Search Results

1-19 of 19 results for subject:"Military alliances"

Show detailed: On Off

Results: 10 20 50 100

Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

To ask Her Majesty's Government what are the (1) tactical, (2) strategic, and (3) procurement, objectives of the recently signed Memorandum of Understanding between the UK and the government of India.

Asked by

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

9 May 2019

Reference

HL15428

House

House of Lords

Military Alliances: European Union

To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to promote common procurement force specialisation and interoperability with members of the EU.

Asked by

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

4 June 2018

Reference

HL8053

House

House of Lords

Norway: Boeing P-8

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the proposed purchase by Norway of Boeing P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft, whether they intend to increase co-operation with Norway in maritime patrol operations.

Asked by

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

20 December 2016

Reference

HL4158

House

House of Lords

Boeing P-8

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to operate from the UK Boeing P-8 Poseidon aircraft belonging to (1) the US Navy, or (2) other allied nations, with British crews prior to the first UK P-8s entering service.

Asked by

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

2 February 2016

Reference

HL5505

House

House of Lords

Boeing P-8: Crew

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many UK service personnel embedded with allied nations maritime patrol capabilities under the Seedcorn Initiative are flying the Boeing P-8 Poseidon; and what are the relevant allied nations in each instance.

Asked by

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

2 February 2016

Reference

HL5506

House

House of Lords

Sharing Military Equipment

Does the Secretary of State accept that there may be circumstances in which it is more effective to share responsibilities rather than equipment? Will he tell the House whether, as a result of his meeting in Paris last week, there was any discussion of the possibility of sharing responsibility for nuclear deterrence?

Asked by

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Oral questions - Supplementary

Status

Answered

Date

13 September 2010

Reference

515 c583-4

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what discussions (a) he and (b) officials from his Department have had with their counterparts in (i) France, (ii) Germany, (iii) Italy and (iv) Spain regarding (A) the upgrade of RAF Fylingdales and (B) the stationing of US interceptor missiles in the...

Asked by

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

28 October 2004

Reference

425 c1372W; 193850

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the policy is of Her Majesty's Government on the stationing of US interceptor missiles in the UK; and if he will make a statement.

Asked by

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

28 October 2004

Reference

425 c1372W; 193848

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when he or officials from his Department last met US Administration secretaries or officials to discuss the stationing of interceptor missiles in the UK; what the outcome was of those discussions; and if he will make a statement.

Asked by

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

28 October 2004

Reference

425 c1372W; 193849

House

House of Commons

Iraq

Iraq. Eleventh opposition day debate (part 1). Motion negatived on division (393 to 60). Amendment agreed to on question.

Lead member

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem

Answering member

Geoffrey Hoon

Department

Ministry of Defence

Type

Opposition days

Date

17 May 2004

Reference

421 c677-737

House

House of Commons

IRAQ AND UN SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION

That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to hold a debate prior to the tabling of any further UN Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq so that Parliament can consider Her Majesty's Government's position in relation to any such resolution and express a view.

Primary sponsor

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (Liberal Democrat)

Type

Early day motions

Date

13 February 2003

Reference

745

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when, since January 1999, coalition aircraft patrolling the (a) northern and (b) southern no-fly-zones in Iraq have hit targets that were different from the intended target, stating in each case (i) the nature of the intended target, (ii) the nature of the...

Asked by

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

23 January 2002

For answer on

6 February 2002

Answered on

6 February 2002

Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when, since January 1999, coalition aircraft patrolling the (a) northern and (b) southern no-fly zones in Iraq have hit targets that were different from the intended target, stating in each case (i) the nature of the intended target, (ii) the nature of the actual target hit, (iii) the estimated number of civilians killed and (iv) the reason why the unintended target was hit; and if he will make a statement. [31016] Mr. Ingram: All targets attacked in self defence by coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones are military elements of the Iraqi Integrated Air Defence System. On the rare occasions where ordnance has failed to hit the intended target, it has almost invariably landed on open ground. It is extremely difficult to assess collateral damage, or numbers of civilian casualties caused by the remainder, despite the painstaking Battle Damage Assessment (BDA) that the coalition carries out every time ordnance is released. However, it is possible to demonstrate categorically that many of the Iraqi claims of collateral damage and civilian casualties are untrue. There have, for example, been several instances when Iraqis have claimed civilian casualties when coalition aircraft have not been flying, or when BDA has confirmed that only military targets were hit. Indeed, there is good evidence that, on several occasions where Saddam has made claims of civilian casualties, it has been caused by Iraqi artillery shells or missiles, recklessly fired at coalition aircraft, falling to earth in built up areas. In all cases of failure to hit the intended target by ordnance released from UK aircraft, the failure was caused by ordnance malfunction. We do not hold information for coalition partners. Coalition aircraft only attack military targets in self-defence. We make every effort to select targets and to employ precision guided munitions in order to minimise the possibility of collateral damage and civilian casualties. Despite these efforts, regrettably, on occasions civilians may have suffered as a result of coalition activity. However, this would be completely avoided if the Iraqis desisted from attacking coalition aircraft.

Date

6 February 2002

Reference

31016; 379 c997W;379 c992-3W

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what assessment he has made of changes to the nature and strength of Iraqi air defences since January 1998; whether improvements to the Iraqi air defence system constitute a threat to coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly-zones; what contribution strikes against Iraqi air...

