| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 511
(2) what is the level of hold-back within the expenditure of the Coventry education authority;(3) what is the level of hold-back within the education expenditure of (a) Coventry, (b) Solihull, (c) Birmingham, (d) Warwickshire, (e) Wandsworth, (f) Westminster, (g) Sandwell, (h) Wolverhampton and (i) Walsall local education authorities.
Mr. Robin Squire: The percentage of the potential schools budget retained centrally for 1994 95 by the LEAs in question is as follows:
|Percentage
------------------------------------
Coventry |12.9
Solihull |9.6
Birmingham |13.2
Warwickshire |14.3
Wandsworth<2> |17.7
Westminster |11.5
Sandwell |13.5
Wolverhampton |11.3
Walsall |12.3
<1> The figures are taken from the
answer given on 17 October 1994 to
the hon. Member for Billericay (
Mrs. Gorman) Official Report,
columns 27-36.
<2> In the case of the inner London
authorities (other than
Westminster) the introduction of
local management of Schools was
deferred until April 1992, and the
delegation requirements applicable
to those authorities differ from
those applicable elsewhere.
I will write to my hon. Friend about average hold-back by LEAs according to political control.
Mr. Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many education authorities have made representations that their budgets of 1995 96 are insufficient for their (a) education and (b) youth services.
Mr. Robin Squire: My colleagues and I have received
representations from a large number of local education authorities about aspects of their budgets for 1995 96.
European Proposals
Mr. Waterson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the state of negotiation of the EC SOCRATES and Youth for Europe III proposals.
Mr. Boswell: Both proposals were finally adopted at the Council of Ministers' meeting on 10 March. The Council agreed that the SOCRATES decision should contain a finance article setting the programme's budget at 850 million ECU--£689 million --over five years, subject to neutral review by the Council and the European Parliament after two years. A finance article was also agreed for Youth for Europe III setting its budget at 126 million ECU--£102 million--over five years. The proposals had previously been approved by the European Parliament on 1 March.
SOCRATES is the first major European Union initiative to encourage practical co-operation at all levels of education across Europe. While each member state will keep its distinctive education system, schools will benefit from developing new partnerships with schools from other European countries. These partnerships will particularly help children learning the languages of the European Union. In addition, there will be continuing support throughout the education system for teachers, colleges and
Column 512
universities, including continuation of the ERASMUS programme. I hope, later this month, to launch the national agencies which will distribute money to institutions which bid successfully.converted at 1 ECU = £0.8103.
Student Loans Company
Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many applications for loans the Student Loans Company received for the year 1994 95; how many were accepted; and how many of these have not yet been paid to the applicant.
Mr. Boswell: This is a matter for the Student Loans Company. I have asked the acting chief executive to write to the hon. Member.
Nursery Education
Sir Ralph Howell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education, pursuant to her answer of 9 February, Official Report, column 392, how much Government proposals on the provision of nursery education will cost (a) nationally and (b) in Norfolk in 1995 96.
Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been consulting a wide range of practitioners and professionals to inform the development of detailed proposals on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's commitment to provide, over time, a pre-school place for all four-year-olds whose parents wish to take it up. The nature of the proposals will determine the costs.
Schools (Transfers)
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many schools are being transferred from Hereford and Worcester local education authority to Birmingham local education authority from April.
Birmingham LEA
Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the total capital allocation for education to Birmingham local education authority since 1984 85; what has been the actual capital expenditure on education in Birmingham in the same period; and what information she has on the cost of dealing with the backlog in repairs and renovations in Birmingham's schools.
Mr. Robin Squire: The total capital allocation for education and actual capital expenditure on education in Birmingham has been as follows:
£ million
|County and|Voluntary
|controlled|aided |Total |Actual
|schools<1>|schools<5>|allocation|outturn<6>
------------------------------------------------------------------
1984-85 |<2>6.5 |0.2 |6.7 |<7>-
1985-86 |3.7 |1.1 |4.8 |9.9
1986-87 |5.0 |0.6 |5.6 |7.5
1987-88 |3.9 |1.0 |4.9 |7.5
1988-89 |4.4 |1.8 |6.2 |5.5
1989-90 |5.2 |2.0 |7.2 |10.7
1990-91 |<3>10.5 |1.2 |11.7 |14.7
1991-92 |11.1 |1.1 |12.2 |14.9
1992-93 |10.9 |1.8 |12.7 |13.4
1993-94 |<4>6.2 |1.4 |7.6 |<8>13.3
1994-95 |10.9 |1.1 |12.0 |<9>-
1995-96 |9.2 |0.4 |9.6 |<9>-
Notes:
<1>All totals given relate to the announced annual allocations
only, and therefore exclude any supplementary funding, either in
the form of supplementary credit approvals (post-1990), or
prescribed additional funding (pre-1990).
