---

14 Jun 2004 : Column 637W—continued

Defence Assistance Fund

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost of the Defence Assistance Fund was for each of the last four years; and how much of those costs in each year was used to promote military exports. [176430]

Mr. Ingram: Defence Assistance Fund (DAF) expenditure was £19.9 million in 2000–01; £7.2 million in 2001–02; £9.7 million in 2002–03 and £10.4 million in 2003–04. Of this, the amount spent on supporting defence exports was £4.7 million in 2000–01; £5 million
 
14 Jun 2004 : Column 638W
 
in 2001–02; £4.2 million in 2002–03 and £6 million in 2003–04. The drop in the DAF total between 2000–01 and 2001–02 reflects the transfer of funds to the Conflict Prevention Fund.

Defence Bodies

Mr. Keith Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will place in the Library a copy of the balance sheet of the (a) Chief of Defence Logistics and (b) Defence Storage and Distribution Agency management group for financial year 2000–01; [176131]

(2) if he will place in the Library a copy of the balance sheet of the Chief of Defence Logistics Management Group non-disaggregated funds for financial year 1999–2000. [176153]

Mr. Ingram: I have already published the balance sheet for the Defence Storage and Distribution Agency for 2000–01 and the Chief of Defence Logistics Management Groups. I refer the hon. Member to my letter of 21 August 2003, reference: D/MIN(AF)/2185N/03/L to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin). Copies are available in the Library of the House.

Defence Intelligence Budget

Mr. Gray: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Defence Intelligence Budget was in (a) 1997, (b) 2000 and (c) 2004; and what budget is projected for the next three financial years. [173961]

Mr. Ingram [holding answer 18 May 2004]: There is no defence intelligence budget as such. While the Defence Intelligence Staff (DIS) operates as a discrete unit, other elements of the defence intelligence community are integral parts of a range of budgetary areas.

The DIS's budgets for 2000–01 and the current financial year (2004–05) are as follows:

Financial year	£ million
2000–01	(5)151.7
2004–05	(6)198.4

⁽⁵⁾ Cash at outturn prices.
⁽⁶⁾ "Near-cash" at 2004–05 prices.
Notes:
1. In 2000–01, the Department was still budgeted in cash terms. Under Resource Accounting and Budgeting, it is now controlled in terms of Resource and Capital Departmental Expenditure Limits (DELs).
2. "Near-cash" comprises Resource and Capital DELs, less charges for cost of capital and depreciation, and changes in provisions.

In 2000–01, the Department was controlled in cash, whereas the figure for 2004–05 reflects the move to Resource Accounting and Budgeting. The two figures are not therefore directly comparable. I will write to the hon. Member about the DIS's budget for 1997–98.

Planning assumptions about the content and timing of the defence programme in future years form part of internal advice to Ministers on the overall affordability of defence, and in some cases anticipate decisions to be taken by Ministers. I am therefore withholding budgetary information on future years under
 
14 Jun 2004 : Column 639W
 
Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The defence budget beyond 2005–06 will be agreed in the 2004 Spending Review.

Departmental Staff

Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many staff were employed in the Department to work in the communications field, and what the total expenditure on communications for the Department was, broken down by (a) Government Information and Communication Service staff and (b) other staff, broken down by (i) press officers, (ii) special advisers and (iii) others, in (A) 1994–95, (B) 1996–97, (C) 1997–98 and (D) 2001–02. [168680]

Mr. Caplin: Information for 1994–95, 1996–97 and 1997–98 is no longer available.

During the financial year 2001–02, a total of 150 military and civilian personnel were employed within the communications organisation in the Ministry of Defence Headquarters. This included 21 members of the Government Information and Communication Service (GICS). Of the remainder, eight worked in the Press Office and the others were employed on a wide range of tasks, including design, publicity, marketing, internal communications and strategic planning.

The cost of these staff for 2001- 02 was £5.3 million, of which around £0.90 million was for the members of the GICS.

The figures relate to those employed within the Ministry of Defence's Headquarters Communications department at any time during the year.

Details of staff employed in communications elsewhere in the MOD are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

There are two special advisers in the Ministry of Defence, neither of whom are members of the communications organisation. The Special Adviser's Code of Conduct sets out the sort of work a special adviser may undertake on behalf of their Minister and this includes communications activity. Details of the costs of special advisers are given on an annual basis. Information for the financial year 2003–04 will be published in due course.

