| Previous Section | Home Page |
Heathrow Airport (Security)
Mr. Wilshire: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what changes in security standards and procedures have been made at Heathrow Airport; and what factors led to them.
Mr. Norris: The Department keeps under review all of its security requirements, including standards and procedures, but has not made any recent changes specific to Heathrow airport. A number of changes to improve the standard of aviation security have been introduced over the last year, affecting the majority of airports and airlines subject to the United Kingdom national aviation security programme, including Heathrow. These changes include the introduction of an air cargo security regime, accounting and authorising international hold baggage for carriage, and the continuing introduction of international hold baggage screening. These are examples of the Government's continuing commitment to aviation security and the ICAO eight-point plan.
Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill
Sir John Stanley: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his oral statement of 16 January, Official Report , column 550, on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, if he will give the date, the parties and a summary of the judgment in the Court of Appeal decision referred to.
Mr. Watts [holding answer 9 February 1995]: The Court of Appeal judgment to which I referred was given on 30 June 1994 in the case of the Secretary of State for Transport v. Colonel Owen and Barbara Owen. The judgment required the Secretary of State to redetermine the discretionary purchase application made by Colonel Owen, whose property lies near the proposed Cirencester bypass. In the light of the judgment, the Department is required to take into account loss in value of property attributable to a proposed scheme when assessing whether the applicant's enjoyment of the property is seriously affected within the meaning of the statutory provision and therefore whether it falls to be considered for discretionary purchase.
Transec
Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what have been the cost of the Transec teams and related organisations over the past 10 years.
Column 455
Mr. Norris [holding answer 9 February 1995]: The transport security division in my Department has existed in its current form since October 1991. Its running costs expenditure in 1992 93 was £2, 114,000 and in 1993 94 was £3,736,000. Its expected outturn in 1994 95 is £4,116,000. All figures are expressed in cash terms. Comparable figures for earlier years could only be provided at disproportionate cost.
Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the specific functions of those officers of Transec whose jobs will be cut following the reduction in costs announced by the Minister for Aviation and Shipping.
Mr. Norris [holding answer 9 February 1995]: More than half of the posts identified in the efficiency savings exercise are support or managerial. The remainder are inspectorial or investigatory.
Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the total saving of the reduction in Transec expenditure announced by the Minister of Aviation and Shipping.
Mr. Norris [holding answer 9 February 1995]: The agreed running cost budget for the transport security division for 1995 96 represents a reduction of £655,000 compared with the outturn in 1993 94, the base year for the efficiency savings exercise in my Department. It also represents a saving of £961,000 on the forecast outturn for 1994 95. All figures are expressed in 1994 95 terms.
Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what consultation there has been with (a) the BAA, (b) other airport operators, (c) port owners and occupiers, (d) airlines and (e) port users about the implications for them of the decision to reduce the expenditure on Transec; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Norris [holding answer 9 February 1995]: My right hon. Friend has responsibility within Government for transport security. My Department lays down relevant security requirements for each mode of transport after careful consideration and consultation with the industries and other parties as appropriate. It is the responsibility of the industries to implement the requirements, which include the provision of all security installations and staff. It would not be appropriate to consult those industries about changes in the way my Department discharges its responsibilities.
Ministerial Visits
Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what ports or airports he (a) visited and (b) inspected in 1994.
Mr. Norris [holding answer 9 February 1995]: Since becoming Secretary of State for Transport in July 1994, my right hon. Friend has passed through several ports and airports as a passenger. In the course of his official duties he has visited Heathrow, London city airport, Manchester airport and the ports of Harwich, Felixstowe and Dover. He did not inspect any of them in the sense of monitoring their performance of legal requirements placed upon them.
Airport and Port Security
Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the United Kingdom's treaty obligations on airport and port security
Column 456
and of the desirability of a revision of the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990.Mr. Norris: [holding answer 9 February 1995]: The United Kingdom's international obligations and legislation relating to transport security are kept under review as a matter of course. I am satisfied with the current position.
Motorail and Sleeper Services
Mr. Wilson: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will instruct the Director of Rail Franchising to consult with rail users consultative committees prior to withdrawal of subsidy in respects of Motorail services;
(2) if he will instruct the Director of Rail Franchising to consult the rail users consultative committees prior to withdrawal of subsidy in respect of London-Fort William and cross-country sleeper services.
