Previous Section Home Page

Immigration (False Imprisonment)

Mr. Allen : To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what redress is available to visitors detained at airports but eventually allowed entry in respect of false imprisonment ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Charles Wardle [holding answer 20 January 1994] : Paragraph 16 of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 provides that a person who may be required to submit to examination may be detained under the authority of an immigration officer pending his examination and pending a decision to give or refuse him leave to enter. It is open to anyone who considers that he has been falsely imprisoned to sue for damages.

SCOTLAND

Large Combustion Plant Directive

Mr. Kynoch : To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on compliance to date with the Scottish limits in the United Kingdom national plan to meet the requirements of the EC large combustion plant directive.

Sir Hector Monro : None of the Scottish limits set in the plan was exceeded in the years 1991 to 1993 inclusive. However, on 21 December 1993 a transfer was made of 12 kilotonnes of sulphur dioxide from the other industry sector to the power stations sector with effect from 1996, declining pro rata to the existing reductions from 1999 to 2003. The revised figures are set out in the table. This minor technical change recognises the new five year contract agreed between British Coal and Scottish Power and the latter's commitment to fit flue gas desulphurisation equipment at Longannet power station.


Revised LCPD national plan SO2 limits for Scotland (in kilotonnes)         

               |Power stations|Refineries    |Other industry               

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1993           |104           |14            |35                           

1994           |102           |14            |34                           

1995           |102           |14            |32                           

1996           |114 (102)     |14            |19 (31)                      

1997           |114 (102)     |14            |18 (30)                      

1998           |111  (99)     |13            |17 (29)                      

1999           |98  (88)      |13            |17 (27)                      

2000           |86  (77)      |13            |16 (25)                      

2001           |77  (68)      |12            |15 (24)                      

2002           |70  (62)      |12            |14 (22)                      

2003           |63  (57)      |12            |14 (20)                      

Note: The figures in the existing national plan are shown in parenthesis,  

where any change has been made.                                            

DEFENCE

Arms Sales, Iraq

Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he has anything to add to the answer by the Minister for Arms Procurement to the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) of 25 January 1991, Official Report, column 357.

Mr. Aitken : No. This issue is being investigated by Lord Justice Scott, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment before the publication of his final report. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that Lord Justice Scott has access to all relevant documents.

Artillery Shell Sales

Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information his Department holds in regard to the underwriting by the Bank of Credit and Commerce International of the export of artillery shells from British companies to Iran since 1985.

Mr. Aitken : My Department holds no such information.

Canira Technical Company Ltd.

Mr. Llew Smith : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he possesses in regard to the ownership and trading activities of the Canira Technical Company Ltd. of Northern Ireland in relation to the Iraqi arms procurement programme.

Mr. Aitken : This issue is being investigated by Lord Justice Scott, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment before the publication of his final report. I can assure the hon. Member, however, that Lord Justice Scott has access to all relevant documents.

Low Flying

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence between what hours the night low flying system is activated.

Mr. Hanley : The United Kingdom night low flying system is operational between the following hours each month :


          |Start |Finish       

-------------------------------

January   |16.30 |07.30        

February  |17.30 |07.00        

March     |18.30 |06.00        

April     |19.30 |04.30        

May       |20.30 |03.30        

June      |21.00 |03.00        

July      |21.00 |03.30        

August    |20.00 |04.00        

September |18.30 |05.00        

October   |17.30 |06.00        

November  |16.30 |07.00        

December  |16.00 |07.30        

All times are Greenwich mean time.

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for which portion of the flight by 29 Squadron Tornado F3s on 12 April 1993 the specified minimum authorised altitude applied ; and who was responsible for issuing the authorisation.

Mr. Hanley : The specified minimum authorised altitude of 2,000 ft applied to the entire duration of the flight by 29 Squadron on 12 April 1993--apart from take-off and landing. Two thousand feet is the minimum altitude down to which all United Kingdom military aircraft can fly without specific authorisation, normally by either the squadron commander or one of his senior officers. On this occasion no such authorisation was given.

