|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Ingram: The Bowman PRC325 High Frequency patrol radio and the AN/PRC117F radio are both variants of the Falcon II range of radios. Some 330 Bowman PRC325 have been delivered to Iraq for use by UK forces since November 2004. A small number of AN/PRC117F radios have been used by UK forces in Iraq since November 2004.
Ann Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 24 January 2005, Official Report, column 50W, on Infantry Future Army Structure, what procedure will be used for a regiment with two or more battalions in deciding which Sandhurst officer cadets are to join which battalion; and whether the procedure is the same for all super regiments. 
Mr. Ingram: Recruitment of officer cadets under the Future Infantry Structure will be by regiment rather than by battalion. An individual posting policy is presently being developed and therefore the procedure for assigning officer cadets to a specific battalion has yet to be determined. However, individual posting preferences will be accommodated where possible, while recognising that the interests of the Regiment and the Infantry must come first.
Adam Price: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when UK armed service personnel first received the United States military planning document on the Iraq war which contained references to P day, A day and G day. 
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 24 January 2005]: P, A and G day are standard US military planning terms. They refer to the day a presidential decision would be required for military action (P day), in order for action to commence in the air (A day) and on the ground (G day) by specified dates.
As set out in the Butler report, UK and US military personnel had frequent discussions on Iraq dating back to June 2002. However the decision to resort to military action to ensure that Iraq fulfilled its obligations imposed by successive UN Security Council Resolutions was taken only after other routes to disarm Iraq had failed. The decision to commit UK forces was taken after approval of the House had been secured in the vote on 18 March 2003.
Mr. Ingram: The United Kingdom's procurement cost is likely to be up to £10 billion, depending on the eventual number of aircraft required. In service support costs will be determined by whatever through life support strategy we decide to adopt.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost to his Department is of maintaining the military bands of (a) the Royal Navy, (b) the Army, (c) the Royal Air Force and (d) the Royal Marines. 
|Royal Air Force||5.5|
Chris Grayling: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in each of the past three years an aircraft from the Queen's Flight carrying Ministers on official business has stopped off at a UK airport other than RAF Northolt during a return flight from overseas. 
The number of occasions in each of the past three financial years an aircraft from 32 (The Royal) Squadron carrying Ministers on official business has stopped off at a UK airport other than RAF Northolt is as follows.
1 Mar 2005 : Column 1140W
|April 2002 to March 2003||17|
|April 2003 to March 2004||17|
|April 2004 to February 2005||8|
|Wing Commander and above|||
|Master Aircrew and Warrant Officer||5|
|Sergeant (including FTRS)||30|
|Total RAF personnel||95|
(4) whether he plans to introduce mandatory secondary monitoring for radiation at HM naval base Clyde Faslane; what modifications of existing facilities would be required to allow such monitoring; and if he will make a statement. 
At HM Naval Base Clyde (Faslane) staff working in the Active Processing Facility and the Nuclear Repair Workshop are required to use routine secondary monitoring. Staff exiting submarine reactor compartments are monitored by suitably qualified and
1 Mar 2005 : Column 1141W
experienced workers, using appropriate hand held instrumentation, capable of detecting very low levels of radioactive contamination. This monitoring is precautionary as work procedures and protective clothing are designed to minimise the chance of becoming contaminated. Secondary monitoring (using a walk-through monitor), which takes place after the worker has completed primary monitoring and removed his protective clothing, is mandatory when contamination is suspected or found. All nuclear safety matters relating to the Royal Dockyards at Rosyth and Devonport are a responsibility of the owners of the Dockyards: Babcock Rosyth Defence Limited and Devonport Management Limited respectively. However, they must comply with nuclear safety regulations including the Ionising Radiation Regulations 1999.
There are no plans to make secondary monitoring mandatory at the Clyde Naval Base as current arrangements within existing facilities comply with legal requirements and have been assessed by the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (HSE/NII). A recent review of the options for enhancing monitoring arrangements for new facilities has been completed and will inform future worker monitoring protocols. There are no further plans, at this stage, to commission research into whether levels of safety would be increased by introducing mandatory secondary monitoring.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 3 February 2005, Official Report, column 1017W, on Swan Hunter, what the clerical error was; what investigation he has conducted into the reasons for the error; and if he will make a statement. 
Shortly after the parliamentary question was received by the Department on 24 November 2004, officials drafted a reply. That draft reply accurately reflected the situation at that time. This was forwarded to the Department's parliamentary branch on 25 November 2004. As the question concerned a defence procurement issue, the reply was passed to my hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement (Lord Bach)'s Private Office for clearance.
My hon. Friend the noble Lord was on official duties overseas between the periods 29 November to 5 December, 6 to 9 December, and 9 to 10 December. Some time between the period 5 to 21 December, my hon. Friend the noble Lord cleared the draft reply. Our records do not show the exact date this happened, but this was more likely to have been towards the end of this period.
On 9 December, the Department concluded its negotiations with Swan Hunter regarding the Landing Ship Dock (Auxiliary) project and a contract
1 Mar 2005 : Column 1142W
amendment was signed. At this point, the reply which had been drafted no longer accurately reflected the situation.
I approved the reply at some point between 21 December 2004 and 7 January 2005, on the assumption that the reply and supporting advice provided was accurate. The reply was returned to the Table Office on 7 January 2005. The reply appeared in the Official Report" on the next sitting day, 10 January 2005.
This was a regrettable incident resulting from a genuine error. There was no intention by Ministers deliberately to mislead the House. My hon. Friend the noble Lord has put in place measures to improve the handling procedures in his Private Office which should help prevent such an incident happening again.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|