Mr. Watts [holding answers 7 February 1995]: Paragraph 9 of the objectives instructions and guidance issued to the Franchising Director by the Secretary of State on 22 March 1994 requires him to liaise with the central rail users consultative committee and the rail users consultative committees and to take into account their views on the pattern and quality of services to be provided through franchising. I understand that Opraf will consult with rail users consultative committees about the content of the ScotRail passenger service requirement prior to issuing an invitation to tender for the franchise.
For the present, timetable changes remain a matter for the British Railways Board, which I understand notifies the relevant rail users consultative committees of proposed changes so as to give them an opportunity to make representations.
NATIONAL HERITAGE
Channel 5
Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what provision he is making to allow Channel 5 bids from those who, if successful, would breach the current cross-media ownership rules; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Dorrell: The Independent Television Commission invitation to apply for the Channel 5 licence made it clear that, when considering applications, it would apply the regulations in force at the time.
Cross-media Ownership
Mr. Chris Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage when he expects to announce the results of his Department's review of cross -media ownership.
Mr. Dorrell: I will announce the Government's conclusions once we have completed our examination of the issue.
Departmental Funding
Mr. Chris Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) of 2 February, Official Report , columns 779 80 , if he will give further
Column 457
details of the £283,000 cost incurred by his Department for the transfer of functions of the conservation unit to his Department.Mr. Dorrell: The £283,000 transferred to my Department for the conservation unit is broken down as follows:
|£000
--------------------------------
Salaries |99
Non-pay running costs |90
Accommodation |91
Other |3
Total |283
National Lottery
Mr. Redmond: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage who appointed the head of the Arts Council lottery committee.
Mr. Dorrell: Appointments to the Arts Council of England are made by the Secretary of State for National Heritage. In appointing Mr. Peter Gummer, my predecessor asked him to take special responsibility for the Arts Council's activities as a national lottery distributor.
Mr. Chris Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage whether any of the funds raised for good causes by the national lottery are being invested in gilt-edged securities prior to disbursement by the lottery distribution bodies..
Mr. Dorrell [holding answer 2 February 1995]: The proceeds of the national lottery held in the national lottery distribution fund are being invested in a range of investments which include gilt-edged securities. At1 February, the investment portfolio for the fund was as follows:
|£ million |Percentage
------------------------------------------------------------
Treasury Bills |65 |41
Local Authority Stocks and
loans |62 |39
Gilts |22 |14
Ways and Means |9 |6
Total |158
Consultants
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what are his latest estimates of the expenditure on all external consultants, including management consultants, for each year since 1987, in 1994 prices, for his Department and its agencies; and what are the quantified annual cost savings which such expenditure has resulted in.
Mr. Dorrell [holding answer 9 February 1995]: My Department was established in April 1992 and took on responsibility for funding its own consultancies in August 1992. For the two financial years for which figures are available, my Department's expenditure is as follows.
Column 458
Year |Expenditure |In 1994 prices
|£ |£
------------------------------------------------------------
1992-93 |2,850,277 |2,995,884
1993-94 |6,003,555 |6,123,666
My Department uses consultants for a wide variety of tasks, only a small proportion of which are aimed at achieving cost savings. No central record is held on overall savings and it would not be possible to isolate those consultancies and quantify the cost savings without incurring disproportionate cost.
TREASURY
VAT (Building Work)
Mr. Day: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the annual cost to the Exchequer if the United Kingdom were to adopt an 8 per cent. rate of VAT on the repair, maintenance and improvement of listed buildings.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Alterations to listed buildings are currently zero rated. An 8 per cent. rate of VAT would bring in an estimated £30 million. Repairs and maintenance of listed buildings are currently standard rated. Information on expenditure on repairs and maintenance of listed buildings are not readily available. Moving repairs and maintenance to 8 per cent. would involve some loss of revenue.
Alcohol
Mr. Battle: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals have been prosecuted for selling on alcohol bought on the continent for personal consumption since the lifting of restrictions governing the payment of duty.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: From the start of the single market on 1 January 1993 to 31 December 1994, 135 people have been prosecuted by Customs for single market offences involving either alcohol alone or in combination with other excise goods.
Excise Duties
Mrs. Lait: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress is being made on the EU's biennial review of excise duties.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The date for the first review was set for 31 December 1994 at the latest. However, no proposal has yet been delivered by the Commission.
