Previous Section Home Page

DEFENCE

Low Flying

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on actions taken by his Department in response to recommendation 92 7 of the air accidents investigation branch report No. 2/92.

Mr. Soames: My Department, in conjunction with the Civil Aviation authority, has actioned the recommendation as follows:

(i) Civil operators continue to be notified of intense military low flying through the notice to airmen system.

(ii) Aeronautical information circular 63/1992 was published to provide civil users with information about the United Kingdom military low flying system, and advice on how to reduce the risk of confliction with military low-flying aircraft. a revised version, AIC 89/1993, was issued in June 1993.

Additionally, in response to recommendation 92 8 of the same Report, my Department has provided details, for inclusion on Civil Aviation Authority charts, of the


Column 365

unidirectional flows which apply to military aircraft in areas of greatest density of activity or where activity is restricted to a narrow corridor between avoidance areas.

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what restrictions are imposed on the activation of on-board electronic counter- measures equipment by aircrew performing simulated low-level attacks on threat emitters located outside range areas in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Soames: There are strict procedures covering the activation of on-board electronic countermeasures equipment and no airborne jamming is permitted without prior authorisation having been granted or without two- way communications with the controlling authority.

Skyguard

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if aircrew carrying out sorties in the United Kingdom low flying system are informed of the locations of Skyguard radars deployed as electronic threat emitters in the low flying system.

Mr. Soames: When Skyguard is deployed outside RAF Spadeadam as an electronic warfare threat emitter, aircrews participating in the exercise may be informed of the location depending on the nature of the exercise.

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the dates and locations of deployments of Skyguard radars in the electronic warfare threat simulator role beyond the Spadeadam range boundaries since January 1992.

Mr. Soames: The dates and locations of deployments of the Skyguard radar in the electronic warfare threat role outside RAF Spadeadam since January 1992 are as follows:


Date                                  |Location                                                                   

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

17-22 May 1992                        |South Wales                                                                

25-29 January 1993                    |Sanquhar, Dumfries                                                         

11-16 July 1993                       |South Wales                                                                

26 November-3 December 1993           |Tiverton, Devon                                                            

6-10 December 1993                    |Hunterston Power Station, Strathclyde                                      

11-15 April 1994                      |RAF Odiham area, Hampshire                                                 

11-15 July 1994                       |Rhayader, Powys                                                            

24 September-1 October 1994           |Liskeard, Cornwall                                                         

6-10 November 1994                    |Oban, Strathclyde                                                          

Tornado F3 Squadrons

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF Tornado F3 squadrons will be assigned to the NATO immediate reaction forces (air) from January 1995; and what proposals he has to increase this number.

Mr. Soames: It is not our practice to disclose such details of assigned forces. The annual statement on the defence estimates does, however, describe the assets planned to be assigned against NATO reaction forces generally.

Holloman Air Force Base

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have been held with (a) the United States authorities and (b) the German authorities


Column 366

concerning the development of facilities at Holloman air force base, New Mexico, for Royal Air force training.

Mr. Soames: No such discussions have been held.

NATO Reaction Forces (Air)

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to designate specific air bases in the United Kingdom as locations for deployment and joint training by units of the NATO reaction forces (air).

Mr. Soames: None.

RAF Spadeadam

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the payments made by foreign air forces for use of the Spadeadam electronic warfare range facilities are credited to RAF Spadeadam's own financial accounts.

Mr. Soames: Payments made to the RAF by foreign air forces for the use of the range at RAF Spadeadam are credited to RAF Spadeadam's budget.

Slovakia

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what were the aims of the visit of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence to Slovakia in August 1994; and what agreements were reached with the Slovak authorities as a result of that visit.

Mr. Soames: My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence visited Solvakia in August 1994 to represent the United Kingdom at the commemorations of the 50th anniversary of the Slovak national uprising. During discussions with the Slovak Defence Minister it was agreed that units of the armed forces of the Slovak Republic and of the United Kingdom should in future co-operate through a series of joint military exercises and that our respective military authorities would meet jointly to develop proposals. It was further agreed that this would be complemented by a programme of closer and more substantial military contracts.

RAF Training (Morocco)

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the dates, locations, and numbers and types of aircraft involved in the next planned Royal Air Force training deployment to Morocco.

