| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
15 Jun 2006 : Column 1384W—continued
EU INSPIRE Directive
Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the implications for the UK’s national security of the EU INSPIRE directive; and whether his Department has made representations to the European Commission on this matter. [76681]
Des Browne: The Ministry of Defence has been fully involved in scrutinising the evolving INSPIRE directive for any possible impact on defence and national security. The INSPIRE text adopted as the Common Position on 23 January 2006, was acceptable in this respect. We will, however, maintain our scrutiny in relation to any proposed amendments to the Common Position emerging from the ongoing European parliamentary process.
As the lead Department within Government, DEFRA officials have met with the European Commission on a number of occasions to discuss a
wide range of issues, including the British Government’s clear and well-known position that INSPIRE should not jeopardise national security, defence and international relations.
European Anti-missile Site
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans NATO has to install an anti-missile site in Europe; what discussions he has had on this matter with (a) the USA, (b) Poland and (c) the Czech Republic; and if he will make a statement. [76610]
Des Browne: NATO is currently examining the implications of a feasibility study into ballistic missile defence for alliance territories and population centres and as yet no plans have been developed or approved. I have not discussed the implications of the study with my counterparts in the USA, Poland or the Czech Republic.
Intelligence Corps
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 19 April 2006, Official Report, column 674W, on military intelligence, if he will make a statement on the work of the Intelligence Corps. [76411]
Des Browne: The Intelligence Corps continues its important work worldwide in providing intelligence and security support to operational commanders throughout the land forces environment at all levels of formation command. It also provides significant resources for defence intelligence and special forces requirements.
Iraq
David Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his oral answer of 22 May 2006, Official Report, column 1183, on Iraq, what the minimum standard is for body armour on land vehicles used by British troops in Iraq. [74273]
Des Browne [holding answer 5 June 2006]: Enhanced Combat Body Armour is currently the minimum standard for British troops operating in vehicles in Iraq. However, two other body armour sets are available in theatre, for use according to the commander’s assessment of the nature of the task and the current threat. Enhanced Personal Protective Equipment (known as Kestrel) is used by the drivers of fighting vehicles and by Top Cover Sentries. We are in the process of raising the minimum standard of protection above that provided by Enhanced Combat Body Armour, through the delivery of Improved Performance Body Armour (known as Osprey).
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has established a link between the loss of the Lynx helicopter over Basra in May and missile technology supplied by Iran; and if he will make a statement. [77389]
Des Browne [holding answer 14 June 2006]: The circumstances surrounding the loss of the Lynx helicopter in Basra on 6 May 2006 are currently being investigated by a Board of Inquiry. Once the Board of Inquiry has completed its investigation, a summary of the findings will be placed in the Library.
Iraqi Authority (Arms)
Adam Price: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence further to his Departmental Minute of 15 December 2004, on the gifting of military arms and equipment to the Iraqi interim authority in relation to the 5,666 9mm pistols, what was their (a) cost, (b) model and manufacturer, (c) date of dispatch from the UK and delivery in Iraq, (d) condition, (e) status in relation to arms export controls and (f) country of origin; what UK companies were involved in procurement or transhipment; whether each weapon carried a serial number; and whether he has received any reports of the diversion of these weapons for illicit purposes. [63815]
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 18 April 2006]: The Iraqi Security Forces were equipped with 5,666 x 9mm pistols and ammunition at a total cost of £1,292,878 as part of the Project OSIRIS security sector reform project, initiated by the Prime Minister in 2004.
Of these weapons, 2,822 pistols were model 92Fs manufactured by Beretta S.P.A., of Italy. They were procured by the Defence Procurement Agency’s Dismounted Close Combat Integrated Project Team. The shipment was received at Heathrow, from Italy, on 24 February 2005. They were then moved to the Ministry of Defence Base Ordnance Depot in Donnington, Shropshire, for inspection before being despatched to Basra, where they arrived on 27 February 2005.
The remaining 2,844 pistols were manufactured by a company whose identity is being withheld. They were imported by a second, separate company—whose name is similarly being withheld—on 18 February 2005, and despatched to Iraq on 23 February 2005. Provision of further detail would be regarded by those concerned as a breach of confidence.
