| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bach on 8 March (WA 74), what figure would have represented a proportionate cost of providing
- information on the legal and other costs incurred in contesting war pension claims from veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict. [HL1681]
Lord Bach: HM Treasury has set a guideline figure of £600 as one that would represent a proportionate cost for providing a full reply. Providing the information on costs incurred in contesting war pension claims from veterans of the 1990–91 Gulf conflict involved costs far in excess of this figure.
Armed Forces: Discipline
Lord Marlesford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is now too late for the United Kingdom to make a reservation under Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the United Kingdom system of military discipline. [HL1683]
Lord Bach: Even if a reservation were possible, the Government do not believe it is desirable. In our view, the service disciplinary system is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Khamisyiah: Nerve Agents
Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Statement by the Lord Bach on 27 January (WS 58) on "Khamisyiah: Nerve Agents", whether they were then aware that the United States Government Accountability Office had concluded that, given the "uncertainties in source term data and divergences in model results, the United States Department of Defense cannot determine, or estimate with any degree of certainty, plume size and path, or who was or was not exposed". [HL1761]
Lord Bach: The Ministry of Defence is aware of the US Government Accountability Office's report and its conclusions. The Ministry of Defence recognises that, given the uncertainty surrounding the source term data, it is not possible to calculate definitively the exposure risk to personnel and has referred to this issue when drawing its own conclusions.
Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Statement by the Lord Bach on 27 January (WS 58) on "Khamisyiah: Nerve Agents", whether the Ministry of Defence was then aware of the results of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's work on modelling the Khamisyiah detonation; and whether they plan to respond, as those results could affect British troops involved in the 1990–91 Gulf war. [HL1762]
Lord Bach: The Ministry of Defence assessment of the events at Khamisiyah is based upon information documented within the 2002 Khamisiyah modelling report published by the US Department of Defense (DoD). The results of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory model were detailed within the DoD report but were excluded from the final composite. The reasons for this are detailed within paragraph 19 of the recent Ministry of Defence publication Review of Modelling of the Demolitions at Khamisiyah in March 1991 and Implications for UK Personnel which was published on 27 January 2005.
It remains this Government's belief that, irrespective of the potential area of exposure, the levels of sarin and cyclosarin released would have been too low to induce any health effects.
Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Statement by the Lord Bach on 27 January (WS 58) on "Khamisyiah: Nerve Agents", what information they have on the amount of sarin and cyclosarin stored at sites destroyed by the Khamisyiah detonation. [HL1763]
Lord Bach: The Ministry of Defence assessment of the events at Khamisiyah is based upon intelligence documented within the 2002 Khamisiyah modelling report published by the US Department of Defense.
Astute Class Submarines
Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:
Lord Bach: There are three Astute class submarines currently on order with BAe Systems. Orders for the procurement of further Astute boats are being considered and announcements will be made at the appropriate time.
Armed Forces: Compliance with International Humanitarian Law
Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government:
What training, guidance and instructions have been given to members of Her Majesty's armed services during the past four years regarding compliance with the obligations imposed upon the United Kingdom by international humanitarian law and international human rights law. [HL1611]
Lord Bach: Obligations imposed upon the United Kingdom by international humanitarian law are covered within Her Majesty's Armed Forces through instruction and training in the Law of Armed Conflict (LoAC). All new entrants to the Armed Forces, of all ranks, receive training on LoAC during initial training
22 Mar 2005 : Column WA23
and specialist training courses. Such training has been delivered throughout the past four years. On entry into productive service Army and Royal Marines personnel renew this training annually as part of their individual training directives.
Prior to deployment to an operational theatre, all personnel receive pre-deployment training (PDT), either collectively or as individuals. Royal Navy and Royal Air Force personnel receive specific training on LoAC during PDT as, unlike their Army and Royal Marine counterparts, they do not receive such training on an annual basis. All personnel receive an additional theatre-specific operational law brief and cultural awareness training as part of PDT.
In addition, officers receive enhanced packages during their career development and through attendance at the Joint Services Command and Staff College, where they receive education on the analysis of international law, the role of ethics and their impact on military operations.
International human rights law is not taught as a subject in its own right to service personnel. However, all service personnel are subject to their respective service disciplinary codes and will be dealt with by their commanding officers or (depending on the gravity of the offences) by courts martial for breaches overseas of service discipline or the commission of criminal law offences contrary to the law of England and Wales. The object of service disciplinary law has always been to maintain discipline within the Armed Forces and thereby both to guarantee respect from the local population overseas for the behaviour of service personnel and to help maintain operational effectiveness.
Service personnel receive annual common core skills training, part of which relates to live armed guarding duties in peacetime within the United Kingdom. The law of self-defence is an essential part of that training and seeks to impart the basic principle that only reasonable and proportionate force may be used where a necessity of defence arises. The teaching, which is given partly by video and partly by instructors, is in line with Section 3 of the Criminal Law Act 1967 and supporting case law. Section 3 comprises the basis for the use of force in most peace-keeping operations conducted by HM forces overseas.
Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
Lord Jopling asked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answers by the Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 24 February (WA 230) and 10 March (WA 89–90), what other differing criteria or errors in the bid document for the 2012 Olympic Games have come to light, as well as the one referred to; and, in the light of the decision not to draw the highlighted mistake to the attention of the International Olympic Committee Evaluation Commission, to what address this information should be sent, so that they could be made aware of it. [HL1773]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): As explained to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling in my original Answer on 3 February (WA 62), the International Olympic Committee (IOC) did not set criteria for the definition of "dignitaries and VIPs" for inclusion in table 12.14 of the candidate file. We do not, therefore, believe any mistake to have been made in the compilation of that table which would need to be drawn to the attention of the IOC. The recent visit to London of the IOC evaluation team provided them with the opportunity to raise any questions they may have had concerning the information in table 12.14 and the rest of the candidate file.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |