Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what investigations have been carried out by his Department into Gulf War syndrome; what are the causes of Gulf War-related illnesses; and if he will make a statement. [138454]
Mr. Spellar: In July 1997, the Government published a detailed policy statement: "Gulf Veterans' Illnesses: A New Beginning", which set out how we proposed to address veterans' health concerns, including 20 key points on which the Government are taking specific action. Progress against the 20 key points has been reported and published, the most recent occasion being as part of the Defence Committee's Eleventh Special Report, Session 1999-2000. Further details of the Government's work to date can be found in the Library of the House and on my Department's website at: http://gulfwar.mod.uk. The Government accept that since returning from the Gulf conflict, some British veterans have become ill. Many believe that this ill-health is unusual and directly related to their participation in the conflict. Research published so far shows that Gulf veterans report more health problems than comparable military personnel who were not deployed to the Gulf.
However, the findings also support the view that Gulf veterans were not suffering from a single illness or "syndrome", and that the illnesses identified were not unique to the veterans. There is still no medical or scientific consensus on this subject. My Department remains open minded about the various causes of illness which have been suggested and important research continues.
Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on plans to review the locations of the home bases of helicopters in the armed forces; and if he will make a statement. [138544]
Mr. Spellar: I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 14 November 2000, Official Report, column 574W, and on 13 June 2000, Official Report, column 565W, and to my letter dated 24 August to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne).
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what initiatives his Department outlined at the university of Lancaster for a range of new equipment capabilities designed to improve the SSN's operational effectiveness in littoral zones; what initiatives were laid out for a network-centric concept of operations; and if he will make a statement; [138982]
20 Nov 2000 : Column: 6W
Mr. Spellar: At the Submarine Centennial Conference (27-29 September 2000), the Ministry of Defence's Equipment Capability Customer organisation outlined the research programme to inform new equipment capabilities that will improve our ship, submarine and aircraft operational effectiveness, in support of littoral operations contributing towards a more joint defence capability. Rear Admiral Rob Stevens, Flag Officer Submarines, and members of his staff, also addressed the conference.
The research programme includes work relevant to operations in littoral zones: hull-mounted sonar arrays; communications technologies; Recoverable Tethered Optical Fibre buoys; and mine detection and avoidance.
We are also conducting research related to a network-centric concept of operations, and to improve connectivity and advanced intelligence, surveillance, targeting and reconnaissance capabilities. The aim is to integrate underwater assets fully with wider maritime, air and land forces. There is a large programme of research and development work under way specific to the underwater battlespace. Some highlights include research into multistatics, allowing ships, submarines and maritime aircraft to exploit each other's sensors; remote sensor active acoustics; long-range acoustic communications; remotely deployed sensor systems; static sensors and Underwater Unmanned Vehicles. These technologies have wide military utility, and commercial applications, which are also developing rapidly, will be taken into account.
Mr. Cash: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if soldiers assigned to the EU defence capability may be used in operations outside Europe. [138724]
Mr. Spellar [holding answer 16 November 2000]: Troops on EU-led operations could be deployed outside Europe. The European Union has resolved to establish the capability, where NATO as a whole is not engaged, to launch and conduct military operations in response to international crises. The United Kingdom is committed to support the development of this capability, and will offer British forces to such operations in the light of circumstances at the time, which may involve deployment outside Europe.
Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state (a) the title and function of each of the military bodies established within the Secretariat of the Union, as agreed in December 1999, (b) the names of each of the representatives of the United Kingdom, together with their service rank, appointed to each, together with any other office held by them, (c) the body or institution of the Union that supervises the activities of each committee and to whom they are accountable and
20 Nov 2000 : Column: 7W
(d) what meetings of the Union he has attended in 2000 with members of the Governments of other member states. [139084]
Mr. Hoon: At the Helsinki European Council in December 1999, EU member states agreed to the establishment of a Military Committee and a Military Staff within the European Council.
The function of the Military Committee is to give military advice, make recommendations to the Political and Security Committee and provide military direction to the Military Staff. The Chairman of the Military Committee will attend meetings of the Council when decisions with defence implications are to be taken.
The function of the Military Staff is to provide military expertise and support to the Common European Security and Defence Policy, including on the conduct of EU-led operations. The Military Staff will perform early warning, situation assessment and strategic planning for Petersberg tasks.
