You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Hansard > Commons Debates > Commons Debates by date > Commons Debates - previous sessions > Bound Volume Hansard - Written Answers

 
11 Jan 2005 : Column 373W
 

Written Answers to Questions

Tuesday 11 January 2005

DEFENCE

Army Discipline

Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what time restrictions apply with respect to making an application to the Employment Tribunal following consideration of a complaint under Army redress procedures relating to (a) sexual harassment, (b) racial harassment, (c) parental leave directive, (d) pay and (e) religion. [201838]

Mr. Ingram: The standard time limit for an application to an Employment Tribunal is six months from the most recent occurrence about which the claim is being made. There is no requirement for an Army complainant to wait for an outcome of the internal complaints procedure before taking their case to Employment Tribunal. However in such a case the Army procedures are usually put on hold pending the completion of the Employment Tribunal.

Atomic Weapons Establishment

Mr. Keith Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the balance sheet value of the Atomic Weapons Establishment in the books of his Department was as at 31 March; what the carrying charge and applicable depreciation for that establishment is in the current year; and for what reasons his Department is investing a further £467 million in that establishment. [206603]

Mr. Ingram: As at 31 March 2004, the Gross Book Value of the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) Balance Sheet was £552.8 million and the associated carrying depreciation was £55.3 million resulting in a Net Book Value of £497.5 million. The projected depreciation to 31 March 2005, for AWE, is £28.0 million. Investment at AWE is directed towards the maintenance of the effectiveness of the nuclear deterrent and enables AWE to meet safety, environmental and operational requirements. It is also in accordance with the Government's policy of keeping options for maintaining a nuclear deterrent capability, in line with the policy set out at paragraph 3.11 of the 2003 Defence White Paper (Cm 6041–1).

European Combined Forces

Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the deployment of British troops as part of combined European forces under EU leadership; and if he will make a statement. [207710]

Mr. Hoon: As stated in the 2003 Defence White Paper, the Government expects United Kingdom forces to conduct operations alongside and integrated with a range of multinational groupings—US, NATO, European, UN or other forces—under various command arrangements. The most appropriate
 
11 Jan 2005 : Column 374W
 
command arrangement will depend on the prevailing circumstances. Decisions on whether to deploy British forces as part of an EU operation are taken by the Government on a case-by-case basis, as with NATO and all other multinational operations.

Firebombs/Napalm

Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Mark 77 firebombs have been used by Coalition forces (a) in Iraq and (b) in or near areas in Iraq where civilians lived; whether this weapon is equivalent to napalm; whether (i) the UK and (ii) the US has signed the UN convention banning the use of napalm against civilian targets; and if he will make a statement. [207246]

Mr. Ingram: The United States have confirmed to us that they have not used Mark 77 firebombs, which are essentially napalm canisters, in Iraq at any time. No other Coalition member has Mark 77 firebombs in their inventory.

The United Kingdom is bound under Protocol III to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) not to use incendiary weapons (which would include napalm) against military targets located within concentrations of civilians.

US policy in relation to international conventions is a matter for the US Government, but all of our allies are aware of their obligations under international humanitarian law.

Gibraltar (Trafalgar Commemorations)

Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on activities planned by his Department involving Gibraltar as part of the Trafalgar commemorations. [207078]

Mr. Ingram: A programme of events is planned to take place in Gibraltar during the weekend of 28–30 October 2005 to commemorate the close historic links between Gibraltar and Nelson's victory. In addition to a traditional service of remembrance at the Trafalgar cemetery, these will include a Nelson exhibition, Beating the Retreat and reception, and a Royal Navy Ceremonial Guard Mount at His Excellency the Governor's residence. The Royal Navy will also be invited to exercise their Freedom of the City privileges. In the United Kingdom, the Royal Navy is organising a special programme of events for this year, which is being coordinated with other events as part of the SeaBritain and Trafalgar Festival initiatives to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar.

Infantry Battalions/Regiments

Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date he decided to change his decision on not disbanding or amalgamating infantry battalions. [202197]

Mr. Hoon: I refer the hon. Member to my statements to the House on 21 July 2004, Official Report, column 343, and, more recently on 16 December 2004, Official Report, column 1195, about the future of the Infantry. The decision to restructure the infantry was taken in
 
11 Jan 2005 : Column 375W
 
response to the evolving strategic environment. In our judgment, it is needed to ensure that the Army is best suited to meet present challenges and those of the future.

Mr. Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his oral statement of 16 December 2004, Official Report, columns 1195–1218, on the future structure of the infantry, how he plans to retain the separate identities of the King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Royal Scots within the proposed Royal Regiment of Scotland. [206538]

Mr. Hoon: As I announced on the 16 December, the First Battalions of the Royal Scots and the King's Own Scottish Borderers will merge to form a new battalion within the future Royal Regiment of Scotland. This new regiment will have a common capbadge, uniform and a common tartan. There will, however, be scope for battalions to retain a degree of individual identity within these large regiments. For example, antecedent names will be maintained at battalion level prior to the new regimental name. How this can be achieved in other ways will be for the new regiment to decide in due course.

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his statement of 16 December 2004, Official Report, columns 1195–1218, on the structure of the infantry, what definition he uses of regimental identity. [206539]

Mr. Hoon: There is no single definition of regimental identity that can be applied across all the regiments of infantry.

As I made clear in my announcement on 16 December 2004, Official Report, column 1795W, there will be scope for all infantry battalions to retain a degree of individual identity within the new large regiments. For example, antecedent names will be maintained in some form in new titles. How identities can be preserved in other ways will be for all the new regiments to decide in due course.

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether cap badges will continue to have a role to play in defining regimental identity. [206540]

Mr. Hoon: The new regiments will have individual cap badges.

Miss McIntosh: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether recruitment to the new Yorkshire regiment will be conducted on an exclusively county-wide basis. [206541]

Mr. Hoon: The new Yorkshire Regiment will adopt the recruiting areas of its antecedents, those being The Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire, The Green Howards and The Duke of Wellington's Regiment.

As before, residents of other areas of the United Kingdom will also be able to volunteer for service in The Yorkshire Regiment.

Iraq

Dr. Tonge: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received concerning the use of napalm gas in Falluja. [203538]

Mr. Ingram: None.
 
11 Jan 2005 : Column 376W
 

Dr. Tonge: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received concerning the use by coalition forces of toxic chemical agents on (a) military and (b) civilian targets in Iraq. [206030]

Mr. Hoon: None.

Mr. Drew: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what contribution his Department has made to counts of civilian casualties and fatalities in Iraq; and which organisations including the Iraqi Government it has assisted. [206820]

Mr. Ingram: The Iraqi Government produces its own estimate of Iraqi casualties, based on Ministry of Health statistics for hospital admissions. The Ministry of Defence has not assisted Iraqi Government efforts to collate casualty numbers.

The MOD has not assisted other organisations with independent counts of civilian casualties and fatalities. We have no methodology which would enable us to produce accurate estimates.

Glenda Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance is being provided by British troops to locate and make safe any unexploded armaments in and around Falluja resulting from recent Multi-National Force actions. [202137]

Mr. Hoon: None; there are no UK units in Falluja.

Next Section Index Home Page