---

16 Jan 2003 : Column 702W—continued

Ethical Banking

Mr. Gardiner: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contracts have been concluded as a result of the Government's commitment to support ethical banking. [89942]

Mr. Ingram: The Government believe it is important for consumers to have choice in financial products, including the availability of 'ethical' products. However, it would not be appropriate for the government to exclusively support the development of one specific group of financial service providers. It is for individual consumers to decide the attributes they most value from their financial services and for financial services firms to be transparent about their use of funds and investments.

European Rapid Reaction Force

Mr. Andrew Turner: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) for what purposes beyond humanitarian relief, peacekeeping and crisis management British hardware and personnel committed to the European Rapid Reaction Force may be used; [89587]

(2) what the British (a) hardware and (b) personnel commitment is to the ERRF; and to what extent this has changed since November 2002; [89588]

(3) what British commitment he estimates will be required to meet goal shortfalls by fellow members of the ERRF in (a) its first year and (b) subsequent years. [89589]

Mr. Hoon: There is no standing European Rapid Reaction Force. Under the European Security and Defence Policy, national forces will come together for specific, EU-led crisis management operations (the 'Petersberg tasks') where NATO as a whole is not engaged. These incorporate humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping tasks, and tasks of combat forces in crisis management, including peacemaking.

We are not committing British forces to a standing structure—we and other member states are, on a voluntary basis, offering to make forces available to meet requirements identified in the Helsinki Headline Catalogue as necessary to enable the EU to undertake the full spectrum of Petersberg tasks. The potential British contribution could be up to 12,500 troops, 72 combat

16 Jan 2003 : Column 703W

aircraft and 18 warships, with a full range of supporting capabilities. At the Capabilities Improvement Conference in November 2001, along with other member states, the United Kingdom increased its potential contribution in areas where capability shortfalls were identified. There has been no change since then.

Headline Goal shortfalls are identified by comparing the combined total of forces offered by member states with the Headline Goal requirements and are therefore collective; it is not the case that the United Kingdom contribution is intended to meet the shortfalls of others. Implementing solutions to shortfalls is a matter for nations or groups of nations to undertake voluntarily.

Field Hospital Volunteers

Ms Walley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the 202 Field Hospital Volunteers have been called up; what their profession is in each case; and in which NHS facility they are employed. [90911]

Dr. Moonie: To date no members of 202 (Volunteer) Field Hospital have been called up, nor are there any immediate plans to do so.

Iraq

Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what (a) briefing and (b) other assistance personnel from his Department gave to The Sunday Telegraph in respect of its report of 22 December 2002 about preparations for a military campaign against Iraq. [89883]

Mr. Hoon: No authorised briefing or assistance was given.

Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidelines he has given to the media about what is not appropriate to report in advance of possible military action against Iraq. [89884]

Mr. Hoon: No guidelines have been issued to anyone detailing what would not be appropriate to report should there be any military action against Iraq. However, the specific issue of reporting restrictions is dealt with under the DA Notice procedures, further details of which can be found on the Defence Press and Broadcasting Advisory Committee website at:

The Ministry of Defence will shortly be in touch with editors of the mainstream media about the arrangements for reporting during any possible future military action against Iraq.

Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many children have been killed in Iraq as a direct result of bombs and missiles used to enforce the no-fly zones in Iraq since the policy of implementation was started. [90234]

Mr. Hoon: We are not aware of any child fatalities resulting from responses made in self-defence by coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones.

Coalition aircrew only ever respond in self defence against military targets. When attacks by Iraqi air defences force coalition aircraft to respond in this way,

16 Jan 2003 : Column 704W

we go to great lengths to ensure that the risk of civilian casualties is minimised. Targets are selected with extreme care and precision-guided weapons are used.

Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what has been the cost to date of mobilisation of British troops and medical auxiliaries for prospective military activities in the Gulf. [90239]

Mr. Hoon: The information requested is not yet available. I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House in due course.

Paul Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role he expects the Fairford air base in Gloucester to play in any conflict with Iraq. [90255]

Mr. Hoon: RAF Fairford is a NATO designated standby base that is made available to the United States Visiting Force and from which a wide range of aircraft types can be deployed. The United Kingdom Government must be fully consulted and agree before any US Air Force aircraft are deployed operationally from any RAF base, including RAF Fairford.

No request has been received to activate RAF Fairford for operational purposes and it would be inappropriate to speculate what role, if any, the base might play in the event of any conflict with Iraq.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many MoD personnel are engaged in (a) translating and (b) analysing the dossier submitted by Iraq to the UN; and if he will make a statement. [88959]

Mr. Hoon: The Iraqi declaration in response to United Nations Security Council resolution 1441 is being analysed by the Ministry of Defence in conjunction with other Departments. Parts of the declaration are being translated into English by Ministry of Defence personnel and by personnel drawn from other Departments. I am withholding the number of personnel engaged in the tasks of translating and analysing the declaration in accordance with Exemption la of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

Future Joint Combat Aircraft

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when a decision is to be made on the additional purchase of Future Joint Combat Aircraft; and if he will make a statement. [90159]

Mr. Ingram: We do not expect to make a decision on how many Joint Strike Fighters are required to meet our Future Joint Combat Aircraft requirement until 2006. Work to inform this decision is ongoing and in the meantime our planning assumption remains that up to 150 Short Take Off and Vertical Landing Joint Strike Fighters will be required.