The weapons supplied in both shipments were new, not refurbished. Since it is illegal for an arms manufacturer to produce weapons without details stamped or etched upon them, all the pistols complied fully with international standards, bearing recorded serial numbers.
Each shipment was considered under the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria. The weapons were legally gifted to the Government of Iraq. Parliament approved the gifting in principle on 15 December 2004.
As I have sought to make clear in earlier answers on the subject, we have received no evidence of any of these weapons being diverted for illicit purposes.
Prisoners
Dr. Evan Harris: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many prisoners have been transferred from the custody of UK forces to that of the US in (a) Iraq and (b) Afghanistan in each quarter since 1 January 2002; [73727]
(2) what his policy is regarding the (a) exchange and (b) handing over of prisoners held by UK forces in Iraq and Afghanistan to the custody of US forces in those countries; and to what extent his policy has changed in the last year; [73726]
Des Browne [holding answer 25 May 2006]: In Iraq, following the end of hostilities and the completion of the UK’s prisoner release programme in April 2003, a total of 358 prisoners taken into custody by the UK were transferred to US custody at Camp Bucca. With the opening of the UK’s Divisional Temporary Detention Facility in December 2003, our records show that they (along with further individuals transferred into US custody in the interim), were either released, or transferred back to UK custody. During 2003, a further six individuals were transferred to US custody in different circumstances. Four individuals, who have since been released, were transferred to US custody and held at Abu Ghraib. Two individuals classified as High Value Targets were taken into custody by the UK and subsequently transferred to US custody. They were subsequently transferred to the jurisdiction of the Iraq Special tribunal, although they remain in US physical custody.
Since December 2003, a further 13 security internees, have been transferred from UK to US custody at various times. All have since been released. Our policy on the transfer of detainees to US custody is to consider each case on its merits taking into account the operational circumstances and appropriate safeguards on their treatment. This policy has not changed over the last year.
In Afghanistan, UK forces operate in accordance with NATO’s policy on detention for the International Security Assistance Force, which is either to transfer detainees to Afghan custody as soon as practicable or, if appropriate, to release them. I refer the hon. Member to the answer my predecessor gave on 24 January 2006, Official Report, column 1982, to the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), in which he stated that the UK does not plan to transfer individuals detained in Afghanistan into the custody of US forces. This policy has not changed over the previous year.
Private Military Companies
Mr. Lancaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much was spent on private military companies guarding British bases abroad (a) in total, (b) in Iraq and (c) in Afghanistan in the last year for which figures are available. [75395]
Des Browne: The Ministry of Defence does not contract any private military companies or private security companies, and we do not monitor those employed by third parties except for purposes of deconfliction within the UK area of operations.
Education and Skills
Business Education Partnerships
Angela Watkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what changes have occurred in the level of funding for Business Education Partnerships since the inception of the Learning and Skills Council. [66336]
Jim Knight: We do not fund Education Business Partnerships nationally. However, through the LSC, we annually provide £25 million to support the local delivery of school business links activity. Mark Haysom, chief executive of the LSC has written to my hon. Friend and a copy of his reply has been placed in the Library.
Letter from Mark Haysom, dated 19 May 2006:
I write in response to your recent Parliamentary Questions regarding Business Education Partnerships (EBPs).
Firstly, I will answer your question about the future role of EBPs.
EBPs are independent providers. The ways in which they carry out their role now and in the future is a matter for those partnerships themselves. The LSC values the work of the EBPs, evidenced by the significant sums of Learning and Skills Council (LSC) funding which they receive.
There is a huge challenge ahead of us in implementing the Government’s 14-19 agenda. This agenda requires high levels of partnerships and collaboration between business, schools and colleges so that all young people are better prepared for the world of work.
A particular challenge is to make sure every young person has access to the new specialised diplomas which are being developed. This challenge is not just to the education service, but also to business and employers to engage and to contribute to what young people learn and experience during their time at school and college. The future funding and organisational arrangements must reflect this changing agenda. For example, the Government have given a significant increase in funds this financial year for enterprise and the development of the vocational curriculum—these funds have been targeted at schools, and not providers. It is for the schools themselves to determine which providers can best meet the individual needs of their pupils in the light of the school's circumstances. I have no doubt that the best providers will continue to deliver high quality provision.