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions are given to military aircrew concerning use of an air traffic control radar service when descending into the United Kingdom low flying system in visual meteorological conditions in unregulated airspace in the flight information region.

Mr. Hanley : No instructions are given to military aircrew concerning the use of such a service when descending to low level in visual meteorological conditions in unregulated airspace in the flight information region.

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the arrangements for separation of low-flying military aircraft from offshore industry support helicopters during the hours of darkness, in the coastal areas around (a) the Humber estuary, (b) Morecambe bay, (c) north-east Norfolk and (d) the Aberdeen-Fraserburgh area.

Mr. Hanley : Details of civil helicopter activity in each of the areas specified are brought to the attention of aircrews in the United Kingdom military low flying handbook and on the night low flying chart. Separation from offshore industry support helicopters is achieved by military aircraft operating in separate height bands.

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on which date low flying area 10 was established in Suffolk ; which unit is the controlling authority for the area ; and what are the limits on entry of fast jets into the area.

Mr. Hanley : Low flying area 10 was established on 1 September 1993 and is controlled by Wattisham airfield. Fast jets wishing to operate in the area must seek permission from the controlling authority.

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if aircrew are permitted to plan entries into particular areas in the night low flying system contrary to the sector-to-sector flow direction when no other aircraft have booked to fly in that area.


Column 930

Mr. Hanley : The fixed wing region of the United Kingdom night low flying system is divided into a series of numbered night low flying areas, each of which is sub-divided by letter into night low flying sectors. Aircraft crossing from sector to sector must follow the flow direction specified in the regulations except that when an aircraft or formation has exclusive use of an entire NLFA, it may cross the sector boundaries within that area in either direction, but must still comply with the flow direction if crossing to an adjacent area.

Mr. Reádmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the minimum height for military aircraft transitting through the Leeming- Teesside gap at low level ; and on what date the current height limit was introduced.

Mr. Hanley : The minimum and maximum heights for fixed wing military aircraft transitting through the Leeming-Teesside gap are, respectively, 250 and 1000 ft. These limits have applied since the introduction of the present United Kingdom low flying system in 1979.

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the requirement in the low flying regulations for military aircrew to make radio contact with Brough airfield prior to transitting the Hull-Brough gap, was changed to a requirement to contact Humberside airport.

Mr. Hanley : Military aircrew are strongly advised to call Humberside radar prior to transitting the Hull-Brough gap, but this is not a mandatory requirement. The change from Brough airfield to Humberside radar came into effect on 15 June 1992.

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the transit areas established in the daytime low flying system are in force in the night low flying system.

Mr. Hanley : Yes. Transit areas apply equally to military aircraft operating during the day and at night.

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what central records are held by his Department of the number of aircraft movements into each numbered low flying area in the night flying system.

Mr. Hanley : Central records are maintained on a monthly basis of the number of aircraft movements into each sector of the United Kingdom night low flying system.

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the maximum permitted speeds and minimum permitted altitudes for Royal Air Force Vulcan aircraft, prior to their retiral from the strike/attack role, while operating in the United Kingdom low flying system (a) on the fixed tactical routes and (b) outside the tactical routes.

Mr. Hanley : RAF Vulcan aircraft were permitted to fly at an absolute maximum of 350 knots and a minimum height of 300 ft in the United Kingdom low flying system. The aircraft did not operate outside fixed tactical routes except when using designated range areas.

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the locations and dates in the last five years on which No. 591 Signals Unit, Royal Air Force, has


Column 931

conducted covert monitoring of tactical radio frequencies used by aircraft operating in the United Kingdom low flying system ; and on how many occasions this has included monitoring of the common low flying frequency.

Mr. Hanley : No. 591 Signals Unit has never been tasked to carry out covert monitoring of tactical radio frequencies used by aircraft operating in the United Kingdom low flying system.

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if night low flying is permitted over (a) the Western Isles, (b) Orkney, (c) Shetland and (d) the northern half of the Isle of Man ; and what are the reasons for their exclusion from the system of numbered night low flying areas.

Mr. Hanley : With the exception of the Isle of Man, which is designated an avoidance area, aircraft are permitted to overfly the areas listed at low level at night. These areas are not included in the system of numbered night low flying areas because the amount of low flying carried out over them at night is not sufficient to justify their inclusion in the system of procedural deconfliction which exists elsewhere.

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many low -level flights in instrument meteorological conditions were undertaken by RAF Tornados from Canadian forces base Goose Bay (a) during daylight hours and (b) at night during each of the years 1991, 1992 and 1993.

Mr. Hanley : The records of sorties flown from Goose Bay do not differentiate between those sorties flown under visual flying rules and those flown under instrument meteorological conditions. The statistics requested are therefore unavailable.

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the agreed annual number of low-flying


Column 932

sorties over the United Kingdom by aircraft participating in North Atlantic Treaty Organisation tactical leadership programme courses.

Mr. Hanley : The NATO tactical leadership programme holds six courses per year and was permitted in 1993 to fly an average of two low- level sorties per course in the United Kingdom low flying system. Each low- level sortie in the United Kingdom may involve up to 24 aircraft.

RAF Fast-jet Aircrew

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many person-days have been spent by Royal Air Force fast-jet aircrew on operational deployments to actual or potential areas of combat operations in each year since 1981.

Mr. Hanley : The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost and effort.

Goose Bay Training Base

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the amounts paid to the Canadian Government in each year since 1980 for use of the training facilities at Goose Bay, Labrador ; and if he will provide a breakdown of the figures into (a) contributions to personnel, operations and maintenance expenditure, (b) contributions to common user building, infrastructure, facility and equipment expenditure, (c) payments for dedicated user buildings, infrastructure, facilities and equipment and (d) contributions to expenditure on environmental research and mitigation measures.

Mr. Hanley : Amounts paid for financial years prior to 1986-87 are not readily available. For financial years 1986-87 to the end of September 1993 the breakdown is as follows :


Column 931


RAF(U) Goose Bay-breakdown of costs                                                                                                                                         

                                      Financial year                                                                                                                        

                                     |1986-87       |1987-88       |1988-89       |1989-90       |1990-91       |1991-92       |1992-93       |1993-94 to end               

                                                                                                                                              |October 1993                 

                                     |£ million     |£ million     |£ million     |£ million     |£ million     |£ million     |£ million     |£ million                    

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personnel                            |0.560         |0.878         |0.771         |1.066         |4.509         |3.423         |3.876         |2.183                        

O & M + Capital                      |3.057         |2.973         |5.406         |6.842         |4.683         |6.245         |9.601         |4.382                        

                                     |-------       |-------       |-------       |-------       |-------       |-------       |-------       |-------                      

Total contribution payable to Canada |3.617         |3.851         |6.177         |7.907         |9.192         |9.668         |13.476        |6.565                        

                                                                                                                                                                            

Dedicated costs                                                                                                                                                             

Buildings and Infrastructure         |1.831         |1.414         |1.941         |1.782         |0.608         |0.955         |2.424         |0.816                        

Facilities                           |0.530         |0.561         |1.195         |1.123         |0.942         |0.951         |1.439         |0.843                        

Equipment                            |0.050         |0.073         |0.144         |0.144         |0.085         |0.127         |0.033         |0.014                        

Aviation/Land Fuels                  |0.015         |0.003         |1.292         |2.810         |1.512         |1.476         |2.608         |1.264                        

                                     |-------       |-------       |-------       |-------       |-------       |-------       |-------       |-------                      

Total dedicated costs                |2.395         |2.051         |4.573         |5.859         |3.146         |3.508         |6.503         |2.936                        

                                                                                                                                                                            

Common costs                                                                                                                                                                

Buildings and Infrastructure         |0.452         |0.482         |0.160         |0.225         |0.922         |2.131         |2.433         |1.116                        

Facilities                           |0.175         |0.207         |0.460         |0.323         |0.141         |0.142         |0.158         |0.064                        

Equipment                            |0.034         |0.231         |0.212         |0.438         |0.407         |0.428         |0.393         |0.240                        

Environmental Mitigation Measures    |0.000         |0.000         |0.000         |0.000         |0.067         |0.037         |0.114         |0.025                        

                                     |-------       |-------       |-------       |-------       |-------       |-------       |-------       |-------                      

Total common costs                   |0.661         |0.921         |0.832         |0.985         |1.537         |2.738         |3.098         |1.446                        

                                     |-------       |-------       |-------       |-------       |-------       |-------       |-------       |-------                      

Exchange Rate £ =                    |C$2.043       |C$2.12        |C$2.119       |C$1.923       |C$2.132       |C$1.996       |C$2.073       |C$1.96                       

Figures shown are based on bills presented by the Canadian Government.                                                                                                      


Column 933

Tornado Incidents

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the action taken as a result of the incident involving a Scandinavian Airlines MD-80 and a Tornado from the trinational training establishment in the Manchester air traffic control zone in November 1992.

Mr. Hanley : The crew of the Tornado involved in the incident on 4 November 1992 were formally interviewed by their squadron commander upon their return to the Tornado trinational training establishment and extensively debriefed on the procedures for dealing with the situation which had arisen. A review of TTTE procedures was conducted at RAF Cottesmore in particular relating to briefing for low level flying and emergency pull-up procedures. These are re-emphasised at all pre-flight briefings and are rechecked by squadron authorising officers.

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the joint airmiss working group report on the airmiss between an Army Lynx helicopter and an RAF Tornado over the North Yorkshire moors on 12 January 1993.

Mr. Hanley : A copy of the report will be placed in the Library of the House.

Tornado F3 (Fuel Tanks)

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates and circumstances of all incidents involving the inadvertent jettisoning of underwing fuel tanks by Tornado F3 aircraft from RAF Leeming.

Mr. Hanley : The information requested is as follows :


Date                                                                                                                                                                 |Circumstances                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

15 January 1991                                                                                                                                                      |The cause was not positively determined, although it was considered the most likely cause was the inadvertent hitting of the selective jettison button by the pilot.                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

5 October 1992                                                                                                                                                       |Inadvertent operation of the selective jettison button by the navigator as he tried to resolve a fault in the underwing stores management panel.                                                                                                                                                                                         

Both incidents were fully investigated and the lessons to be drawn were disseminated throughout the RAF.

Phantom

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the circumstances of an incident at Bentham, North Yorkshire, in September 1991, in which a Phantom aircraft lost part of its engine during flight.

Mr. Hanley : On 11 September 1991 a RAF Phantom aircraft was flying at 500 ft and 420 knots over north Yorkshire when an explosion was heard from the right engine. The engine was shut down and the pilot diverted to RAF Leeming. On investigation the engine pressure and high pressure turbine assemblies were found to have seized. Small pieces of engine debris fell on the roof and car park of the Angus Fire factory in High Bentham, causing some minor damage. There were eight claims as a result of this incident, all of which have been settled.


Column 934

Exercise Luce Belle

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the reason for the exclusion of the Buccaneer aircraft from the Exercise Luce Belle noise measurement programme.

Mr. Hanley : The Buccaneer's primary role is maritime strike/attack ; it does not conduct a significant amount of low flying over land in the United Kingdom low flying system. It was excluded from Exercise Luce Belle on that basis.

Military Aircraft (Radio Communication)

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those military aircraft types in United Kingdom military, and United Kingdom-based United States military service, which do not possess radios capable of communicating on very high frequency civil air traffic control frequencies.

Mr. Hanley : All United Kingdom military aircraft are capable of communicating on very high frequency civil air traffic control frequencies. United Kingdom-based United States F15C and F15E aircraft are not capable of communicating on VHF frequencies, but would communicate with air traffic control using VHF frequencies.

Instrument Meteorological Flights

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the regulations governing flight by military aircraft in instrument meteorological conditions at less than 3,000 ft altitude outside controlled or regulated airspace ; and what measures are taken to ensure separation of aircraft flying in these conditions from other air traffic.

Mr. Hanley : Military aircraft are not permitted to operate below 3,000 ft above mean sea level in instrument meteorological conditions outside controlled or regulated airspace except : when they are taking off or landing ; when they are descending to or climbing out from authorised low-level flight ; or when special dispensation has been granted. In these circumstances, aircrew will as far as possible avoid areas of known airborne activity or will make use of air traffic services to maintain separation from other aircraft. In addition, military aircraft conduct low flying training in instrument meteorological conditions in the highlands restricted area using terrain-following radar.

Military Aircraft (Live Weapons)

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each year since 1989 and by (a) location and (b) aircraft type when a military aircraft carrying live weapons has landed at a civil airport in the United Kingdom as a matter of urgency ; and if he will show in his answer the type of weapons being carried.

Mr. Hanley : The information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Skyguard

Mr. Redmond : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the (a) date and (b) locations when the Skyguard surveillance system has been operated since its inception.


Column 935

Mr. Hanley : Since its introduction, Skyguard radar has been deployed to the following locations to monitor low flying :


Location                                 |Dates                                          

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Knaresborough, North Yorkshire           |27 to 29 June 1989                             

Penrith, Cumbria                         |1 to 3 August 1989                             

Alnwick, Northumberland                  |3 to 5 October 1989                            

Morpeth, Northumberland                  |27 to 29 March 1990                            

Shepton Mallet, Somerset                 |10 to 13 July 1990                             

Grange-over-Sands/Carnforth, Cumbria     |17 to 20 September 1990                        

Leeming/Teesside Gap, North Yorkshire    |1 to 4 October 1990                            

Peterborough, Cambridgeshire             |13 to 15 November 1990                         

Richmond/Barnard Castle, North Yorkshire |23 to 25 April 1991                            

Rhaydar area, Powys                      |1 to 4 July 1991                               

Morpeth area, Northumberland             |16 to 18 July 1991                             

Cley and Stiffkey, Norfolk               |22 to 24 October 1991                          

East Fortune, Lothian                    |10 to 13 February 1992                         

Duns, Berwickshire                       |9 to 12 March 1992                             

Carmarthen, Dyfed                        |7 to 9 April, 1992                             

Dumfries area, Dumfries and Galloway     |18 to 21 May 1992                              

Forest of Dean, Gloucester               |8 to 11 June 1992                              

Beverley, Humberside                     |29 June to 2 July 1992                         

Conon Bridge, Ross and Cromarty          |21 to 24 September 1992                        

Market Deeping, Lincolnshire             |17 to 18 November 1992                         

Cockermouth, Cumbria                     |23 to 25 February 1993                         

Upper Dinmore, Hereford and Worcester    |26 to 29 April 1993                            

Norwich, Norfolk                         |21 to 24 June 1993                             

Lake Bala, Gwynedd                       |12 to 14 July 1993                             

Thurso, Caithness and Sutherland         |20 to 23 September 1993                        

Alnmouth, Northumberland                 |27 to 30 September 1993                        

Chirnside, Berwickshire                  |25 to 28 October 1993                          

Hornby, Lancashire                       |23 to 25 November 1993                         

Daventry, Northamptonshire               |7 to 9 December 1993                           

Market Testing

Mr. McAllion : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish for each service that has been market tested in his Department in 1993 (a) the cost of the testing process, including consultancy costs, (b) the result of the test, (c) the name of the successful contractor, (d) the value and duration of the contract, (e) the number of staff involved, (f) estimated annual cost reductions and (g) whether the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 were deemed to apply.

Mr. Aitken : My Department is currently analysing the outcome of the 1992-93 "Competing for Quality" programme with the efficiency unit in the Cabinet Office. Much of the information requested in the question will, once it has been finalised, be published in aggregate form in the "Citizen's Charter Second Report".

Ships (Medical Provision)

Mr. Nigel Jones : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what medical provision is provided on board Royal Navy (a) aircraft carriers, (b) landing ships,


Column 936

(c) destroyers, (d) frigates, (e) minesweepers, (f) minehunters, (g) patrol boats and (h) other small craft in terms of qualified doctors, nurses and other staff.

Mr. Hanley : The information requested is as follows :

(a) Aircraft Carriers

2 Medical Officers--1 surgeon, 1 anaesthetist

1 Dental Officer

1 Operating Department Assistant

1 Laboratory Technician

6 Medical Assistants

(b) Landing Ships

1 Medical Officer

1 Dental Officer

7 Medical Assistants

(c) Destroyers and Frigates

The complements of all destroyers and frigates include a medical assistant ; in addition, vessels designated to lead destroyer or frigate squadrons and those operating independently, or on directed tasks, carry a medical officer.

(d) Minesweepers, Minehunters, Patrol Boats and Other Small Craft

These ships are classed as minor war vessels and carry no dedicated medical personnel, but all minor war vessels Coxswains undergo special first aid training at the Royal Naval medical staff school.

Pregnant Women

Mr. Martlew : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimates he has of the amount of money that will be spent in 1993-94 and 1994-95 in compensation to women who had to leave the armed forces because they became pregnant ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hanley : It is not possible to estimate reliably the amount of money that will be spent in 1993-94 and 1994-95 in compensation to women who were compulsorily discharged from the services on grounds of pregnancy between 9 August 1978 and August 1990.

Mr. Martlew : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many women in each year since 1980 who left the forces because they became pregnant subsequently rejoined the forces ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hanley : My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Martlew : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many women have left each of the armed forces in each year since 1980 because they became pregnant ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hanley : The numbers of women who left the Armed Forces in each year since 1980 because they became pregnant, are as follows :


Column 935


                 Female officers                                 Non-commissioned                                                               

                                 females                                                                                                        

Financial year  |Royal Navy     |Army           |Royal Air Force|Royal Navy     |Army           |Royal Air Force|Total                          

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1979-80         |4              |13             |7              |55             |174            |162            |415                            

1980-81         |6              |13             |13             |72             |185            |179            |468                            

1981-82         |11             |21             |23             |84             |250            |186            |575                            

1982-83         |8              |15             |16             |95             |208            |186            |528                            

1983-84         |5              |9              |12             |103            |179            |161            |469                            

1984-85         |6              |14             |12             |113            |195            |175            |515                            

1985-86         |6              |13             |15             |100            |226            |156            |516                            

1986-87         |6              |10             |18             |104            |176            |151            |465                            

1987-88         |7              |15             |16             |125            |205            |186            |554                            

1988-89         |3              |12             |18             |86             |143            |160            |442                            

1989-90         |4              |14             |15             |84             |157            |157            |431                            

1990-91         |3              |17             |12             |60             |167            |124            |383                            

1991-92         |4              |17             |15             |78             |177            |140            |431                            

1992-93         |3              |16             |18             |85             |204            |112            |438                            

Notes:                                                                                                                                          

1. Actual figures for the numbers of female officers leaving on pregnancy are not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate      

effort. The figures provided are therefore estimates based on the percentage of non-commissioned females leaving on pregnancy.                  

2. Prior to August 1990, service women who became pregnant were compulsorily discharged. In August 1990, maternity leave was introduced and     

pregnant service women could choose whether to leave or take maternity leave. The figures for 1990-91 cover both those who were compulsorily    

discharged prior to August 1990 and those who opted to leave after that date.                                                                   

Mr. Martlew : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Ministry has had with the Equal Opportunities Commission about conditions covering women employed in the forces who became pregnant ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hanley : There have been no formal discussions about conditions for service women who became pregnant between my Department and the Equal Opportunities Commission. The commission was, however, made aware in 1990 of the introduction of maternity leave for servicewomen.

Mr. Martlew : To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been spent in compensation to women who had to leave the armed forces because they became pregnant ; how many women have received compensation ; what is the (a) maximum, (b) minimum and (c) average amount paid ; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hanley : A total of £7,822,943 has so far been paid in compensation to women who were compulsorily discharged from the armed forces on grounds of pregnancy between August 1978 and August 1990 when maternity leave was introduced. Compensation has been paid to 1, 679 claimants. The average amount paid is £4,659. The maximum awarded by a tribunal is £172,921--but this will be the subject of an appeal by the MOD to the employment appeals tribunal. The minimum payment has been for £500.


Next Section

  Home Page