As an interim measure, the Council agreed to set up the following bodies within the Council as of March 2000:
The UK representative in the interim body of military representatives is the Chief of Defence Staff. This body, known as the interim Military Body, (iMB) meets at Chiefs of Defence Staff level as and when needed. A Lieutenant General acts as the permanent representative in the iMB on behalf of the Chief of Defence Staff for day-to-day business. In addition to his role in the iMB the Lieutenant General is also the UK representative in both the NATO Military Committee and the Western European Union Military Delegates.
The military experts seconded from member states to strengthen the Council Secretariat are known as the interim Military Staff (iMS). The UK has seconded two officers to the iMS, a Major General to head the body and one staff officer (Lt. Col. level).
The interim Military Staff is accountable to the interim Military Body, which is in turn accountable to the General Affairs Council.
I attended General Affairs Council meetings on 14 June and 20 November. The Minister for Defence Procurement attended a meeting of the General Affairs Council on my behalf on 20 March.
In addition, I attended informal meetings of EU Defence Ministers on 28 February and 22 September.
Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the assessment he has made of the impact on the organisational efficacy and cost of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and of the chain of command to individual military units of adding to the existing NATO contingency planning, the parallel obligations now
20 Nov 2000 : Column: 8W
contemplated within the European Union; and if he will indicate what extra forces will be necessary to fulfil such dual demands. [139056]
Mr. Hoon: The commitments we have made to develop the military crisis management capabilities of the European Union will strengthen both the European Union and NATO. The establishment of a small military staff within the EU will be partly offset by the winding down of the Western European Union. British forces will be contributed to multinational operations in the framework of the European Union on a voluntary basis, depending on the circumstances at the time.
Mr. Cash: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of how many British (a) military personnel, (b) aircraft, (c) ships and (d) armoured vehicles he estimates will be seconded to the EU under plans put forward at the St. Malo, Cologne and Feira meetings for the development of EU defence policy. [138681]
Mr. Hoon [holding answer 16 November 2000]: No British forces are being seconded to the EU. The UK, along with other member states, will identify a range of forces from which a contribution to an EU-led military crisis management operation could be drawn.
The details of this contribution will not be finalised until the Capability Commitments Conference on 20 November.
Mr. Reed: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what United Kingdom forces will be offered to help meet the Headline Goal adopted by the EU at its Helsinki summit; and if he will make a statement. [139515]
Mr. Hoon: Over the last six months, military experts of EU member states assisted by NATO planners, have carried out a detailed assessment of the forces and capabilities required by the EU to enable it to carry out by 2003 the full range of crisis management ("Petersberg") tasks envisaged in the Headline Goal set at Helsinki. The UK has identified a pool of forces and capabilities which would enable it to make a powerful contribution to such options in support of the Union's Common Foreign and Security Policy, where NATO as a whole is not engaged. UK participation in any particular operation, and the nature of our contribution, would be matters for decision by the UK Government in the light of circumstances at the time.
In the maximum scale operation envisaged at Helsinki--a corps level of deployment of up to 60,000 troops--the UK component could be around 12,500 strong. Maritime and air deployments of up to 18 warships and 72 combat aircraft could be made in addition.
The pool provides for an element of choice in order to cater for differing operational, political or geographical circumstances. The full details of the forces identified are confidential, but the major elements are as follows:
Either an armoured or mechanised brigade, each of which could be sustained for at least a year; or an air assault brigade which would be deployed for up to six months. Combat support enabling capabilities such as artillery, and short range air defence and attack helicopters
20 Nov 2000 : Column: 9W
could be deployed in addition, supported by the appropriate complement of logistic enablers and national support troops.
Maritime forces comprising one aircraft carrier, two nuclear powered submarines, deployment of up to four destroyers/frigates, support vessels; and an amphibious task group, including one helicopter landing platform and an amphibious brigade. The aircraft carrier, helicopter landing platform and submarines could not necessarily be sustained continuously for a whole year.
Up to 72 combat aircraft (including Sea Harriers), with associated support aircraft including strategic transport. This number would be available for six months to cover initial theatre entry. For a longer term commitment the total would reduce.
The development of the EU Headline Goal and the commitment of EU member states to delivering the capabilities required are important steps in a wider process of improving European defence capabilities. They will reinforce efforts being made nationally and multinationally, in particular, in response to NATO initiatives, and, in so doing, strengthen the European contribution to the Alliance.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |