---

3 Feb 2004 : Column 755W

Written Answers to Questions

Tuesday 3 February 2004

DEFENCE

Civil Service (Disabled People)

Mr. Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out the number of employees in his department who have a disability, broken down by disability type. [148989]

Mr. Caplin: The number of employees within the department as at 1 October 2003 who have a disability by disability type is:

Description	Number
Hearing impairment	1,040
Visual impairment	310
Speech impairment	60
Mobility impairment	810
Physical coordination difficulties	140
Reduced physical capacity	1,010
Severe disfigurement	90
Learning difficulties	140
Mental illness	110
Multiple impairment	20
Unknown disability	20
Disability total	3,700
Not disabled	49,150
Status unknown	35,200
Overall total	88,100

Notes:1. Permanent staff excluding Royal Fleet Auxiliaries and those not currently paid by the department (e.g. maternity leave, secondment).

2. Values are rounded separately and may not add to totals.

Iraq

Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date in October 2002 the military decision was taken to supply all troops in Iraq with enhanced body armour. [151435]

Mr. Hoon [holding answer 27 January 2004]: In line with normal practice, an Urgent Statement of User Requirement, generated by Land Command on 21 October, was endorsed by the Permanent Joint Headquarters on 5 November 2002. This recommended that all ground forces deploying on Operation Telic should be equipped with Enhanced Combat Body Armour.

Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) whether permission was obtained from the Prime Minister's office before the orders for extra sets of enhanced body armour were placed; [151438]

(2) which Ministers gave approval for the placing of orders for extra sets of enhanced body armour within (a) his Department and (b) other departments; [151437]

3 Feb 2004 : Column 756W

(3) for what reason political approval for the placing of orders for extra sets of enhanced body armour was not given until 25 November 2002; [151436]

(4) what (a) instruction and (b) guidance was given by (i) the Prime Minister's office and (ii) other Ministers that orders for equipment required for possible military action should not be placed while diplomatic efforts for a solution in Iraq were still underway. [151359]

Mr. Hoon [holding answer 27 January 2004]: The overall process to be followed for meeting the urgent equipment and stock requirements for Operation Telic was approved by Defence Ministers. The basis on which preparatory work was undertaken took appropriate account of the continuing diplomatic process. As the Ministry of Defence's publication "Operations in Iraq—Lessons For the Future" states, operational security and the requirement not to prejudice the UN process limited early planning and engagement with industry until the Urgent Operational Requirement process was announced on 25 November 2002. Neither the approval of Defence Ministers, nor the approval of the Prime Minister or of other Ministers outside the MOD, was required or given for the placement of individual orders, including for Enhanced Combat Body Armour (ECBA).

Ministry of Defence Police

Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the (a) manpower strength and (b) manpower strength requirement is of the Ministry of Defence Police. [152237]

Mr. Caplin: As at 1 December 2003, the total authorised complement of Ministry of Defence Police officers was 3,433 and the strength, 3,290.

Timber

Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether contracts which involve the supply and consumption of timber include the Defence Contract Condition (DEFCON) 691. [152190]

Mr. Caplin [holding answer 30 January 2004]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 21 January 2004, Official Report, columns 1250–51W. The Ministry of Defence does not keep central records of the number of contracts, which contain DEFCON 691.

Unfair Dismissal Procedures

Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what procedures exist for soldiers who consider themselves to have been unfairly dismissed from the Army but failed to submit a redress within three months of discharge to appeal against their dismissal; and if he will make a statement. [152748]

Mr. Caplin: The three-month time limit within which a complaint must be submitted begins from the day on which the soldier is formally notified that they are to be dismissed or discharged. Complaints submitted outside this period will normally be rejected as 'out of time' unless the officer to whom the complaint is first presented judges that it was not reasonably practicable for the complaint to have been submitted earlier.

3 Feb 2004 : Column 757W

SCOTLAND

Skye Bridge

Mr. Charles Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the proposed construction and finance costs were of the two alternative bids to construct the Skye Bridge brought forward in 1990 by the construction firms Morrison and Trafalgar House. [147132]

Mrs. McGuire: Following devolution, responsibility and documentation relating to the construction and financing of the Skye Bridge are now a matter for the Scottish Executive. The right hon. Member may wish to write to Nicol Stephen, the Scottish Minister with responsibility for this matter.

The Scotland Office has no continuing responsibility and does not hold information about the Skye Bridge.

Whisky Industry

Mr. Carmichael: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the Scottish whisky industry; and what plans he has to do so in the future. [150394]

Mrs. McGuire: My right hon. Friend will shortly be meeting representatives from Diageo and the Scotch Whisky Association to discuss issues affecting the whisky industry in Scotland.

PRIME MINISTER

Child Access

Mr. Brady: To ask the Prime Minister what conclusions he has reached following his investigations into the treatment of child access by the courts announced by him on LBC Radio on 14 January. [149941]

The Prime Minister: The Government believes that children benefit from a continuing relationship with both parents following parental separation, where it is in the best interests of the child. The Children Act 1989 requires the court to make the welfare of the child concerned its paramount consideration when considering cases where parents are unable to agree on access arrangements for their children.

Courts can enforce contact for non-resident parents with deliberate refusal by resident parents leading to fines of up to £2,500 or imprisonment of up to 2 years. However, such penalties may not be appropriate due to the effect this may have on the child at the centre of the dispute.

The Government published its initial response into "Making Contact Work", a report by the Children Act Sub-Committee (CASC), on the issue of facilitation and enforcement of contact orders in August 2002.

In light of this report, we established a stakeholder group comprising representatives from the judiciary, legal professionals, Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, other government departments and the voluntary sector to examine the issue of facilitation and enforcement. The

3 Feb 2004 : Column 758W

Government's full response to the CASC report, which will be published shortly, will address the issue of effective enforcement of court-ordered contact.

Dalai Lama

Mr. Lidington: To ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to meet the Dalai Lama during his forthcoming visit to the United Kingdom. [150785]

The Prime Minister: I regret that because of diary commitments I will be unable to meet the Dalai Lama during his forthcoming visit to the UK.

Gibraltar

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Prime Minister if he plans to visit Gibraltar in the Tercentenary; if he plans to attend St. Clement Daines tercentenary service; and if he will make a statement on Gibraltar and its tercentenary. [151271]

The Prime Minister: Ministerial visits to Gibraltar in 2004 and attendance at the St. Clement Daines Tercentenary Service are currently under consideration and details have not been finalised.

The Government intends to play a full part in celebrating the Tercentenary. I refer the hon. Member to the statement given by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Hoon), during the debate on the Gracious Speech on 27 November 2003, Official Report, columns 224–25.

Hutton Inquiry/Report

Llew Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish his witness statement to the Hutton Inquiry. [152312]

The Prime Minister: Lord Hutton set out the process for his Inquiry with which we agreed.

Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister who in his Office saw the embargoed version of Lord Hutton's report. [152599]

The Prime Minister: Lord Hutton set out the process for those to receive embargoed copies of his report. The number of advance copies and the associated undertakings of confidentiality were agreed between each of the parties and Lord Hutton. We have nothing further to add.

---