Fundamental Expenditure Review
Mr. Miller: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what instruction he gave to ensure the fundamental expenditure review has no detrimental effect on activities surrounding anti-drug smuggling.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The terms of reference I agreed for the fundamental expenditure review included the need to determine the scope for improved effectiveness and efficiency of all work areas, including anti- drug smuggling. The outcome is that by putting greater emphasis on quality results in terms of seizures and concentrating even more on drug- trafficking organisations, Customs and Excise is confident that its
Column 459
success rate will be enhanced, and it has set targets to reflect this.EU Finances
Mr. William Ross: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list (a) the total sums paid to each EU member state from EU sources, (b) the total sums paid to the EC by each member state, (c) the gross national
Column 460
product of each state and (d) the percentage of gross national product of each state derived from sums paid to it from EU funds in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available.Mr. Heathcoat-Amory [holding answer 26 January 1995]: The information in respect of items (a) to (c) for the years 1984 to 1993 is set out in tables 1 to 3. Table 4 sets out the annual amount of Community payments member states received as a percentage of their gross national product.
Column 459
Table 1: Payments made to the Member States of the European Community (million european currency units)
|B |DK |D |GR |E |F |IRL |I |L |NL |P |UK |Misc. |EC12
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1984 |840.1 |1,020.1 |4,019.3 |1,364.0 |- |4,342.5 |1,210.4 |4,962.4 |11.2 |2,122.6 |- |4,092.5 |13.1 |23,998.2
1985 |1,070.0 |912.5 |4,185.0 |1,702.8 |- |5,416.4 |1,548.7 |4,480.3 |8.5 |2,231.9 |- |3,107.4 |39.9 |24,703.4
1986 |1,164.2 |1,211.8 |4,988.4 |1,905.1 |2,415.5 |6,323.6 |1,573.9 |4,523.3 |6.5 |2,449.5 |497.8 |3,386.8 |43.2 |30,489.6
1987 |985.4 |1,144.2 |4,541.8 |1,876.9 |1,984.8 |6,744.3 |1,438.0 |5,256.2 |12.0 |2,890.2 |731.4 |3,121.5 |85.3 |30,812.0
1988 |838.5 |1,286.2 |5,427.7 |1,921.5 |4,012.3 |7,314.6 |1,487.5 |5,551.0 |14.2 |3,945.6 |914.8 |3,253.9 |161.3 |36,129.1
1989 |683.3 |1,045.3 |4,579.8 |2,564.5 |3,544.4 |5,676.5 |1,711.7 |6,177.1 |8.2 |3,829.9 |945.5 |3,214.3 |72.4 |35,659.7
1990 |989.8 |1,197.6 |4,807.1 |3,033.8 |5,382.7 |6,284.6 |2,260.7 |5,681.0 |14.5 |2,983.6 |1,103.2 |3,147.4 |391.4 |37,277.5
1991 |2,634.0 |1,379.8 |6,597.4 |3,688.5 |6,874.8 |8,152.5 |2,809.7 |7,311.2 |268.5 |2,999.8 |2,228.2 |4,069.5 |4,782.7 |53,796.6
1992 |2,404.6 |1,311.4 |7,299.9 |4,332.6 |7,567.6 |9,049.8 |2,602.4 |7,775.6 |287.5 |2,705.0 |2,978.0 |4,314.6 |5,944.4 |58,573.2
1993 |2,454.5 |1,583.4 |7,246.1 |5,147.9 |8,263.0 |10,525.9|2,939.3 |8,739.6 |356.6 |2,704.0 |3,418.0 |4,500.8 |6,328.6 |64,207.6
Source:
Court of Auditors Reports.
Notes:
1. Miscellaneous expenditure by the European Commission covers payments not made to the Member States; the principal item being expenditure on
aid to third countries.
2. With effect from 1988 payments to the Member States no longer included 10 per cent. collection costs in respect of Member States
contributions of sugar and agricultural levies and customs duties. As from 1988 Member States retained 10 per cent. of their levies and duties
contributions before making these contributions available to the community. After 1987, therefore, collection costs ceased to be accounted as
payments to the community and were deducted, at source, from Member States resource payments.
