---

2 Mar 2005 : Column 1227W—continued

Iraq

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many trained (a) soldiers and (b) police his Department estimates are available in Iraq; and if he will give (a) the source and (b) methodology used to calculate the figures. [218825]

Mr. Ingram [holding answer 28 February 2005]: As at 14 February, the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior forces numbered some 79,000 trained and equipped personnel. This includes the Iraqi Police Service and the Department of Border Enforcement forces. The Iraqi Ministry of Defence forces numbered some 57,500 trained and equipped personnel. This includes the Army, Air Force and Coastal Defence Force.

These figures are collated on a regular basis by the Multinational Security Transition Command—Iraq.

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with his US counterparts over their plans to set up 14 permanent military bases in Iraq. [218827]

Mr. Ingram [holding answer 28 February 2005]: Ministers at the Ministry of Defence are in continuous dialogue with all of our allies, including the United
 
2 Mar 2005 : Column 1228W
 
States, on a range of issues. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has had no discussions with his US counterparts on plans to set up permanent military bases in Iraq.

Parliamentary Questions

Mr. Meacher: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will reply to the Questions tabled by the hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton on (a) 10 January, reference 207744 and (b) 11 January, reference 207792. [218703]

Mr. Ingram: I replied to the hon. Member today.

Swan Hunter Contract

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 9 February 2005, Official Report, column 1515, on the Swan Hunter contract, whether there is legal liability to his Department arising from the unsuccessful bidder referred to; and if he will make a statement. [217833]

Mr. Ingram: The Ministry of Defence's competitive tendering process was applied equitably in the assessment of each company's bid, against the criteria specified in the Invitation To Tender. In accordance with those criteria the MOD selected the proposals including the design of the ship offered by Swan Hunter. The MOD does not consider that either the selection process or any subsequent variations create a legal liability to the unsuccessful bidders.

Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 9 February 2005, Official Report, column 1515W, on the Swan Hunter contract, what role he played in finalising the revised programme costs on 8 December 2004; and if he will make a statement. [217909]

Mr. Ingram: The revised programme costs were considered and approved by the Minister for Defence Procurement and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, following approval from the Department's Investment Appraisals Board. The Board considered a Review Note recommendation prepared by departmental officials, outlining the various programme options and costings.

Tornado

Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the funding allocation for the Sky Shadow Defensive Aid System for the Tornado aircraft has been changed. [219042]

Mr. Ingram: The required level of support for all Electronic Warfare equipment is kept under regular review and funds are allocated accordingly. In the case of the Tornado Skyshadow Defensive Aid System the Operational priorities, as detailed in the Customer Service Agreement between the Defence Logistics Organisation and the Operational Customer, are being met.

Trident

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether commanders of UK Trident
 
2 Mar 2005 : Column 1229W
 
submarines are empowered to launch a nuclear missile in circumstances other than with the express authority of the Prime Minister. [218341]

Mr. Hoon: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in the answer he gave on 28 January 2003, Official Report, column 774W, to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden), the use of the United Kingdom's nuclear weapons may be ordered only by the Prime Minister.

Pete Wishart: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of potential risks arising from (a) an accident and (b) human error in relation to the transportation of nuclear warheads within the naval base on the Clyde; [218348]

(2) what estimate he has made of potential casualties in the west of Scotland arising from a catastrophic malfunction of a Trident nuclear warhead on a submarine based in the Clyde. [218347]

Mr. Hoon: At HM Naval Base Clyde, nuclear warhead handling, storage, transportation and fitting of components is carried out using rigidly controlled and approved procedures, and staff undertaking these activities undergo extensive training before they are designated competent to carry out the work. The potential risks arising from an accident and human error are therefore very low. It is also highly unlikely that a catastrophic malfunction of a nuclear warhead that involved nuclear yield (a high explosion and the release of radioactive material), would occur, whether onboard a submarine or elsewhere within the Naval Base.

Risks to employees, members of the public and the environment are routinely assessed during preparation of the Hazard Identification and Risk Evaluation (HIRE), which is the responsibility of the local authority and which is a requirement of the Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2001 (REPPIR). Such planning is based on a vigorous precautionary approach and the chances of any incident happening, for which the REPPIR emergency plans have been prepared, have been assessed as highly unlikely.

US Defence Department (2006 Budget)

Llew Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for which types of buildings, and at which locations in the United Kingdom, the US Department of Defense has sought financial appropriation in the fiscal year 2006 budget recently published; and whether permission has been granted for the construction of these structures. [217485]

Mr. Ingram: The US Department of Defense Fiscal Year 2006 budget submission separately identifies funding for: an office complex at RAF Mildenhall; a munitions storage facility and a separate munitions maintenance facility at RAF Lakenheath; and an operations/technical building at RAF Menwith Hill. There is also provision for other potential projects, but none of them are at a stage where internal or external permissions for construction have been sought.
 
2 Mar 2005 : Column 1230W
 

NORTHERN IRELAND

Cancer

Dr. Gibson: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what policies his Department has in place for supporting employees with cancer. [218586]

Mr. Pearson: The Northern Ireland Departments and the Northern Ireland Office have a wide range of policies and support mechanisms in place to support staff who are suffering from serious illnesses. These include a generous occupational sick pay scheme, special leave, alternative working patterns and phased return to work arrangements. Reasonable adjustments which could help the individual are considered on a case by case basis. Where medical retirement is appropriate the individual will receive immediate payment of enhanced pension and lump sum.

All staff have access to the Welfare service and Occupational Health Service for support and advice. Some Departments have also introduced an external counselling service for staff.

Cannabis

Lady Hermon: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact that the reclassification of cannabis has had in Northern Ireland. [218225]

Mr. Paul Murphy: The Government conducted a survey of statutory organisations, including the police, together with the community and voluntary sector, in April/May 2004 after the reclassification of cannabis from Class B to Class C to assess the impact of this change.

While the level of response from the various agencies was disappointing, the general view was that reclassification had had little impact on overall attitudes towards cannabis, both among young people and adults. There was no evidence to suggest that consumption had increased or that adults and young people were more open about their use of cannabis. There was however, a view that young people did not fully understand all the various terminology such as reclassification", de-criminalisation" and legalisation".

Statistics from PSNI indicate that the number of prosecutions taken against younger people for possession of cannabis ( both actual and pending) has not reduced since reclassification. While separate figures are not kept in relation to adults, there was a small reduction in the number of arrests for possession of Class C drugs, in the three months after reclassification when compared to the three months prior to this change in status.

As this legislative change took place over 12 months ago officials are currently preparing to undertake a further assessment of the impact.

---