Eurofighter Typhoon

Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what representations he has received from QinetiQ about the Typhoon's software and computer programmes; [176474]

(2) what representations he has received from the companies involved in the Typhoon programme about that aircraft's software and computer programmes; [176476]

(3) what representations he has received from the RAF about the Typhoon's software and computer systems. [176477]

Mr. Ingram: No representations have been received about Typhoon's software and computer programmes. However, reports on all aspects of the Typhoon, including the software and computing, have been commissioned by the Ministry of Defence from both
 
14 Jun 2004 : Column 640W
 
the companies involved in the programme and the Independent Assessor (QinetiQ in this case). This is the normal process for all new aircraft types entering service. It is the responsibility of MOD to take into account these reports and establish whether an aircraft meets the necessary safety requirements. Typhoon has been assessed to meet those requirements, allowing the Assistant Chief of the Air Staff to authorise the aircraft's Release to Service permitting operation under RAF safety procedures.

Firearms Rules

Mr. McNamara: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rules govern the import by army personnel of captured weapons to the UK as souvenirs; what measures are taken to enforce these rules; and how many individuals have been subject to disciplinary action for infringements in the last five years. [176026]

Mr. Ingram: All armed forces personnel are subject to the 'Import, Export and Customs Powers (Defence) Act 1939' and the 'Import of Goods (Control) Order 1954'. This legislation prohibits the importation of all goods including military operational memorabilia, firearms and cultural objects into the United Kingdom unless under the authority of a licence issued by the Department of Trade and Industry.

Service police search all equipment, vehicles and containers returning from operational theatres, and members of the RAF are provided with guidance on the search of equipment and baggage loaded onto aircraft.

Over the last five years, a total of eight service personnel have been reported by the Royal Military Police for infringements.

Iraq

Sir Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to whom UK forces in Iraq will answer in the event of allegations of war crimes or misconduct after 30 June; and if he will make a statement. [176809]

Mr. Hoon [holding answer 8 June 2004]: United Kingdom forces, wherever they operate in the world, are subject to UK military law which includes criminal liability for offences committed overseas as set out in the Service Discipline Acts. This has always been the case in Iraq and will continue to apply for as long as British forces are present. As in the UK or in other operational theatres, the responsibility for enforcing the law lies with the Service police.

Adam Price: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information he has examined in relation to civilian deaths cause by UK forces in the city of Amara between 3 and 6 April. [177585]

Mr. Ingram: The Ministry of Defence examines information from a variety of sources to keep abreast of all developments in Iraq. In the week in question, nine Iraqis were confirmed killed in Al Amara, although the total number of fatalities cannot be confirmed. The deaths occurred during attacks on 1 Light Infantry in incidents while they were on patrol and during a demonstration. Those confirmed killed were directly involved in armed attacks on United Kingdom forces.
 
14 Jun 2004 : Column 641W
 

Mr. Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he first made representations to his US counterpart regarding the International Committee of the Red Cross report on maltreatment of Iraqi prisoners by US forces in Iraq. [174592]

Mr. Hoon [holding answer 20 May 2004]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 24 May 2004, Official Report, column 1353W.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether (a) private contractor interrogators and (b) advisers on interrogation techniques of any nationality have been allowed access to (i) prisons and (ii) other places of detention under British control in Iraq. [174666]

Mr. Hoon [holding answer 26 May 2004]: No.

Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those matters in respect of security policies implemented by Coalition forces in Iraq which are (a) his responsibility, (b) the responsibility of his United States counterpart and (c) matters for which responsibility is joint. [175073]

Mr. Ingram: The actions of United Kingdom forces are the responsibility of the UK. The United States is responsible for the actions of US forces. As is the case with many multinational operations the UK commander reports to the Multinational Force commander whilst remaining under British national control, through the Permanent Joint Headquarters to the Ministry of Defence. The other members of the Multinational Force have their own national chains of command.

Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether interrogators used by the British armed forces are permitted to make direct physical threats to those held in custody. [175066]

Mr. Ingram: No. All United Kingdom interrogators must successfully complete a stringent course prior to undertaking any operational interrogations. During the course they are specifically instructed that individuals being questioned must be treated at all times in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Use of physical threats could amount to mental torture or coercion, both of which are banned by the Conventions.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his latest estimate is of the number of Iraqi civilians killed in consequence of military operations carried out by British forces since the invasion of Iraq began. [171520]

Mr. Ingram: We have no reliable means of ascertaining the numbers of Iraqi civilians killed during major combat operations between 19 March and 1 May 2003.

Since 1 May the United Kingdom Units have reported all confirmed fatalities of which they are aware arising from incidents in which they were involved and we have put in place a mechanism for central collation of unit reports. However it is not always possible to confirm whether fatalities or injuries have occurred during a particular incident. For example, in some incidents we believe Iraqi dead and/or injured may have been taken away by their compatriots before UK forces could investigate. In other incidents UK forces have
 
14 Jun 2004 : Column 642W
 
been forced to withdraw before any Iraqi fatalities and/or injuries could be confirmed. Consequently we have no viable means of assessing the completeness of the information.

Mr. Best: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the number of Iraqi civilians killed (a) during the war, (b) since President Bush declared an end to hostilities and (c) in early April in Fallujah; and if he will make a statement. [171853]

Mr. Ingram [holding answer 11 May 2004]: We have no reliable means of ascertaining the numbers of Iraqi civilians killed during major combat operations between 19 March and 1 May 2003.

Since 1 May, United Kingdom Units have reported all confirmed fatalities of which they are aware arising from incidents in which they were involved and we have put in place a mechanism for central collation of unit reports. However it is not always possible to confirm whether fatalities or injuries have occurred during a particular incident. For example, in some incidents we believe Iraqi dead and/or injured may have been taken away by their compatriots before UK forces could investigate. In other incidents UK forces have been forced to withdraw before any Iraqi fatalities and/or injuries could be confirmed. Consequently we have no viable means of assessing the completeness of the information.

We are not in a position to comment on civilian casualties allegedly caused by other coalition partners.

Mr. Redwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when Ministers were first informed that some prisoners in UK custody were being mistreated in Iraq. [172996]

Mr. Hoon: Ministers were informed that the Special Investigation Branch of the Royal Military Police had commenced an investigation into the alleged ill-treatment and false imprisonment of Iraqi civilians on 22 April 2003. The investigation concluded that there was no case to answer.

Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what specific training has been given to British servicemen and women in respect of (a) interviewing and (b) managing civilian detainees in Iraq; and if he will place a copy of the manual used in such training in the Library. [173340]

Mr. Ingram: Specialist training for personnel responsible for interviewing detainees is provided through a series of up to three courses based upon the Geneva Conventions and the Laws of Armed Conflict.

British forces personnel in Iraq have the authority to detain persons who pose a threat to their safety or security. All members of the Army therefore receive training on prisoner handling. In the case of soldiers this is during their Phase 1 training and for officers at RMA Sandhurst. This training is supplemented annually in the form of Individual Training Directives (Army) (ITD(A)). ITD(A)s are mandatory for all Army personnel and provide annual training on the law of armed conflict and include direction on prisoner handling. Those deploying on operations must also complete mandated Pre-Deployment Training (PDT)
 
14 Jun 2004 : Column 643W
 
which includes guidance on the procedures for handling prisoners. Personnel are advised that such training is equally applicable to detainees.

I shall place a copy of the relevant ITD(A) and 'A Soldier's Guide to the Law of Armed Conflict' in the Library. In respect to the other manuals used in such training, I am withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 1a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information which relates to defence, security and international relations.

Tom Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list independent observer groups which have visited United Kingdom-run prisons in Iraq holding Iraqi prisoners during the last 12 months. [174000]

Mr. Ingram: The International Committee of the Red Cross visits the United Kingdom's Divisional Temporary Detention Facility at Shaibah on a regular basis.

The House of Commons Defence Select Committee have visited the facility but did not meet any detainees.

Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his oral statement of 27 May 2004, on Iraq, whether the sovereign interim Government of Iraq will be party to the consideration of disposition of forces required in Iraq until elections in 2005. [177504]

Mr. Ingram: The relationship between the Multinational Force and the sovereign Government of Iraq is described in the exchange of letters referred to in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546, which the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary placed in the Library of the House on 7 June. As the Resolution itself makes clear, the Security Council would terminate the mandate of the Multinational Force at any time if so requested by the Government of Iraq.

---