---

28 Feb 2005 : Column 965W—continued

Porton Down

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the letter reference D/US of S/K 0565/05/L of 8 February to the hon. Member for Linlithgow, when he expects to obtain a date for the Judicial Review into aspects of the death of service volunteers at Porton Down in the 1950s and 1960s. [218429]

Mr. Caplin: An application seeking permission judicially to review the inquest into the death of Ronald Maddison has been filed in court. The parties are due to acknowledge receipt formally. It is anticipated that formal permission to go to judicial review, if granted, will be given during April, with potential for the hearing in late spring or early summer.

Procurement Costs

Mr. Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the current forecast unit production cost is of the (a) Nimrod MRA4 and (b) Type 45 destroyer. [217961]

Mr. Ingram: A contract for the production of 12 Nimrod MRA4 is planned for later in 2005 at which time a forecast unit production cost will be established. The current forecast unit production cost of a Type 45 Destroyer is £576 million based on the currently approved programme of six ships.

Mr. Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department has had with BAE Systems on (a) price and (b) time variations on the (i)Nimrod and (ii) Type 45 destroyer projects. [217963]

Mr. Ingram: The Ministry of Defence is in constant discussion with BAE Systems on a wide range of issues on both of these projects including time and cost.

Negotiations are planned for the latter part of 2005 leading to a contract for the production phase of Nimrod MRA4, and to complete the contracting arrangements for the second batch of Type 45s (ships4–6).

US Nuclear Weapons

Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United States nuclear weapons are deployed in the United Kingdom; and what plans there are to change the numbers. [217488]

Mr. Hoon: I have nothing to add to the answer I gave on 28 April 2004, Official Report, column 996W, to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas).

Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the interoperability of United Kingdom nuclear weapons with (a) current United States forces and (b) future United States forces and equipment deployed (i) in the United Kingdom and (ii) at United Kingdom bases elsewhere. [217489]

Mr. Ingram: No such assessment has been made.

World Security

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the nature is of the standing commitment referred to in each of the tables in the annex to Cm 6269, Delivering Security in a Changing World: Future Capabilities". [199990]

 
28 Feb 2005 : Column 966W
 

Mr. Ingram: The annex to the Delivering Security in a Changing World: Future Capabilities" White Paper (Cm 6269) set out the force elements required to deliver UK defence policy, including meeting a range of 'Standing Commitments'. The force elements shown in the 'Standing Commitments' column in the annex are those permanently committed to a range of Military Tasks which are required concurrently with the forces for contingent operations (as described in the introduction to the annex). These include Strategic Intelligence; Nuclear Deterrence; Integrity of UK Waters and Airspace; and Defence and Security of the Overseas Territories.

These Military Tasks (grouped under the headings: Standing Strategic Tasks and Standing Home and Overseas Commitments) are described in Supporting Essay 2 in the Delivering Security in a Changing World" White Paper (Cm 6041) of December 2003. These 'Standing Commitments' are part of the Department's overall approach to force structure planning. They should not be confused with the routine activities on which military units are employed on a day to day basis (tasks known colloquially as current military tasks or 'standing tasks' by the Royal Navy).

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Burma

Mr. Simmonds: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the UN Security Council regarding illicit drug production and trafficking in Burma. [209372]

Mr. Rammell: We have not made any representations to the UN Security Council specifically about the drug situation in Burma, since opium and amphetamine production and trafficking from Burma, although serious, does not represent a direct threat to the UK.

We have however made clear to the UN, including members of the Security Council, our concerns about the situation in Burma, in which the destabilising effect of drugs is one part. There is no consensus at present to bring Burma before the Security Council.

Chagos Archipelago

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with (a) the British representative in Diego Garcia and (b) the US authorities about the impact of the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami on the Chagos Archipelago. [207842]

Mr. Rammell: My officials are in daily contact with the British Representative on Diego Garcia who, in liaison with the US authorities there, has provided information about the damage sustained to the British Indian Ocean Territory.

Initial reports from the British Representative suggested that the island sustained minimal damage. The most significant damage occurred in the south of the island, where a 500 metre tract of vegetation was destroyed. There was no loss of human life or damage to
 
28 Feb 2005 : Column 967W
 
facilities. He has also reported that there has been no visible damage to the outer islands. The British Indian Ocean Territory Conservation Adviser will visit the Territory in February to make a formal assessment.

China

Mr. Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Chinese authorities about the detention of the Chinese journalist Zhao Yan; and if he will make a statement on freedom of the press in China. [216123]

Mr. Rammell: We are aware of Zhao Yan's case and are monitoring the situation. We are concerned about the freedom of the press in China and regularly raise our concerns at our biannual UK/China Human Rights Dialogue, the last round of which was held in Beijing on 22 November 2004.

Mr. Moore: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the differences are between the European Code of Conduct on Arms Export criteria and the European Arms Embargo criteria as they apply to China; and if he will make a statement. [216124]

Mr. Rammell: The EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports was adopted by the Council of the European Union on 8 June 1998. It contains eight criteria which member states must follow when assessing applications for export of items on an agreed Common List of Military Equipment, which extends significantly beyond directly lethal weapons. In the UK, the Code is applied through the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria, set out in a Statement given to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) on 26 October 2000, Official Report, columns 199–203W, by the then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain). The Code also contains the obligation on member states to provide data for an annual report on EU arms exports, and a denial notification and consultation mechanism. The embargo has no such transparency arrangements.

The EU Arms Embargo on China predates the Code and the establishment of the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy. In contrast with the Code, member states are free to interpret the embargo as they see fit, and there is no common understanding of its scope. The UK's interpretation was set out by the then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the late Derek Fatchett, in his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) on 3 June 1998, Official Report, columns 240–41.

Departmental Expenditure

Mr. George Osborne: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much has been spent by his Department on (a) indoor bought plants, (b) indoor hired plants, (c) outdoor bought plants and (d) outdoor hired plants in each year since 1997. [205590]

 
28 Feb 2005 : Column 968W
 

Mr. Rammell: The cost for providing (a) indoor bought plants, (b) indoor hired plants, (c) outdoor bought plants and (d) outdoor hired plants in each year since 1997 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

---