<2> Figures up to and including 1989-90 represent annual notional
capital allocations. The figures prior to 1993-94 also include an
element of further education and sixth-form college funding.
<3> The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 introduced annual
capital guidelines as a means of allocating borrowing power to
local education authorities. This took effect from 1 April 1990.
<4> The establishment of the Further Education Funding Council in
1993 resulted in the separate determination of funding for
further education and sixth-form colleges. ACG figures from
1993-94 therefore exclude this area of funding.
<5> Figures for voluntary aided education are as originally
announced. They exclude any later allocations made in the year as
a result of, for example, the approval of statutory proposals.
<6> Figures are derived from capital outturn returns submitted by
LEAs to the Department of the Environment. Capital expenditure
represents gross outturn on all areas of education, including the
urban programme.
<7> Department of Environment data not available.
<8> 1993-94 figure provisional only.
<9> Figures relate to financial years. As 1994-95 FY is not yet
complete, figures are not available after 1993-94.
Expenditure on repairs and renovations is a matter for the LEA.
Surplus School Places
Mr. Streeter: To ask the Secretary of State for Education how many surplus school places there are in Devon.
Mr. Robin Squire: There were 9,032--10 per cent.--primary surplus school places and 4,160--7 per cent.--secondary surplus school places in LEA maintained schools in Devon in January 1994. Data on surplus places in grant-maintained schools in Devon are not available.
Mr. Blunkett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the number of surplus school places proposed to be removed as a result of local education authority reorganisation plans submitted to her which were (a) approved and (b) rejected by her as a consequence of a parallel proposal for grant maintained status for each year since 1990.
Mr. Robin Squire: In case where there were both proposals to cease to maintain a school and parallel proposals for grant-maintained status, the table shows for each year since 1990 the school capacity proposed to be removed by local education authority school reorganisation plans which were (a) approved and (b) rejected and the proposals for grant-maintained status approved.
<
|(a) |(b)
|Closure |GM application
Year proposals |approved |approved
published
------------------------------------------------------------
1990 |2,440 |5,046
1991 |4,547 |3,504
1992 |6,302 |0
1993 |5,259 |1,278
1994 |241 |37
Secondary Schools
Mr. Walden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education (1) what proportion of pupils attended (a) state and (b) independent secondary schools in (i) 1979,(ii) 1985 and (iii) 1992;
(2) what proportion of pupils attended (a) state and (b) independent primary schools in (i) 1979, (ii) 1985 and (iii) 1993.
Mr. Robin Squire: The percentage of pupils attending maintained primary and secondary schools and independent schools in England for the years requested is shown in the table. Independent schools are not classified into primary and secondary schools.
Percentage of pupils attending maintained primary
and secondary
schools<1> and independent schools in England
1979, 1985, 1992 and 1993
position in January each year
Maintained Independent
schools
|Primary |Secondary|schools
--------------------------------------------------
1979 |50 |42 |6
1985 |48 |44 |7
1992 |54 |37 |7
1993 |54 |37 |7
<1> Excluding sixth form colleges which ceased to
be classified as schools from April 1993.
Grant-maintained Schools
Mr. Walden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will list the independent schools that have entered the grant-maintained sector, excluding religious schools.
Mr. Robin Squire: To date, no independent schools have entered the grant-maintained sector under the provisions introduced last year by the Education Act 1993. A number of non-denominational independent schools have expressed an interest or sought further information.
Mr. Walden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what action she is taking to encourage independent schools to enter the state sector of education.
Mr. Robin Squire: Recent changes to the law now allow independent schools to apply to join the grant-maintained sector. Guidance on this has been made available to interested parties. All proposals which come forward are considered on their merits.
Schools (Costs)
Mr. Walden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what is the current difference between the average annual cost of a secondary place in the state
Column 515
sector, and the average annual fees for a day place in the private sector.Mr. Robin Squire: The average spending per pupil in local education authority maintained secondary schools in England is estimated to be £2,250 in the financial year 1993 94. Comprehensive data from which the average annual fees for a day place in the independent sector could be calculated are not collected centrally; but the average fee charged for pupils in the assisted places scheme in the academic year 1993 94 was £4,112. For various reasons, however, the two figures quoted are not directly comparable, not least because the figure for maintained schools excludes significant items of school-related expenditure.