Asked by

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

23 January 2002

For answer on

6 February 2002

Answered on

6 February 2002

Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of changes to the nature and strength of Iraqi air defences since January 1998; whether improvements to the Iraqi air defence system constitute a threat to coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones; what contribution strikes against Iraqi air defences by coalition aircraft in response to violation of the no-fly zones have made to his assessment; and if he will make a statement. [31017] Mr. Ingram: Since January 1998, Saddam has continually sought to upgrade his air defence system. Developments since January 1998 include increased use of digital technology and greater mobility and dispersal of radars and weapons. Its capability is very carefully monitored to assess the impact of any changes on coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones. The danger to our aircraft is demonstrated by the fact that the Iraqi air defence system has threatened coalition aircraft on around 1,000 occasions over the last two years. The coalition has on occasion responded purely in self-defence using high precision weapons against elements of the Iraqi Air Defence System. There is no doubt these self-defence responses do have an impact in terms of reducing the threat posed to aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones. Other important initiatives, including the UN-sponsored arms embargo on Iraq, also have an impact on the capability of Saddam's air defence infrastructure. As long as the Iraqis persist in attempts to shoot down our aircraft, the coalition will continue to take action in self-defence to ensure the safety of our aircrew.

Date

6 February 2002

Reference

31017; 379 c997-8W;379 c993W

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, on how many occasions (a) coalition aircraft and (b) UK aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly-zone in Iraq have (i) detected violations of the no-fly-zones, (ii) a direct threat to coalition aircraft and (iii) released ordnance, in each quarter since January 1999 to...

Asked by

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Tabled on

23 January 2002

For answer on

6 February 2002

Answered on

6 February 2002

Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions (a) coalition aircraft and (b) UK aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone in Iraq have (i) detected violations of the no-fly zones, (ii) a direct threat to coalition aircraft and (iii) released ordnance, in each quarter since January 1999 to date stating for each quarter the tonnage of ordnance released; in percentage terms what has been (A) the nature of the violation detected, (B) the nature of the threat detected and (C) the category of target attacked; and if he will make a statement. [31015] Mr. Ingram: The information is as follows: (i) The numbers of southern NFZ violations by quarter since January 1999 are: _________________________________________________________________________________________________. 1999 2000 2001 First quarter 35 3 3 Second quarter 9 0 2 Third quarter 6 4 4 Fourth quarter 3 1 1 Total 53 8 10 _________________________________________________________________________________________________. No-fly zone (NFZ) violations can be detected in several ways, including by tactical aircraft. 100 per cent. of violations were incursions into the NFZ by Iraqi military aircraft. (ii) We do not hold information in the form requested about recorded threats prior to 2000. In 2000 and 2001 coalition aircraft recorded threats on a total of 918 occasions. Reports from UK aircraft indicated that they were threatened or attacked as follows, by quarter: _________________________________________________________________________________________________. 2000 2001 First quarter 4 73 Second quarter 8 71 Third quarter 36 45 Fourth quarter 28 15 Total 76 204 _________________________________________________________________________________________________. In 2000 and 2001, 7 per cent. of the total were radar threats; 6 per cent. were attacks by surface-to-air missiles; and 87 per cent. others, primarily attacks by anti-aircraft guns. (iii) The tonnage of ordnance released by coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone, by quarter, is as follows. _________________________________________________________________________________________________. 1999 2000 2001 Coalition UK Coalition UK Coalition UK First quarter 120.5 31.5 35 3.5 50.5 8.5 Second quarter 79 21 45.5 6 11.5 2.5 Third quarter 135 23.5 42.5 5 39 13 Fourth quarter 45 12.5 32 6 6 1 Total 379.5 88.5 155 20.5 107 25 _________________________________________________________________________________________________. 100 per cent. of ordnance released was in self-defence responses by coalition aircraft against military targets in the Iraqi Integrated Air Defence System.

Date

6 February 2002

Reference

31015; 379 c996-7W;379 c991-2W

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what activities are deemed violations of the no-fly-zones in Iraq; from what date every such activity has been deemed to be a violation; what changes have been made to the definition of a violation of the no-fly-zones since January 1998; what changes...

Asked by

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

6 February 2002

Reference

31013; 379 c998W;379 c993-4W

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what acitivities are deemed to be threats to coalition aircraft in the no-fly-zones in Iraq; from what date every such activity has been deemed to be a threat; what changes have been made to the definition of a threat in the no-fly-zone...

Asked by

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

6 February 2002

Reference

31014; 379 c998-9W;379 c994W

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

Which countries participating in the NATO Partnership for Peace programme have requested the transfer of military equipment from the United Kingdom.

Asked by

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

22 February 1995

Reference

255 c256W;255 c255W

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

What consideration he has given to the consequences of the US Nato Participation Act of 1994 on the security of central Europe.

Asked by

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

22 February 1995

Reference

255 c255-6W;255 c255W

House

House of Commons

Ministry of Defence

What is his policy towards a Franco-German Defence Corps.

Asked by

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (Liberal Democrat)

Answering body

Ministry of Defence

Type

Written questions

Status

Answered

Date

20 May 1992

Reference

208 c186W

House

House of Commons

Librarians' tools

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

Publisher