3. Totals may not add up to the sum of the columns due to rounding.
Table 2: Actual own resources by Member State 1984-93 (million european currency units)
|B |DK |D |GR |E |F |IRL |I |L |NL |P |UK |EC12
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1984 |1,283.3 |532.9 |7,052.4 |355.8 |- |4,802.3 |286.3 |3,443.4 |51.3 |1,687.8 |- |5,429.5 |24,880.0
1985 |1,292.6 |620.4 |7,504.3 |388.0 |- |5,319.2 |296.4 |3,629.5 |50.7 |1,889.4 |- |5,090.3 |26,080.8
1986 |1,448.1 |790.7 |8,730.2 |632.4 |2,320.6 |6,885.1 |343.8 |4,718.2 |65.8 |2,232.0 |278.6 |4,825.2 |33,270.7
1987 |1,702.6 |844.7 |9,384.6 |340.4 |1,708.7 |7,330.0 |337.5 |5,191.6 |73.5 |2,366.2 |341.8 |5,727.5 |35,349.1
1988 |1,833.5 |955.6 |11,534.9|429.9 |2,678.1 |9,095.5 |328.2 |5,426.8 |81.6 |2,795.6 |399.9 |5,323.9 |40,883.3
1989 |1,807.2 |871.1 |11,110.4|566.3 |3,575.1 |8,622.8 |370.9 |7,605.9 |72.8 |2,700.5 |458.3 |6,568.1 |44,329.3
1990 |1,763.7 |775.1 |10,357.5|563.6 |3,671.4 |8,089.5 |368.2 |6,097.7 |74.5 |2,615.2 |502.4 |6,534.3 |41,413.1
1991 |2,217.4 |1,033.5 |15,394.2|762.1 |4,580.2 |10,602.0|452.4 |8,699.8 |108.8 |3,537.7 |712.0 |4,736.4 |52,836.5
1992 |2,239.1 |1,034.8 |16,997.5|728.6 |4,828.0 |10,493.4|462.3 |8,279.9 |123.5 |3,534.0 |838.1 |6,702.4 |56,261.7
1993 |2,394.9 |1,206.5 |19,076.4|1,011.2 |5,172.6 |11,545.5|567.4 |10,265.0|167.0 |4,030.6 |909.6 |7,626.6 |63,973.3
Source:
Court of Auditors Reports.
Notes:
1. Figures for own resources are after account is taken of the UK's abatement and the bringing to account of surpluses and deficits in
respect of Member States contributions in earlier years.
2. With effect from 1988, inclusive, Member States contributions exclude 10 per cent. collection costs in respect of their
contributions of sugar and agricultural levies and customs duties-which they deduct from their contributions for levies and duties
before making their contributions available to the community. Prior to 1988 Member States' made their sugar and agricultural levies
and customs duties contributions available in full to the community. The 10 per cent. collection costs were paid from the expenditure
side of the budget to Member States and thus scored as receipts from the community.
3. The revenue available to the community also includes relatively small amounts of miscellaneous revenue derived from such sources as
the sale of publications, disposal of property etc.
4. Totals may not add up to the sum of the columns due to rounding.
Table 3: Gross national product of the Member States of the European Community (million european currency units)
|B |DK |D1 |GR |E |F |IRL |I |L |NL |P |UK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1984 |96.319 |66.461 |787.852 |51.607 |198.490 |631.349 |20.548 |521.960 |5.950 |160.898 |26.125 |552.578
1985 |103.965 |73.440 |824.006 |51.908 |215.772 |687.925 |22.350 |556.083 |6.709 |169.255 |29.235 |606.258
1986 |112.657 |80.523 |909.740 |47.457 |233.002 |743.069 |24.100 |610.859 |7.395 |182.016 |33.084 |572.721
1987 |119.948 |85.278 |966.890 |47.586 |252.052 |768.449 |24.454 |653.693 |7.574 |188.067 |35.399 |597.804
1988 |126.975 |88.577 |1,016.200|53.692 |288.065 |813.402 |25.778 |705.305 |8.164 |194.450 |39.887 |703.563
1989 |138.263 |91.484 |1,086.440|59.979 |342.470 |875.544 |28.527 |783.177 |9.205 |207.257 |46.382 |758.885
1990 |149.818 |97.349 |1,193.210|63.946 |384.279 |936.382 |31.209 |851.785 |10.396 |223.737 |52.449 |759.778
1991 |159.084 |100.219 |1,405.330|69.891 |423.034 |964.520 |32.982 |919.158 |11.190 |234.222 |62.552 |807.505
1992 |169.757 |105.061 |1,531.000|73.374 |439.910 |1,012.900|35.088 |926.856 |11.896 |246.543 |73.888 |804.914
1993 |180.827 |111.583 |1,630.670|76.945 |404.057 |1,060.510|35.706 |833.394 |12.486 |263.809 |72.238 |803.813
Source:
Eurostat.
Note:
1 Includes East Germany from 1991 onwards.
Table 4: Payments made to Member States as a percentage of GNP
|B |DK |D1 |GR |E |F |IRL |I |L |NL |P |UK
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1984 |0.87|1.53|0.51|2.64|0.00|0.69|5.89|0.95|0.19|1.32|0.00|0.74
1985 |1.03|1.24|0.51|3.28|0.00|0.79|6.93|0.81|0.13|1.32|0.00|0.51
1986 |1.03|1.50|0.55|4.01|1.04|0.85|6.53|0.74|0.09|1.35|1.50|0.59
1987 |0.82|1.34|0.47|3.94|0.79|0.88|5.88|0.80|0.16|1.54|2.07|0.52
1988 |0.66|1.45|0.53|3.58|1.39|0.90|5.77|0.79|0.17|2.03|2.29|0.46
1989 |0.49|1.14|0.42|4.28|1.03|0.65|6.00|0.79|0.09|1.85|2.04|0.42
1990 |0.66|1.23|0.40|4.74|1.40|0.67|7.24|0.67|0.14|1.33|2.10|0.41
1991 |1.66|1.38|0.47|5.28|1.63|0.85|8.52|0.80|2.40|1.28|3.56|0.50
1992 |1.42|1.25|0.48|5.90|1.72|0.89|7.42|0.84|2.42|1.10|4.03|0.54
1993 |1.36|1.42|0.44|6.69|2.05|0.99|8.23|1.05|2.86|1.02|4.73|0.56
Note:
1 Includes East Germany from 1991 onwards.
DEFENCE
WE177 Free-fall Nuclear Bomb
Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the annual cost of the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb.
Mr. Soames: The annual operating cost of the WE177 free-fall nuclear bomb is estimated to be £20 million.
Nuclear Forces
Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the defence budget was spent on maintaining and operating all British nuclear forces in the last financial year.
Mr. Soames: Some 7.2 per cent. of the 1993 94 defence budget was spent on maintaining and operating British nuclear forces.
RAF Hospital, Wroughton
Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what Treasury rules prohibit the lease of the RAF hospital, Wroughton.
Mr. Soames: Treasury guidelines require that once land or property has been identified as surplus to defence requirements, it should be disposed of within three years. These guidelines further state that sale rather than lease should be the rule unless there are strong reasons to the contrary. Where outright sale is impractical, however, it would be our normal practice to consider a lease, among other options, pending a longer- term solution to the problem.
Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for how long he intends to lease the RAF hospital, Wroughton, to the Princess Margaret hospital, Swindon, after April 1996.
Column 462
Mr. Soames: We are aware of the interest expressed by the Princess Margaret hospital Swindon--Swindon and Marlborough NHS trust--and have held preliminary discussions with it regarding its wish to make use of the Princess Alexandra RAF hospital, Wroughton, when it closes in March 1996. Formal negotiations have not yet begun, however, and it is too early to say what the outcome might be.
Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the possible future use of the land and buildings at the RAF hospital, Wroughton after April 1996.
Mr. Soames: Discussions are taking place with Swindon and Marlborough NHS trust regarding the continued use of Wroughton hospital for medical purposes. My Department is well aware of the sensitive nature of the site, which is an area of outstanding natural beauty. It is too early to consider alternative uses, but should that become necessary we would liaise closely with the local authority, in accordance with our normal practice.
Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) national health service patients were treated at RAF hospital, Wroughton, during the last five years and (b) beds were required at the RAF hospital, Wroughton by the Princess Margaret hospital, Swindon, during each of the last five years.
Mr. Soames: The total numbers of NHS in-patient, and day-patient attendances at the Princess Alexandra's Royal Air Force hospital, Wroughton, in the years in question are as follows:
1989 90: 22,213
1990 91: 17,703
1991 92: 19,505
1992 93: 17,794
1993 94: 21,577
Column 463
Figures for the number of beds at Wroughton required by the Princess Margaret hospital, Swindon, are not available for the entire period. In 1994 and 1995, however, some beds at the Princess Alexandra's hospital have been made available to the Swindon and Marlborough NHS Trust for a period of seven and a half and 12 weeks respectively.Drag Hunting
Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps are taken to provide drag hunting by military personnel.
Mr. Soames: A small number of personnel participate in drag hunting, as one of a number of recognised sporting activities, during periods set aside for this purpose.
Low Flying
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the eight Royal Air Force Tornados flying at 500 ft above Barnoldswick and Earby at 6.15 pm on Monday 30 January came from.