A purchase of additional Joint Strike Fighters is one of the options being considered to fill any manned aircraft requirement within the Future Offensive Air System. A range of potential mixes of platforms is currently being looked at, including Long Range Cruise Missiles, Uninhabited Combat Air Vehicles and manned aircraft. No decisions have yet been taken.

16 Jan 2003 : Column 705W

New Barracks

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the sites being considered for new barracks. [88571]

Dr. Moonie: I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

RAF Menwith Hill

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 16t December 2002, Official Report, column 518W, on RAF bases, for what reason no budget is shown for RAF Menwith Hill. [90153]

Mr. Ingram: RAF Menwith Hill is owned by the Ministry of Defence and made available to the US Department of Defense under the NATO Status of Forces Agreement of 1951. Administration of the base is the responsibility of the US authorities.

Information on detailed operational matters at RAF Menwith Hill, including funding issues, is withheld under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information on the grounds of national security.

Reservists

Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the contracts signed by his Department requiring the service provider to employ sponsored reserves; how many sponsored reserves are required in each case; and if he will make a statement. [90774]

Dr. Moonie: As of 14 January contracts have been signed for the RORO Strategic Sealift which has a requirement for 180 Sponsored Reserves (SRs), the Survey Vessels Project which has a requirement for four SRs, the Mobile Met Unit which has a requirement for 48 SRs and the Heavy Equipment Transporter which has a requirement for 85 SRs.

Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many call-out notices have been sent out recently; how many call-out notices were sent to reservists and under what legal headings prior to and during (a) the Kosovo crisis, (b) the first Gulf war and (c) operations in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [90798]

Dr. Moonie: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence stated in his announcement to the House on 7 January 2003, Official Report, column 24, we envisage initially sending out sufficient call-out notices to secure about 1,500 Reservists and we will issue further notices as appropriate. As of 13 January, some 615 call-out notices had been sent under the authority of the call-out order made on 7 January 2003 under Section 54 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 (RFA 96). For operations in the former republic of Yugoslavia (including Kosovo) and Afghanistan, Reservists were also called out under Section 54 of RFA 96. For Operation Granby (the Gulf conflict 1990–91), Reservists were called out under Section 10 of the Reserve Forces Act 1980. Information regarding call-out notices served for these operations is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

16 Jan 2003 : Column 706W

Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether reservists are awaiting call-up to come from (a) the Territorial Army and (b) the Civilian Regular Reserves; what reserve liabilities exist for each category of reserve in each of the three services; which situations must exist before recall can be permitted; what procedures have to be followed in order to implement the call-up in each case; and if he will make a statement. [90799]

Dr. Moonie: Initially we envisage to secure about 1,500 reservists under the call-out Order made on 7 January 2003. That Order was made under section 54(1) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996. The vast majority of those being called out will come from the volunteer reserve forces, ie. the Royal Naval Reserve, the Royal Marines Reserve, the Territorial Army and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. However, some reservists, particularly those who have skills not readily available in the volunteer reserve forces, will be called out from the ex-regular reserve forces, ie. the Royal Fleet Reserve, the Army Reserve and the Royal Air Force Reserve.

The general liabilities for members of the reserve forces, both volunteer and ex-regular, are set out in Part VI of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, particularly sections 52, 54 and 56. The liability of certain officers and former servicemen who are not members of any reserve force to be recalled for service is set out in Part VII of the Act and the power to authorise their recall is laid down in section 68. The call-out Order made on 7 January does not authorise the mobilisation of such individuals and there are no plans to make a recall Order. Such an Order could only be made in time of national danger or if a great emergency had arisen.

Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons reservists can refuse to serve; what powers the MoD has to compel reservists to serve; and if he will make a statement. [90800]

Dr. Moonie: The Reserve Forces Act 1996 (RFA 96) requires Reservists who are served with a call-out notice to report for service at a specified time and place. Failure to comply may result in the Reservist being charged with desertion or absence without leave and may be tried by court-martial or summarily by a civil court. However, RFA 96 also contains safeguards for individuals, including the right to apply for exemption from or deferral of call-out. The detailed regulations are contained in the Reserve Forces (Call-out and Recall) (Exemptions Etc) Regulations, Statutory Instrument 1997/307. Schedule 1 of those regulations sets out the grounds on which a Reservist may make an application. Reservists are made aware of their right to apply for deferral or exemption at the time of their call-out. There are separate arrangements for conscientious objectors.

Mr. Peter Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many reservists are being called up who reside in Scotland. [90391]

Dr. Moonie: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence stated in his announcement to the House on 7 January 2003 Official Report, column 24, experience shows that the number of call-out notices issued needs to be significantly larger than the number of individual Reservists likely to be required. Under the

16 Jan 2003 : Column 707W

call-out order made on 7 January 2003, we envisage initially sending out sufficient call-out notices to secure about 1,500 Reservists and we will issue further notices as appropriate. As of 13 January, some 615 call-out notices had been issued, of which 32 were sent to addresses in Scotland.

---