Column 516
Hampshire County Council
Mr. Hunter: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what has been the expenditure of Hampshire county council on education each year since 1979 expressed in cash terms, real terms and as a real terms percentage increase or decrease on 1979 and on the previous year.
Mr. Robin Squire: The table shows total expenditure by Hampshire local education authority from 1979 80 to 1993 94, the latest year for which provisional outturn figures are available, in cash and real terms, together with the percentage increases on 1979 and on the previous year. These figures have not been adjusted for any changes of function.
Column 515
Gross education expenditure from 1979-80
|Percentage increase|Percentage increase
|Gross expenditure |Gross expenditure |on 1979-80 in real |on previous year in
Hampshire county |(cash terms) |(1994-95 prices) |terms |real terms
council
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1979-80 |254,781 |638,033 |- |-
1980-81 |304,603 |644,688 |1.0 |1.0
1981-82 |333,658 |643,896 |0.9 |-0.1
1982-83 |352,599 |635,212 |-0.4 |-1.3
1983-84 |366,578 |631,124 |-1.1 |-0.6
1984-85 |379,401 |621,948 |-2.5 |-1.5
1985-86 |397,771 |618,174 |-3.1 |-0.6
1986-87 |427,445 |644,837 |1.1 |4.3
1987-88 |470,240 |673.536 |5.6 |4.5
1988-89 |515,039 |691,437 |8.4 |2.7
1989-90 |516,959 |648,703 |1.7 |-6.2
1990-91 |558,882 |649,285 |1.8 |0.1
1991-92 |638,522 |697,950 |9.4 |7.5
1992-93 |698,227 |733,984 |15.0 |5.2
1993-94<1> |581,475 |593,105 |-7.0 |-19.2
<1> Provisional figures.
Grammar Schools
Mr. Walden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what proportion of pupils attended selective grammar schools in (a) 1979, (b) 1985 and (c) 1992.
Mr. Robin Squire: The percentages of pupils who attended maintained grammar schools in England in the years requested are shown in the table.
!
Percentages of pupils who
attended maintained grammar
schools
in England
Position in January each year
|Percentage
---------------------------------
1979 |4.8
1985 |3.7
1992 |4.1
Class Sizes
Mr. Walden: To ask the Secretary of State for Education what were the average class sizes in (a) state secondary and (b) independent schools in (i) 1979,(ii) 1985 and (iii) 1993.
Mr. Robin Squire: The average size of single teacher classes in maintained secondary schools in England for the years requested is shown in the table. Information on the size of classes in independent schools is not held centrally.
Column 516
Average size of
single teacher
classes in
maintained
secondary
schools<1> in
England
Position in
January each year
|Class
|size
------------------
1979 |21.2
1985 |20.6
1993 |21.2
<1> Excluding
sixth form
colleges which
ceased to be
classified as
schools from
April 1993.
DEFENCE
Euro 2000 Plane
Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what is the allocation of work on the Euro 2000 plane to each country involved, relative to their share of planes ordered;
(2) how many Euro 2000 planes have been ordered by each participating country.
Mr. Freeman: The partner nations in the Eurofighter 2000 project agreed in 1988 that workshares in the development phase should be Germany 33 per cent., Italy 21 per cent., Spain 13 per cent. and the United Kingdom 33 per cent. These were based on declared offtakes of Germany 250, Italy 165, Spain 100 and United Kingdom
Column 517
250 aircraft. Firm commitments and consequent workshare allocations for the production phase have yet to be decided.St. Helenians
Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what correspondence there has been between his Department and defence contractors employing St. Helenians to work on the Falkland Islands about payment or other treatment of St. Helenians on a differential basis from British ex-patriates; and if he will place copies of that correspondence in the Library.
Mr. Freeman: A search has failed to bring to light any correspondence between my Department and the contractors in question about the conditions of employment of St. Helenians in the Falkland Islands.
Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what policy he has for ensuring that the contractors employed to work at the Falkland Islands garrison do not discriminate on a racist basis in the payment of salaries.
Mr. Freeman: Two Ministry of Defence contractors, Turners Ltd. and Kelvins International Services, employ St. Helenian workers in the Falkland Islands. Both contracts contain a non-discrimination clause.
Gulf War
Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what biological weapons detection assets were employed by Her Majesty's armed forces during the Gulf war.