For our part, we are looking at the whole delivery of education business link activity in the context of the developing 14-19 and skills agendas. We plan to consult on our conclusions in the near future.
Clearly, the LSC will need to ensure that its funds and partnership activity can make the maximum impact in delivering the Government’s agenda for young people. My colleagues and I plan to discuss further with the national EBP network how the EBPs and the LSC can best work together to achieve this impact.
Regarding your Parliamentary Question about the levels of funding for EBPs since the inception of the LSC. EBPs, alongside other independent providers like Trident and Young Enterprise, receive income from a range of sources, including a substantial share of the LSC’s education business link funding.
The LSC receives £25 million from the DfES for education business link activity. This amount has remained the same since the LSC took over the funding of this activity in 2001. As you will see from the figures below, from 2001-2006 the LSC has supplemented this resource with specific LSC funds. The actual amounts allocated for education business link activity by the LSC are as follows:
| £ million | |
| (1)Provisional outturn, subject to audit review | |
The LSC values the work of EBPs which have strong partnerships in support of the curriculum offer to young people in schools and colleges.
Angela Watkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the future role for Business Education Partnerships is in developing links with (a) business, (b) the wider community and (c) schools. [66337]
Jim Knight: Business involvement with schools is essential to our education reforms, especially at 14 to 19. Education Business Partnerships, and other intermediary bodies, facilitate support for schools from an estimated 300,000 employers.
The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) are currently reviewing the delivery structure for Education Business Link activities. Therefore, Mark Haysom, chief executive of the LSC has written to my hon. Friend and a copy of his reply has been placed in the Library.
Letter from Mark Haysom, dated 19 May 2006:
I write in response to your recent Parliamentary Questions regarding Business Education Partnerships (EBPs).
Firstly, I will answer your question about the future role of EBP's.
EBPs are independent providers. The ways in which they carry out their role now and in the future is a matter for those partnerships themselves. The LSC values the work of the EBPs, evidenced by the significant sums of Learning and Skills Council (LSC) funding which they receive.
There is a huge challenge ahead of us in implementing the Government's 14-19 agenda. This agenda requires high levels of partnerships and collaboration between business, schools and colleges so that all young people are better prepared for the world of work.
A particular challenge is to make sure every young person has access to the new specialised diplomas which are being developed. This challenge is not just to the education service, but also to business and employers to engage and to contribute to what young people learn and experience during their time at school and college.
The future funding and organisational arrangements must reflect this changing agenda. For example, the Government has given a significant increase in funds this financial year for
enterprise and the development of the vocational curriculum - these funds have been targeted at schools, and not providers. It is for the schools themselves to determine which providers can best meet the individual needs of their pupils in the light of the school's circumstances. I have no doubt that the best providers will continue to deliver high quality provision.
For our part, we are looking at the whole delivery of education business link activity in the context of the developing 14-19 and skills agendas. We plan to consult on our conclusions in the near future.
Clearly, the LSC will need to ensure that its funds and partnership activity can make the maximum impact in delivering the Government's agenda for young people. My colleagues and I plan to discuss further with the National EBP Network how the EBPs and the LSC can best work together to achieve this impact.
Regarding your Parliamentary Question about the levels of funding for EBPs since the inception of the LSC. EBPs, alongside other independent providers like Trident and Young Enterprise, receive income from a range of sources, including a substantial share of the LSC's education business link funding.
The LSC receives £25m from the DfES for education business link activity. This amount has remained the same since the LSC took over the funding of this activity in 2001. As you will see from the figures below, from 2001-2006 the LSC has supplemented this resource with specific LSC funds. The actual amounts allocated for education business link activity by the LSC are as follows:
| £ million | |
| (1 )Provisional outturn, subject to audit review | |
The LSC values the work of EBPs which have strong partnerships in support of the curriculum offer to young people in schools and colleges.
Trust this is helpful.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |