---

Medical Personnel

Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average number of fully trained, dedicated medical personnel deployed in-theatre as a proportion of the total armed forces personnel deployed in-theatre at the time of highest United Kingdom deployment during conflicts in (a) the Falklands, (b) the Gulf, (c) Kosovo and (d) Sierra Leone; and if he will make a statement. [127472]

29 Jun 2000 : Column: 596W

Mr. Spellar: I will write to the right hon. and learned Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his policy is on the optimum in-theatre deployment of fully trained, dedicated medical personnel as a proportion of total armed forces personnel; what factors he takes into account in deciding this policy; and if he will make a statement. [127471]

Dr. Moonie: The optimal quantity and configuration of medical support is calculated individually for each operational deployment to ensure that the support is tailored to the particular task in hand. Factors taken into account in reaching a decision on the level of medical support required include the type of operation; the force size and composition; military threat and risk assessments;

29 Jun 2000 : Column: 597W

possible casualty rates; risk of disease and other non battle injuries; local environmental factors, such as climate and water availability and quality; and the availability of medical resources provided by allies.

Staff Secondments

Mr. Don Foster: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) of 8 February 2000, Official Report, columns 109-10W, on secondments, if he will give the names, grades and job titles of the staff seconded into his Department from each organisation mentioned, stating in each case the name of the section they were seconded to and a summary of the work that they were involved with. [128238]

Dr. Moonie: I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

Sierra Leone

Ann Keen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Government will respond to requests for arms and ammunition from the Government of Sierra Leone. [128694]

Mr. Hoon: The Government have made it clear that they will consider requests for assistance from the Government of Sierra Leone. Following a request for ammunition to meet urgent operational needs, therefore, Ministers have agreed that the Government will supply five million rounds of 7.62mm rifle ammunition and four thousand rounds of 81mm mortar ammunition, which are available as surplus from MOD stocks. This will be transported to Sierra Leone subject to the Government of Sierra Leone securing formal agreement from the ECOWAS Secretariat that this ammunition can be imported as an exception to their Small Arms Moratorium. In accordance with UNSCR 1171 (1998), this shipment will be notified to the UN Sanctions Committee. The Government have received confirmation from President Kabbah that the ammunition will be used only by regular Sierra Leone Army soldiers, in accordance with international humanitarian law and human rights standards, and not by child soldiers. The Government remain prepared to consider further requests for assistance from the Government of Sierra Leone.

Defence Diversification Agency

Dr. Tonge: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with the Department for Trade and Industry concerning the Defence Diversification Agency. [128092]

Dr. Moonie: Officials are in regular contact with the DTI on this subject.

Dr. Tonge: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the annual report of the Defence Diversification Agency will be published. [128094]

Dr. Moonie: The activities of the Defence Diversification Agency since its establishment last year will be reported on in this year's Annual Report of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, of which the Defence Diversification Agency forms a part. We expect that that report will be laid before Parliament next month.

29 Jun 2000 : Column: 598W

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

Waste Management

Mr. Burgon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce a risk-based system for the inspection of licensed waste management sites; and if he will make a statement. [128760]

Mr. Meacher: Following the publication last year of the consultation paper on "Operator Pollution Risk Appraisal (OPRA) for waste," I am issuing revised guidance to the Environment Agency to enable the introduction of a risk-based system for the inspection of sites licensed under Part II of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

We must ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of in ways which protect the environment and human health. The site inspections which the Agency carries out are a vital part of this process. The new system will further improve standards by targeting inspections on those sites where they are most needed and making more effective use of the Agency's waste inspection resources.

It will also provide site licence holders with a risk management system which enables them to identify the environmental risks associated with their site and the operations they carry out; and to assess and improve the quality of their performance in managing those operations and their environmental risks. A copy of the revised guidance, which I am issuing to the Agency under section 35(8) of the 1990 Act, is being placed in the Library of the House.

GLA Election

Mr. Stephen Twigg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what reports he has received from the Greater London returning officer on the election of the Mayor and Assembly for London; and if he will make a statement. [128464]

Mr. Hill: I have now had advice from the Greater London Returning Officer (GLRO) about the first election of the Mayor and Assembly for London. There were a number of innovations at the election designed to make voting more convenient and to speed up the counting process. These included electronic counting, early voting, opening polling stations an hour earlier than usual and sending a leaflet to every elector containing an election address from each candidate contesting the Mayoral election.

Two issues have emerged in relation to the count: the speed of the count and the number of votes classified as "rejected".

Although the count took a few hours longer than originally expected, the GLRO has stressed that Ministers can be satisfied that the first use of electronic counting in an election of this size and complexity went well. There were some technical problems with some scanning machines on the night, but a manual count would have taken many more days to complete. In all other respects the electronic counting system worked very well and fully in line with expectations.

29 Jun 2000 : Column: 599W

A number of other factors also contributed to the slower than expected count. For example, there were a larger than expected number of ballot papers out-sorted by the scanning machines for manual checking, before they were entered into the system. It is also the case that as this was the first time that staff had used an electronic counting system in an election, they quite rightly took time to make sure that the new procedures were followed properly. These factors inevitably slow things up.

The other issue was the larger than expected number of electors who chose not to cast a vote in one or more of the elections. Each elector had four opportunities to vote--first choice for Mayor, second choice for Mayor, constituency assembly member and London Assembly Member--and each is recorded separately. If an elector chooses not to vote in any of the four ballots--as they have every right to do--this is recorded as a "rejected" vote even though the ballot paper was left blank. For example, if a voter selects a first choice for Mayor but not a second choice, and does not vote at all in the two Assembly elections, the system would record one valid vote and three "rejected" votes.

Over 6.5 million votes were cast by about 1.75 million electors. Around 0.5 million votes were recorded as "rejected". These were made up of multiple votes (where the voter had voted more than once in a column), papers where marks identified the voter, blanks where no vote had been cast and uncertain votes, where even after manual checking the voter's intention was still not clear.

The majority of votes classified as "rejected" simply record the fact that many electors chose not to use all the four votes at their disposal. Almost 300,000 people did not use their second preference vote for the Mayor, although they did give a first preference. About 130,000 did not cast vote for a constituency assembly member and about 70,000 did not cast a vote for a London assembly member. About 1 per cent. of ballot papers were "rejected" because they were either marked with multiple votes or had marks that identified the voter. This proportion is in line with other elections.

Over 3 per cent. of voters took advantage of early voting. Almost all of them welcomed the opportunity to vote early and said they would use it again if it is available. Just under half of those who used the facility said that they would not have voted on polling day.

About 3 per cent. of voters also took advantage of the extended polling hours on polling day and voted between 7am and 8am on polling day. In some polling stations 11 per cent. of voters voted in the first hour. Most were on their way to work and 20 per cent. said that they would not have been able to vote at another time on the day. More people preferred the polls to open an extra hour in the morning rather than later in the evening.

A leaflet containing election addresses for all 11 mayoral candidates was produced and delivered to every elector in London, as required by law.

---