Mr. Soames: Two formations of four Tornados from RAF Bruggen were authorised to fly in the general area in which the towns are located on 30 January at around the time in question. An investigation is under way to establish whether these aircraft flew over the towns at the height alleged. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence will write to the hon. Member when the investigation is complete.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he takes to inform hon. Members of exercises by low-flying military aircraft.
Mr. Soames: When it is practical to do so, advance warning of major exercises is given to hon. Members whose constituents are likely to be affected. It would be impractical to provide prior notice of all low-level sorties since they are often determined at short notice to take account of variable factors such as weather conditions.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the minimum height for low flying by military aircraft in the United Kingdom and Germany.
Mr. Soames: The normal minimum height for low flying by military fixed wing aircraft in the United Kingdom is 250 ft minimum separation distance, but a small amount of operational low flying down to 100 ft MSD is permitted in three specially designated tactical training areas located in the borders, northern Scotland and central Wales. Germany applies a general limit of 100 ft but allows some military flying below this height.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on low-flying military aircraft over urban areas.
Mr. Soames: Military aircrew are instructed to avoid flying low over major towns and conurbations, and to avoid all other populated areas wherever possible, whether they are listed for avoidance or not.
Falklands and Gulf Wars
Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) of 19 January, Official Report, column 688, how the cash contributions from Governments were apportioned within his Department,
Column 464
and between his Department and other Government agencies and departments.Mr. Soames: Apart from a £25,000,000 contribution by Japan, taken as an appropriation in aid of the defence budget in 1990 91, cash contributions were accounted for as consolidated fund extra receipts in the defence appropriation accounts, and thus offset the Government's increased expenditure arising from the conflict. Details of the Government's additional costs are listed in the minutes of evidence, pages 2 and 3, of the 55th report of the Committee of Public Accounts.
Contingent Liabilities
Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the agencies or projects triggering contingent liabilities under the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Act 1984 and shown in the Consolidated Fund accounts for the years 1984 85 to 1989 90.
Mr. Soames: The figures shown in section 4 of the supplementary statements to the consolidated fund and national loans fund accounts as the contingent liabilities under the Ordnance Factories and Military Services Act 1984 for the period 1985 86 to 1989 90 are estimates of the corporate risk incurred by International Military Services Ltd. for the years in question. The detailed make-up of these estimates is commercially confidential.
Public Bodies
Mr. Patten: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those public bodies for which he retains departmental responsibility; which of these bodies have been identified as suitable for placing in the private sector; and by when it is expected each of these bodies will enter the private sector.
Mr. Soames: I refer the hon. Member to "Public Bodies 1993" issued by the Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service and Science, pages 7 and 8 of which detail Ministry of Defence non-departmental public bodies. There are no plans at present to change the status of any of these bodies.
Trident
Mr. Llwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the current annual cost of maintaining the Trident system; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Soames: We currently estimate that the average annual operating cost of Trident over its life will be about £200 million.
Land Mines
Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of self-destruct mines as used by the British forces do not self destruct as specified by their manufacturers.
Mr. Freeman: None of the land mines currently in service with United Kingdom forces have self-destruct mechanisms.
However, the Army is due to be equipped later in the year with the multiple launch rocket system phase II, which will deploy anti-tank land mines; these will have self-destruct mechanisms. My Department is undertaking trials to ensure that the stringent specification is met.
Column 465
Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much it would cost to fit self-destructing and self-neutralising mechanisms retroactively on current United Kingdom anti-personnel mine stocks.
Mr. Freeman: The Government's policy is not to export these mines from MOD stocks. If required for use in war, they would be used only in accordance with the UN weaponry convention.
Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training a United Kingdom military field commander receives to enable him to judge accurately the short and long-term military and humanitarian costs and benefits of anti-personnel mine laying; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Soames: Training within the armed forces is a continuous process and the military and humanitarian costs and benefits of using military equipment, which includes anti-personnel mines, is included in the syllabus of a number of courses, which are attended by those appointed as field commanders. I will write to the hon. Member with fuller details of the nature of these courses.
Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what level of authority must be sought within the UK armed forces to permit mine laying by UK soldiers.
Mr. Soames: If required during an operation, the authority to lay mines will be sought, through the chain of command, from the operational commander.
Mrs. Clwyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much more a self-destructing or self-neutralising anti-personnel mine will cost than its dumb equivalent; and if he will give figures.
Mr. Freeman: Details of the purchase cost of self-destructing and self-neutralising mines are not held by my Department and therefore a cost comparison is not possible.
| Next Section
| Home Page |