deployed in operational units in each year since 1985, excluding those with a maritime role, are approximately as follows :
|Numbers
------------------------
1985 |120
1986 |130
1987 |150
1988 |160
1989 |180
LRINF Aircraft
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the numbers of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation LRINF aircraft listed in military balance tables in successive editions of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates" since 1984 include all aircraft deployed in Europe ; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Archie Hamilton : The number of aircraft presented in the Statement on the Defence Estimates covers all NATO's operational LRINF aircraft permanently based in Europe. As the tables show, these consist entirely of F-111 aircraft. There are also a further 12 EF-111 based in Europe, which would operate only in the electronic warfare role. Similarly, the figure presented for Warsaw pact LRINF aircraft does not include around 100 aircraft of the same types which it is believed would operate in non- nuclear, supporting roles. The final two sentences of paragraph 618 of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1989, Cm. 675-I, apply only to SRINF aircraft.
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what trends have been observed in the numbers of long-range INF aircraft deployed by the Warsaw pact since the end of 1988.
Mr. Archie Hamilton : The Warsaw pact continues to modernise its long-range INF air forces, as it replaces the obsolescent Badger medium bomber with the modern variable-geometry supersonic Backfire. The overall number of medium bombers has decreased, and will continue to do so as the Badger is withdrawn from service.
Column 370
However, within the next five years the aircraft component of the Warsaw pact's long-range INF force will consist of an all-supersonic force of Backfire and Blinder aircraft.Frogfoot
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what year the Su-25 Frogfoot entered service with the Warsaw pact.
Mr. Archie Hamilton : Production of the Su-25 Frogfoot began in 1980. We assess that the first units became operational in the conventional role in the USSR in 1981. Subsequently, the aircraft was used operationally in Afghanistan.
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what year the Su-25 Frogfoot is assessed to have acquired a nuclear capability.
Mr. Archie Hamilton : All Soviet ground-attack aircraft have a potential nuclear delivery capability. The Su-25 Frogfoot entered operational service in 1981 in the conventional role, but was not assessed by NATO to have acquired a nuclear capability until 1988.
Flanker
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what year the Su-27 Flanker entered service with the Warsaw pact.
Mr. Archie Hamilton : The Su-27 Flanker entered service with the Soviet strategic air defence force in 1985.
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence in what year the Su-27 Flanker is assessed to have acquired a nuclear capability.
Mr. Archie Hamilton : Some Su-27 Flanker aircraft have the primary mission of air superiority in the central region. In fulfilling this role, the aircraft is equally likely to attack targets in the air or on the ground. The Flanker is capable of both nuclear and conventional ground- attack operations, and is assessed to have been so since 1987.
Conventional Forces (Balance)
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration is being given to the diversion of military personnel to non- military tasks such as public works and environmental restoration in the event of achievement of a conventional force balance in Europe at force levels lower than those currently maintained by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
Mr. Archie Hamilton : NATO is committed to seeking an agreement on conventional forces in Europe which will lead to a stable and secure balance at lower levels, but at this stage it would be premature to speculate on which
Column 371
military units might be affected. It is unlikely that the Ministry of Defence would be responsible for redeploying service personnel to non-military tasks.Warsaw Pact (Arms Production)
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what independent British national capability exists for assessment and calculation of Warsaw pact arms production levels.
Mr. Archie Hamilton : This capability is provided by the defence intelligence staff, whose responsibilities include the assessment of Warsaw pact arms production levels.
Ammunition Propellant
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation ammunition propellant is manufactured in Czechoslovakia.
Mr. Archie Hamilton : Logistics matters, including the procurement of ammunition propellant, are a national responsibility. I am not aware of any instance where propellant manufactured in Czechoslovakia has been used in Ministry of Defence ammunition.
Soviet Naval Activity
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what trends have been observed in Soviet naval activity in the eastern Atlantic since the publication of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988".
Mr. Archie Hamilton : Since the publication of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1988, Soviet naval activity in the eastern Atlantic has remained virtually constant at the reduced level observed in 1987.
Soviet Defence Spending
Mr. Boyes : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the implications for British defence policy of the announced halving of Soviet defence spending by 1995.
Mr. Archie Hamilton : We welcome the recent announcement by the Soviet Prime Minister of plans to reduce the proportion of national income devoted to defence, but the implications for the future Soviet defence programme are far from clear, and we await further details with interest. In the meantime, the Soviet Union and its allies in the Warsaw pact continue to have a massive superiority in many types of conventional armaments in Europe. Our commitment to the mutual defence provided by NATO, and to NATO's policy of strength in defence combined with readiness for dialogue and co-operation with the East, will remain the foundation of our defence policy.
Departmental Property
Mr. Soley : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many properties are leased by his Department from the local authority in (a) Greater Manchester metropolitan county, (b) Westminster, (c) Suffolk Coastal and (d) Isles of Scilly.
Mr. Neubert : The answers are as follows : (a) Six (three office properties and three separate areas of land on which
Column 372
MOD have subsequently had built a total of 37 residential properties) ; (b) None ; (c) None ; (d) One, a small fuel store of approximately 22 sq m.Ptarmigan
Mr. Rogers : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has any plans to increase the number of Ptarmigan mobile trunk modes currently in service with the British Army.
Mr. Sainsbury : No decision has yet been taken on further orders for trunk modes for the Ptarmigan system.
Buccaneer
Mr. Rogers : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration has been given to replacing the Buccaneer maritime strike aircraft.
Mr. Sainsbury : We are now carefully studying the need to replace the Buccaneeer in due course.
IUKADGE Command and Control System
Mr. Rogers : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consideration was given to using one common computer software language for the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment command and control system when its specifications were originally determined.
Mr. Sainsbury : During the nationally funded project definition stage of the IUKADGE CCS in 1977-78, consideration was given to the use of a single preferred software language, CORAL 66, and the codes of software practice extant at that time. However, a subsequent decision to seek maximum return from the NATO common infrastructure budget resulted in the United Kingdom having to abide by the rules of NATO international competitive bidding, ICB, existing at the time, which precluded the specification of a single software language. In addition, the NATO financial authorities directed that existing NATO Air Defence Ground Environment, NADGE software was to be re-used to the greatest extent possible.
Mr. Rogers : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the current estimate of the date on which the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment command and control system will be declared fully operational ;
(2) when the improved United Kingdom air defence ground environment command and control system was intended to be fully operational when it was first ordered.
| Next Section
| Home Page |