Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Chaytor: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the BNFL ships contracted to transport weapons grade plutonium from Charleston to Cherbourg (a) leave Charleston and (b) arrive at Cherbourg; and if she will make a statement. [190096]
Mr. Mike O'Brien [holding answer 11 October 2004]: The PNTL ships involved in the shipment departed from Charleston USA on 20 September.
The commercial shipment of plutonium between the United States and France using British registered PNTL ships is a matter between the countries and organizations involved. The Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS) has approved the security plan for the voyage while the ships are in international waters. We
13 Oct 2004 : Column 320W
are told that these plans take full account of all relevant international standards and obligations regarding the carriage of nuclear material. We will not comment on the detail of these plans, including the arrival date at Cherbourg, which may obviously be of use to terrorists.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what changes have been made in her Department's position on the Temporary Agency Workers Directive since July this year; [189810]
(2) what her Department's position is on the proposal for a six week qualifying period for full employment rights in the Temporary Agency Workers Directive. [189811]
Mr. Sutcliffe: The UK position remains the same in that we are supportive of the principles of the directive but that the text needs to be changed to reflect the concerns of member states.
At the Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council in Luxembourg on 4 October 2004 I made it clear that the UK Government want to make progress on the directive and called upon others to join us in offering the presidency support in finding a way forward. But it was clear that many member states have difficulties with the text, including those provisions that relate to a qualifying period of six weeks. We need to find a solution that reflects the differing labour markets across the EU.
Mr. Gray: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether he has received a formal notice from Commissioner Bolkestein about the conformity of the Data Protection Act 1998 with the European data protection directive. [190101]
Mr. Jenkins: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many information and communication technology specialists there are in full-time employment in the Department. [189580]
Mr. Lammy: There are 167 information and communication technology specialists in full-time employment in the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
Tom Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost to the Government of operations in Afghanistan has been to date; and if he will make a statement. [190245]
Mr. Ingram: Information on the costs of operations is included in the Ministry of Defence's published accounts for each year. The specific figures for Afghanistan, including both operating and Capital spend, are:
£ million | |
---|---|
200102 | 222 |
200203 | 311 |
200304 | 36 |
Total | 569 |
It is too early as yet to provide a firm estimate for the costs in 200405.
Tom Cox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British military personnel were stationed in Afghanistan on 1 October. [190246]
Mr. Ingram: As at 1 October there were approximately 1,000 members of the British Armed Forces in Afghanistan.
Mr. McNamara: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rules govern the attendance of (a) independent observers, (b) family and legal representatives of the deceased and (c) accredited members of the press at Army boards of inquiry into a death; and what the boundaries of their participation are before, during and after each inquiry. [190201]
Mr. Ingram: Queen's Regulations for the Army states that no member of the public or the press has a right to be present at a Board of Inquiry.
The nominated next of kin may be given the opportunity to submit questions to the Board of Inquiry convening authority for consideration in the Terms of Reference.
It is the Army's practice to provide the next of kin with the Opinions, Findings and Recommendations of the Board and to offer them the option of receiving a copy of the full Board of Inquiry report should they wish to see it.
Mr. McNamara: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many independent observers have attended an Army Board of Inquiry into the circumstances of a fatal incident in each of the past five years; [190202]
(2) in those instances where independent observers have attended an Army Board of Inquiry into the circumstances of a fatal incident, (a) at what rank the invitation was issued, (b) what reason was given for the invitation and (c) what the nature of their participation was; [190204]
(3) in what circumstances an independent observer to an Army Board of Inquiry into the circumstances of a fatal incident may be asked to comment on (a) procedural and (b) evidential matters. [190205]
Mr. Ingram:
None.
13 Oct 2004 : Column 322W
Mr. McNamara: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence under what circumstances the Army is obliged to delay holding a board of inquiry into a fatal incident; what his estimate is of the number of boards of inquiries that are pending; and if he will (a) list those instances in Great Britain where the delay has exceeded five years and (b) set out the reason for the delay in each case. [190263]
Mr. Ingram: Under no circumstances is the Army obliged to delay convening a Board of Inquiry (BOI). Since June 2004, a BOI must convene within 48 hours of an incident occurring. The Board must be adjourned if a criminal prosecution is likely and it cannot be reconvened until criminal proceedings have concluded.
There are currently 86 BOIs at various levels of completion. None has been delayed for more than five years.
Mr. McNamara: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Queen's Regulations for army Boards of Inquiry are; and what regulations govern (a) the purpose of a Board of Inquiry, (b) the circumstances in which a Board of Inquiry may be established, (c) who is eligible to serve on a Board of Inquiry and what ranks the members may hold and (d) the time limit between the events which give rise to a board being established and its establishment. [190264]
Mr. Ingram: Guidance on the convening and conduct of inquiries is contained within The Queen's Regulations for the Army, Annex A to Chapter 5, in conjunction with the provisions of the Army Act 1955; Boards of Inquiry (Army) Rules 1956; and Regimental Inquiry Regulations 1956.
The purpose of any Service Board of Inquiry (BOI) into an incident is to ascertain what went wrong and why, in order to prevent a recurrence. It is not to apportion blame. A BOI may be established for any unnatural death or serious injury, or any other matter which the Convening Authority considers should be investigated.
The President will be an officer not below the rank of Captain. There will be a minimum of two other officers, each of whom will be either an officer or warrant officer, or a person not subject to military law but who is in the service of the Crown.
Boards are now convened within 48 hours of an incident occurring.
Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the airworthiness review of the Chinook HC1 helicopter was conducted; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [189789]
Mr. Ingram
[holding answer 12 October 2004]: The Chinook HC1 Airworthiness Review was completed in August 1992 as part of an internal audit process. The review formed the first part of a process designed to address the integrity of the RAF's management of airworthiness and maintenance practices for the Chinook. I will place a copy of the review in the Library of the House.
13 Oct 2004 : Column 323W
Next Section | Index | Home Page |