Mr. Soames: This matter is 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 Dr. David Clark, dated 14 March 1995:
Question 5, Order Paper 9 March 1995
1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what biological weapons detection assets were employed by Her Majesty's Armed Forces during the Gulf War, 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 and biological weapons may be used against them.
3. The biological weapons detection assets deployed with the UK Armed Forces during the Gulf conflict comprised:
a. The nine Biological Detection Systems which provided a capability to detect the presence of biological warfare agent in the atmosphere.
b. Stand-by Assay Kits which were deployed both with the Biological Detection Systems and separately. The Stand-by Assay Kits provided a capability to analyse swab samples for the presence of biological warfare agent.
c. SIBCA kits. Sampling and Identification of Biological and Chemical Agent (SIBCA) kits were deployed with the UK Armed Forces to the Gulf. These kits would have been used to obtain samples from a suspected attack. A chain of custody would have been provided for the return of the samples to the United Kingdom for analysis at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down.
Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the United States Department of Defence nuclear, biological, and
Column 518
chemical log from the Gulf war, specifically of those incidents cited on (a) 18 January 1991 at 05.00 hours, (b) 19 January 1991 at (i) 04.30 hours and (ii) 16.10 hours, (c) 20 January 1991 at (i) 17.10 hours and (ii) 22.40 hours, (d) 3 March 1991 at (i) 15.15 hours, (ii) 18.10 hours and (iii) 18.20 hours and (e) 12 March 1991 at (i) 16.20 hours and (ii) 17.40 hours; and if he will make a statement;(2) on what occasions information on chemical weapons compiled by monitoring teams during the Gulf War has been shared by the allies.
Mr. Soames: These are matters 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 Dr. David Clark, dated 14 March 1995:
Questions 4 and 6, Order Paper 9 March 1995
1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what assessment he has made of the United States Department of Defence Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) Log from the Gulf War, specifically of those incidents cited on (a) 18 January 1991 at 0500 hours, (b) 19 January 1991 at (i) 0430 hours and (ii) 1610 hours, (c) 20 January 1991 at (i) 1710 hours and (ii) 2240 hours (d) 3 March 1991 at (i) 1515 hours, (ii) 1810 hours and (iii) 1820 hours and (e) 12 March 1991 at (i) 1620 hours and (ii) 1740 hours; and if he will make a statement and on what occasions information on chemical weapons compiled by monitoring teams during the Gulf War has been shared by the Allies, 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 and biological weapons may be used against them.
3. The United States Department of Defence Nuclear Biological and Chemical log from the Gulf conflict was drawn upon by the US Department of Defence in preparing material used to brief the US Defence Science Board Task Force on Persian Gulf War Health Effects. An abbreviated selection of chemical/biological incidents extracted from these logs is contained in Appendix B, pages 1 6 of the report of the Defence Science Board issued in June 1994.
4. As Director General and Chief Executive of CBDE Porton Down, I was invited to attend and participated as a specialist adviser to the Defence Science Board Task Force on Persian Gulf War Health Effects and was therefore present at the briefings to the Defence Science Board by the Department of Defence on the incidents reported in the US Department of Defence NBC log from the Gulf conflict and summarised in Appendix B to the Defence Science Board Task Force. The Defence Science Board Task Force concluded that they had found no evidence that either chemical or biological warfare was deployed at any level against the coalition forces or that there were any exposures of US Service members to chemical or biological warfare agents in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. The Task Force noted that they were aware of one soldier who was blistered, plausibly from mustard gas, after entering a bunker in Iraq during the post-war period. The report noted that the one plausible injury occurred during inspection and demolition of Iraqi bunkers and stated that "It seemed to be the result of accidental contact of the soldier with contaminated soil in a bunker that may have been used previously, (probably during the Iran-Iraq war) for storing mustard".
5. The United Kingdom and the United States utilised a wide range of detectors so as to provide warning to our forces prior to exposure to a harmful concentration of agent. Such detectors are sensitive and there are carefully laid down procedures in the event of any single detector alarming for checks to be carried out so as to determine whether an alarm was indeed caused by a chemical or biological weapon attack. The incidents cited from the US Department of Defence NBC log from the Gulf conflict did not result in any confirmation that chemical or biological warfare agents had been used by Iraq against the coalition forces. The coalition forces in the Gulf War had arrangements whereby, had there been a
Column 519
confirmed chemical or biological weapons attack in one area, this information would have been between the Allies and, in particular, appropriate warning would have been given to other units of the coalition forces in the hazard area. It is clear from examination of the US Department of Defence NBC log from the Gulf conflict that there was sharing of information on unconfirmed alarms arising from chemical or biological weapons detectors during the Gulf War with coalition forces. However, there was no confirmed use of chemical or biological warfare agents during the Gulf conflict.Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his American counterpart concerning the use of chemical weapons during the Gulf war; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Soames: This matter is 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 Dr. David Clarke, dated 14 March 1995:
QUESTION 7, ORDER PAPER 9 MARCH 1995
1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what recent discussions he has had with his American counterpart concerning the use of chemical weapons during the Gulf War; 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 and biological weapons may be used against them.
