---

14 Mar 2005 : Column 28W—continued

Intellectual Property (Germany)

Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what intellectual property held by QinetiQ was obtained from the then German government (a) between the commencement of hostilities to the unconditional surrender of Germany in 1945 and (b) between the unconditional surrender of Germany and the founding of the Federal Republic of Germany; [219024]

(2) what intellectual property held by Qinetiq was obtained from private companies (a) between the commencement of hostilities to the unconditional surrender of Germany and (b) between the unconditional surrender of Germany in 1945 and the founding of the Federal Republic of Germany; [219025]

(3) what the status is of intellectual property obtained by his Department from (a) private companies and (b) ministries of the former German government between the unconditional surrender of Germany in 1945 and the founding of the Federal Republic of Germany; and if he will make a statement; [219026]

(4) what the status is of intellectual property obtained by his Department from (a) private companies and (b) the then German Government between the
 
14 Mar 2005 : Column 29W
 
commencement of hostilities to the unconditional surrender of Germany in 1945; and if he will make a statement. [219027]

Mr. Ingram: The events mentioned occurred so long ago that it is unlikely that any intellectual property rights exist in any information within the Department originating from Germany prior to its unconditional surrender in 1945. However, as is well known, some technologies now used widely in defence have their origins prior to the founding of the Federal Republic of Germany.

No intellectual property rights owned by QinetiQ were obtained from Germany prior to the founding of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Iraq

Jeremy Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total cost of UK military operations in Iraq and the theatre of conflict have been since September 2002, broken down by costs to the (a) Army, (b) Royal Navy and (c) Royal Air Force. [221425]

Mr. Ingram: The net additional costs of operations are calculated on a joint basis reflecting the joint nature of military operations. It is not possible, or meaningful, to break down these costs by individual service.

David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the recently elected political representatives of Iraq concerning the role of the UK armed forces in training Iraqi security forces. [221302]

Mr. Hoon: There have been no representations as yet, since the new Iraqi Government has still to be appointed.

Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects British troops to complete the present mission in Iraq. [221313]

Mr. Hoon: British Forces are serving in Iraq as part of the Coalition Force authorised under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546. This mandate will expire upon the completion of the political process or if requested by the Government of Iraq.

The United Kingdom is committed to Iraq for as long as the Iraqi Government judge that the coalition is required to provide security and assist in the development of the Iraqi Security Forces.

Simon Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many United Kingdom military personnel were in Iraq on (a) 1 January 2004 and (b) 1 January 2005; and if he will make a statement. [216425]

Mr. Ingram [holding answer 16 February 2005]: On 1 January 2004, some 8,700 personnel were deployed on Operation Telic, of which some 7,650 were serving within Iraq. On 1 January 2005, some 9,150 were deployed on Operation Telic, of which some 8,000 were serving within Iraq.

Adam Price: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Rules of Engagement in Iraq were changed toreflect the transition from war-fighting to military occupation. [218604]

 
14 Mar 2005 : Column 30W
 

Mr. Ingram: Two adjustments were made to the United Kingdom Rules of Engagement in Iraq to reflect the transition from war-fighting to military occupation. These took effect on 11 July 2003 and 17 October 2003. A further ROE change was promulgated in November 2004 in recognition of the challenges UK armed forces face in dealing with the current insurgency.

We do not comment on the content of ROE for reasons of operational security.

Museums

Mr. David Stewart: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the (a) capital and (b) revenue costs of the regimental museum based at Fort George Army Base were in the last year for which figures are available. [216579]

Mr. Caplin: The information requested for financial year 2003–04 is shown as follows:

	£
Capital costs	0
Revenue costs	77,000

Naval Refit Contracts

Rachel Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the contracted price was for the refit package for HMS Richmond placed with FSL. [219454]

Mr. Ingram [holding answer 8 March 2005]: The contracted price agreed with FSL for the refit package of HMS Richmond is commercially sensitive information and is, therefore, being withheld. However, it can be revealed that the total cost of the work, including the FSL refit and the installation of additional MOD supplied equipment, is in excess of £20 million.

Naval Sector Strategy Study

Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who the members are of the Naval Sector Strategy Study; what its terms of reference are; and when it will report. [220571]

Mr. Ingram [holding answer 7 March 2005]: The Naval Sector Strategy Study is an industry-led initiative. Its terms of reference and when it will report are matters for them.

Near Air Misses

Sir Michael Spicer: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 3 March 2005, Official Report, column 1342W, on Near Air Misses, when he expects to (a) complete his investigations and (b) publish his conclusions. [221125]

Mr. Caplin: Investigations into Airprox (near-miss") incidents in the UK are carried out by the UK Airprox Board (UKAB), not the Ministry of Defence. UKAB is an independent body jointly sponsored by the Civil Aviation Authority and the Ministry of Defence. The timing of the investigation is a matter for the UKAB.
 
14 Mar 2005 : Column 31W
 

The UKAB publishes the results of its investigations twice a year in the form of the report Analysis of Airprox in UK Airspace". Each report covers a six-month period, and is issued approximately nine months after the end of the period being reported on. Therefore, the report dealing with the Airprox in December 2004 will appear in September or October 2005, and that covering the February incident some six months later.

Parliamentary Questions

Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many parliamentary questions relating to manning control have not been answered due to disproportionate cost since 1997. [201843]

Mr. Caplin: Our records indicate that, since 1997, 11parliamentary questions relating to manning control have not been answered due to disproportionate cost.

Pierre Bolangi

Mr. McNamara: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the result was of the inquiry into the death of Pierre Bolangi on 9 August 2000 while in the care of the School of Physical Training at Aldershot. [220493]

Mr. Caplin: The police investigation into Mr. Bolangi's death was the responsibility of the Hampshire constabulary. The investigation led to the conviction of a serving soldier for manslaughter by gross negligence. A Service Board of Inquiry was also convened to investigate the circumstances surrounding Mr. Bolangi's death. The Board made a number of key recommendations related to the policy and conduct of income generation activity within the Army. The Ministry of Defence has since revised its guidance on Selling Government Services into Wider Markets which sets out the framework within which income generation activities can be conducted, and the constraints governing them.

---