Previous Section Index Home Page

9 Jan 2003 : Column 292W—continued


Christmas Expenses

Mr. Djanogly: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much will be spent on (a) entertaining, (b) Christmas decorations and (c) other festive activities this Christmas season by his Department and

9 Jan 2003 : Column 293W

Government agencies answerable to his Department; and of this sum how much will be spent in Ministers' (i) private offices and (ii) official residences. [88132]

Dr. Moonie [holding answer 19 December 2002]: Specific information on any official festive expenditure is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Any expenditure incurred on entertainment, decorations and any other festive activities is strictly for official purposes only, and is made in accordance with departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government accounting.

Fire Brigades Strike

Mr. Salter: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made of the safety of movements of munitions between military bases during industrial action by the Fire Brigades Union. [89444]

Mr. Ingram: An assessment of the safety of movements of munitions between military bases during industrial action by the Fire Brigades Union has been made by the Ministry of Defence Explosives Storage and Transport Committee (ESTC), responsible for setting MOD policy, standards and regulations for the transport of military explosives. This concluded that the risk to the general public and MOD personnel is not increased during industrial action.


Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much ordnance has been dropped on Iraq by the RAF in each year since 1992. [88961]

Mr. Ingram: Between 1992 and the start of Operation Desert Fox at the end of 1998 no ordnance was released. Information on ordnance released during Operation Desert Fox is not held.

Since 1999 the RAF, responding in self-defence against air defence targets, has released the following tonnages of ordnance.



The figure for 2002 covers up to 4 December only.


Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the (a) Landmines Act 1998 and (b) Ottawa Treaty permits United Kingdom armed forces or other British nationals acting in consort with the armed forces of another state to handle or otherwise provide support for the deployment of landmines. [89017]

Mr. Ingram: Under the Ottawa Convention, each State Party undertakes, inter alia, never under any circumstances to use anti-personnel mines (APM) or to assist, encourage or induce, in any way anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party to the

9 Jan 2003 : Column 294W

Convention. On ratification of the Convention, the United Kingdom made a statement of understanding of our obligations indicating that

Our obligations under the Ottawa Convention are fulfilled not only through the Landmines Act but through training and instruction of the armed forces. Personnel are instructed that, as well as not being permitted to lay APM, they may not seek benefit from the use of APM by allies who are not bound by the Ottawa Convention by requesting the use of APM in direct support of UK forces. Moreover, UK forces may not engage in any physical activities specifically related to the emplacement of APM by allies not bound by the Ottawa Convention.

Manning Control Reviews

Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 16 December 2002, Official Report, column 515W, how many army personnel were issued with manning control warning certificates in each of the last 10 years, other than those discharged and listed in the answer of 27 November 2002, Official Report, column 332–33W, broken down by regiment. [89279]

Dr. Moonie: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 27 November 2002, Official Report, columns 332–34W which provides details of those issued with manning control warning certificates and discharged under Queen's Regulations 9.413 XNot required for a full Army career". The number of those issued with a manning control warning certificate but not subsequently discharged is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

Missile Defence

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he intends to announce a decision on the US application to site national missile defence facilities in the UK. [89372]

Mr. Hoon: No specific date has yet been determined for a final decision on the United States request to upgrade the early warning radar at RAF Fylingdales. Once we have carefully considered the issues involved and taken account of parliamentary and public discussion, I will inform the House at the earliest opportunity.

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what distribution, and in what languages, has been arranged by his Department of the consultation document Missile Defence; and if he will make a statement. [89381]

9 Jan 2003 : Column 295W

Mr. Hoon: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the public discussion paper published on 9 December. Copies of the paper have been placed in the Library of the House and in the main public libraries in the United Kingdom. It has been sent to Members of this House, other people and organisations with an expressed interest in missile defence, the media and to embassies in London. The paper is also available on the Ministry of Defence website. The paper is in English.

RAF Welford

Mr. Salter: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who is in command of munitions convoys entering and leaving the US Air Force Base at RAF Welford; and what arrangements are made for providing security and safety escorts for these convoys. [89445]

Mr. Ingram: Overall command of United States Visiting Forces munitions convoys entering and leaving RAF Welford is vested in Commander Third Air Force USAF. Ministry of Defence Police provide security escorts, if required, to suit the size and nature of the munitions being carried.

Mr. Salter: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recommendations the Defence Munitions Rationalisation Studies made concerning the RAF Welford site; and when he plans to implement them. [89446]

Dr. Moonie: An estate rationalisation exercise undertaken by Defence Munitions (DM) in 2000 identified over capacity within the national DM estate. Following consideration of a number of options it was decided that DM Welford should close with its tasks being transferred to other DM locations. The site was emptied of United Kingdom owned munitions by December 2000. The UK portion of the Welford site was transferred for use by the United States authorities in October 2002. The facilities offered by Welford therefore did not feature in a follow on DM rationalisation study carried out in 2002.

Mr. Salter: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who manages contracts for the haulage of munitions to and from RAF Welford; who is responsible for initiating and controlling an emergency response in the event of an accident involving munitions in transit to or from RAF Welford; and whether the West Berkshire emergency planning officer and the Berkshire fire and rescue service are informed of movements of such munitions. [89448]

Mr. Ingram: The Defence Transportation and Movements Agency manages the contract for haulage of military munitions throughout the United Kingdom. The United States visiting forces are a party to that contract. Initiation of emergency action in the event of an incident/accident is the responsibility of the driver, attendant or other person responsible for a vehicle carrying military munitions. The civil authority notified of the emergency would then be responsible for its control.

There is no requirement to notify the West Berkshire Emergency Planning Officer or Berkshire Fire and Rescue Service of munitions movement from or to RAF Welford.

9 Jan 2003 : Column 296W


Colombia and Bolivia

Mr. Love : To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid has been given to (a) Colombia and (b) Bolivia in the last three years; what proportion was to combat production of hard drugs; and if she will make a statement. [89412]

Clare Short: Over the last three financial years, gross bilateral aid to (a) Colombia and (b) Bolivia was:

Gross bilateral aid to Colombia and Bolivia

1999–2000 2000–01 2001–02

No DFID funds have supported direct activities to combat the production of hard drugs.

From 1998 to 2001 DFID gave #720,000 to support a UN alternative development programme, to provide sustainable alternative livelihoods to coca growing, in agro-forestry systems, in Bolivia. Since then DFID has not supported alternative development activities in Bolivia.

The FCO Drugs and Crime Fund (DCF), which is active in Colombia and Bolivia, is aimed at reducing the supply of class A drugs to the UK. DCF projects focus on increasing capacity to intercept drugs being trafficked and not on combating production. DCF funds do not come from the aid budget.

In addition, DFID contributes approx 19 per cent. to the EC. The latest available figures for Colombia and Bolivia are as follows:

1998 1999 2000
# millionDFID share# millionDFID share# millionDFID share

Next Section Index Home Page