Mr. Soames: On current plans, six Royal Air Force Tornado GR1B aircraft will detach to Sidi Slimane air base in Morocco from 24 to 31 March to participate in a bilateral exercise with the Moroccan air force.

Internet

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the plans of his Department to make information available on Internet and the documents which he intends to be made available on Internet over the next year which will be accessible via the world wide web server "open.gov.UK" or any specific departmental server.

Mr. Soames: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Ms Campbell) on 1 December 1994, Official Report , column 913 .


Column 367

Anti-personnel Mines

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether United Kingdom forces in battle during (a) the Falklands and (b) the Gulf conflicts deployed any of their stocks of German manufactured anti- personnel mines.

Mr. Soames: The UK has not held stocks of German manufactured anti- personnel mines since 1983. The last such mines still held at the time of the Falklands conflict were obsolete and were not deployed with British forces.

Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which manufacturers are currently supplying the United Kingdom armed forces with anti-personnel land mines, including those with self-destruct or self- neutralising mechanisms.

Mr. Freeman: None.

Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what types of anti-personnel land mines, including those with self-destruct or self- neutralising mechanisms, are currently in use or stocked by the United Kingdom armed forces.

Mr. Freeman: The United Kingdom armed forces have in stock and available for use the following anti-personnel land mines:

(a) Mine, anti-personnel C3 (Elsie)

(b) Mine, anti-personnel M18 A1 (Claymore)

(c) Mine, anti-personnel L10 (Ranger)

None of the above types have self-destruct or self-neutralising mechanisms.

Mr. Pickthall: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what definitions are used by his Department for (a) self-destruct and (b) self- neutralising anti-personnel land mines.

Mr. Freeman: The Ministry of Defence is using the definitions included in the draft of protocol II of the UN weaponry convention, namely:

(a) Self-destruction mechanism means an incorporated automatically functioning mechanism which secures the destruction of the munition. (b) Self-neutralising mechanism means an incorporated automatically functioning mechanism which renders a munition inoperable.

Service Personnel

Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the statistics for divorces amongst service personnel for the period 1990 to 1994.

Mr. Soames: The number of recorded divorces for Army and Royal Air Force personnel is as follows:


      |Army |RAF        

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

1990  |1,409|867        

1991  |1,352|862        

1992  |1,347|824        

1993  |1,157|779        

Figures for calendar year 1994 are not yet available.

The information requested for Royal Navy personnel is not held in a form which is readily available and could not be provided without disproportionate cost.

Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will identify, by rank and by service, the entitlement to free trips home each year by personnel


Column 368

serving overseas; and if he will set out the cost of this provision for the financial year 1993 94 and 1994 95.

Mr. Soames: Generally, only serving personnel who are married but not accompanied by their wives, or single personnel under 25, with an expectation of at least 12 months service overseas, have the option of a return trip to the United Kingdom at public expense. Subsequently, there is an entitlement for a further return trip at public expense for each additional year overseas. This entitlement is not based on rank or service. Among the exceptions to the standard scheme are the Ascension Islands, Diego Garcia and the Falkland Islands, where service personnel in other domestic circumstances may also be entitled to such travel. Details of the costs of this provision are not held separately and could not be provided.

Civil Servants

Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 1 December 1994, Official Report , column 897 , if he will set out those officials who left the Defence Services Organisation to join defence or defence-related companies.

Mr. Freeman: Approval was given for the following applications from two officers in the Defence Export Services Organisation. It is not known if they were taken up.


                                                               

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

BAe                          |1 x Commander RN                 

Computer Devices             |1 x Commander RN                 

EDS/Scicon                   |1 x Commander RN                 

Ferranti International       |1 x Commander RN                 

GEC-Marconi Naval Systems    |1 x Commander RN                 

Marconi (Underwater) Systems |1 x Commander RN                 

MSI Defence Systems          |1 x Commander RN                 

NI Tech                      |1 x Commander RN                 

Vosper Thornycroft           |1 x Commander RN                 

Yarrow Shipbuilders          |1 x Commander RN                 

Operation Granby

Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if animals are used in scientific experiments relating to illness arising out of Operation Granby; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Soames: This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, CBDE to write to the hon. Member. Letter from Graham Pearson to Mr. Derek Fatchett, dated 16 January 1995:

1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking if animals are used in scientific experiments relating to illness arising out of Operation GRANBY and if he will make a statement has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them.

3. No work is being carried out at CBDE to investigate illness which may have arisen out of Operation GRANBY.

4. However, following the Gulf conflict, increased emphasis has been placed on biological defence which primarily consists of detection and medical countermeasures. The programme of work on medical countermeasures includes the continuing study of both


Column 369

vaccines and antibiotics against a range of potential biological warfare agents. This work has necessitated the use of more animals.

Boarding School Allowance

Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many children of serving officers in each service have school fees subsidised at public expense; which schools are involved; how many children of service personnel attend each; and what was the cost of this provision for 1993 94 and 1994 95.

Mr. Soames: My Department provides support to service parents for the education of their children by means of boarding school allowance; this is paid to assist in providing a stable education for their children in the face of the domestic turbulence frequently encountered in service life. The numbers of children in receipt of boarding school allowance in the academic year 1993 94, broken down by service, was: Royal Navy 2,492; Army 6,034; Royal Air Force 4,041. The cost of this provision for 1993 94 was £113.61 million. The total estimated expenditure for financial year 1994 95 is £104 million. Total expenditure reflects both the rate of the allowance and the total number of children in receipt of the allowance per term. I am arranging for a copy of the most recent, June 1994, list of schools and the number of children attending those schools who are in receipt of boarding school allowance to be placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many children have benefited from the boarding school allowance in each of the last four years.

Mr. Soames: The total number of children for whom boarding school allowance was claimed in the academic years in question was: 1990 1991: 17,910

1991 1992: 16,208

1992 1993: 15,120

1993 1994: 12,567

Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make statement about his future plans for the service children's boarding school allowance scheme.

Mr. Soames: My Department has no plans to amend the service children's boarding school allowance scheme. Service career and manpower structures and terms and conditions of service are, however, at present the subject of an independent review which I announced on 30 March 1994, Official Report , column 752 .

Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the total cost of the boarding school allowance scheme in each of the last five years; and what is the projected cost for 1995 96.

Mr. Soames: The total cost to my Department of boarding school allowance for the years in questions was:

1990 1991: £105.61 million

1991 1992: £115.35 million

1992 1993: £116.72 million

1993 1994: £113.61 million

The total estimated expenditure for financial year 1994 95 is £104 million. Total expenditure reflects both the rate of the allowance and the total number of children in receipt of the allowance per term and it is not therefore possible to give an accurate assessment of the likely costs for 1995 96, although they are estimated to be similar to the amounts for 1994 95.


Column 370

Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the private and independent schools which take children paid for from the service boarding allowance and have had full Ofsted reports; and if he will list those schools where all of the service parents have received copies of these reports in the last two years.

Mr. Soames: The total list of Ofsted reports on schools at which children benefitting from boarding school allowance are being educated is as follows:


School                                                                   

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

Sherborne preparatory school, Dorset                                     

Finborough school, Suffolk           |Ofsted reports                     

Lime House school, Cumbria           |already forwarded                  

Roedean school, East Sussex          |to parents                         

St. Mary's school, East Sussex                                           

                                                                         

Caldicott school, Bucks              |Ofsted reports                     

Perrott Hill school, Crewkerne       |currently being                    

Seaford college, near Petworth       |forwarded to                       

Shrewsbury school, Shropshire        |parents                            

Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what criteria his Department uses to determine whether a private or independent school may receive funding through the boarding school allowance scheme.

Mr. Soames: A list of some 800 schools in respect of which boarding school allowance may be paid is kept by my Department. Schools on the list are those which provide a normal standard of United Kingdom education and whose boarding facilities are under their immediate control. The school must also be registered with the Department for Education and must attain the acceptable standard of education as required by that Department. Further to this, the Service Children's Education Authority conducts its own school visits to satisfy itself as to the quality of accommodation and pastoral activities available.

Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if all parents of children benefiting from the service boarding allowance have received copies of Ofsted reports made on those schools that have had a full inspection in the last two years.

Mr. Soames: My Department has been provided with copies of reports dating back to February 1993. Since April 1994, the Office for Standards in Education has included the Service Children's Education Authority on the distribution lists of their inspection reports for private and independent schools. It is my Department's policy for the SCEA to forward these reports to service personnel whose children are identified as attending those schools. Due to an administrative error, a number of recent Ofsted reports had not been passed to the SCEA for onward transmission to parents, but this situation is now being rectified.

Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names and locations of the private and independent schools receiving moneys from the service children's boarding school allowance; and if he will give the number of service children at each of the schools listed and show how much each school is receiving.

Mr. Soames: I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave today to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett). Information on how much each school


Column 371

receives in boarding school allowance is not maintained centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

RAF Houses (Sales)

Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the sale price of 42 former RAF houses at Shotley gate, Ipswich.

Mr. Soames: Forty-two properties at Shotley gate were sold by competitive tender in December 1994. The price achieved is commercial-in- confidence.

Dress Allowance

Mr. Fatchett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out, by service, the number of spouses of serving officers who are entitled to dress allowances at public expense; and if he will identify the cost of this provision for the financial years 1993 94 and 1994 95.

Mr. Soames: No spouses of serving officers are entitled to dress allowance at public expense.

LSD Experiments

Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 December, Official Report , columns 312 13 , in what years the Moneybags experiments were carried out at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down.

Mr. Soames: This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive, to write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Graham Pearson to Dr. David Clark, dated 16 January 1995:

1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 December, Official Report, Columns 312 3, asking in what years the Moneybags experiments were carried out at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down, has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of that programme, evaluation is carried out of chemicals that may be utilised by an aggressor as a chemical warfare agent.

3. Moneybags was carried out in 1964 and was one in a series of studies carried out in the 1960s to assess the effects of LSD on troops in a military setting where the behaviour of those volunteers who had been given LSD could be compared with those control volunteers who had not been given LSD.

Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the purpose of LSD experiments called Recount carried out at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down; in which years the Recount experiments were conducted; how many service volunteers were tested under the Recount experiments; what were the lowest and highest doses administered to service volunteers during the Recount experiments; what those volunteers were required to do under the Recount experiments and what types of animals were used; what was the conclusion of the Recount experiments; with which countries the results of those experiments were


Column 372

shared; and under which defence agreement the results were shared with those countries.

Mr. Soames: This is a matter for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

Letter from Graham Pearson to Dr. David Clark, dated 16 January 1995:

1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about work carried out with LSD at Porton Down known as Recount has been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.

2. The role of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment is to carry out work to ensure that the UK Armed Forces are provided with effective protective measures against the threat that chemical or biological weapons may be used against them. As part of that programme, evaluation is carried out of chemicals that may be utilised by an aggressor as a chemical warfare agent.

3. Recount which took place in 1966 was one in a series of studies carried out to assess the effects of LSD on troops in a military setting where the behaviour of those volunteers who had been given LSD could be compared with those control volunteers who had not been given LSD. The aim of Recount was to assess the incapacitant effects of small amounts of LSD on a unit of soldiers. Eighty men volunteered and were examined by a clinician, underwent a battery of psychometric tests and were interviewed by a psychiatrist to determine their suitability for exposure to LSD. In the event it was not found possible to include 27 men in the experiment, because their occupations (e.g., driver, cooks) were unsuitable and a further 34 were eliminated for either clinical or psychiatric reasons or a combination of both, and three were not available on the trial days. Some 28 Service volunteers participated of which 16 received LSD with the lowest and highest doses being 63 and 97 g respectively and the other 12 were controls. This was given orally in water. No animals were involved.

4. Recount was designed to reproduce a normal military task which in this case was the deployment of an air defence regiment in the field and such an activity involved considerable use of integrative and planning skills.

5. Recount showed that the soldiers suffered a minor decrease in performance and the overall effects of this small dose of LSD were minimal. All the affected soldiers were examined and judged to have returned to normal within 24 hours.

6. It was concluded that even when a military unit is mildly affected by LSD the compensation resulting from good discipline and mutual support, between drugged and undrugged soldiers, can leave the unit relatively unaffected, in trial conditions at least, for a short task.

7. The results from Recount formed part of the technology database held by the Establishment in the area of evaluation of the potential hazard to Service personnel from possible chemical warfare agents. This information was drawn upon during the 1960s and 1970s in the agreements with our NATO allies to exchange information and so promote collaboration and cooperation in areas such as research and development in chemical and biological defence. The agreements with the United States at that time included:

a. The Technical Cooperation Programme involving UK, US, Canada and Australia which had subsumed the earlier trilateral UK/US/Canada meetings.

b. American, British, Canadian and Australian Armies (ABCA) agreement Quadripartite Working Group (QWG) on NBC defence. c. The NATO Panel VII on chemical and biological defence.


Next Section

  Home Page