3. The Ministry of Defence has had continuing discussions with the US Department of Defence concerning the Gulf conflict. Officials have participated in the US Defence Science Board Task Force on Persian Gulf Health Effects which was briefed by the US and by the UK participant on whether there was any evidence, which there was not, to suggest that chemical weapons had been used in the Gulf conflict. The UK view continues to be that there was no evidence of the use of chemical or biological weapons by Iraq against the coalition forces during the Gulf conflict.
Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of (a) allied air raids on Iraqi chemical weapons installations during the Gulf war and (b) whether chemical agents could have been released into the atmosphere as a result of these raids; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Soames: This matter is 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 Dr. David Clark, dated 14 March 1995:
QUESTION 8, ORDER PAPER 9 MARCH 1995
1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what assessment he has made of (a) Allied air raids on Iraqi chemical weapons installations during the Gulf War and (b) whether chemical agents could have been released into the atmosphere as a result of these raids; 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 and biological weapons may be used against them.
3. The Ministry of Defence during Operation GRANBY made assessments of the potential hazard to Service personnel resulting from the Allied bombing of Iraqi targets at which chemical weapons were produced or stored. These assessment were based on various assumptions for the quantity of agent that might be released as a result of a bombing attack and for the associated meteorological
Column 520
conditions. The result of the assessment indicated that even assuming simultaneous release of the majority of agent from several bunkers under meteorological conditions which favoured the downwind travel of the agent cloud and ignoring the fact that chemical agents are organic materials which are destroyed by combustion, the maximum distance at which there would be any hazard was of the order of a few tens of kilometres. In practice, simultaneous release is unlikely to occur, agent will be destroyed by combustion and meteorological conditions will be less favourable resulting in a significantly reduced downwind hazard distance.4. Whilst chemical agents could have been released into the atmosphere as a result of the Allied air raids, there is no evidence to indicate that the resulting concentrations of agent in the atmosphere resulted in any harm to Iraqi personnel at those installations or in their vicinity, let alone the Allied Forces some hundreds of kilometres away from those installations.
Iraq (Chemical Weapons)
Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has received any evidence concerning current Iraqi chemical weapons capabilities.
Mr. Soames: My Department continues to assimilate evidence on current Iraqi chemical weapons capabilities from a number of sources, including the published reports by the UN Special Commission.
Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when sand suspected of carrying traces of chemical weapons or radioactivity was sent to Britain from (a) Israel, (b) Saudi Arabia, (c) Kuwait and (d) Iraq for testing at CBDE Porton Down.
Mr. Soames: This matter is for the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment, Porton Down 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 14 March 1995 :
QUESTION 10, ORDER PAPER 9 MARCH 1995
1. Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking when sand suspected of carrying traces of chemical weapons or radioactivity was sent to Britain from (a) Israel, (b) Saudi Arabia, (c) Kuwait and (d) Iraq for testing at CBDE Porton Down has been passed to me to answer as Chief Executive of the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment.
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 and biological weapons may be used against them.
3. Information on the analysis of samples collected from Iraq and sent to CBDE Porton Down was provided in the Official Report, 2 March 1995, columns 684 686; the samples analysed at CBDE Porton Down were described as soil samples although they are likely to contain varying quantities of sand. Some of the samples analysed in support of the United Special Commission (UNSCOM) on Iraq were in support of an investigation of the alleged use of chemical weapons against the Marsh Arabs in southern Iraq.
4. No sand suspected of carrying traces of chemical warfare agents have been sent from Israel, Saudi Arabia or Kuwait to CBDE Porton Down for analysis. No sand suspected of carrying traces of radioactivity from any of the countries named have been sent for testing at CBDE Porton Down.
Dr. David Clark: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received confirming the detection of chemical weapons use during the 1990 91 Gulf war; and if he will make a statement.
Mr. Soames: This is 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.
| Next Section
| Home Page |