|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people were detained in Japanese camps in World War Two as British but have now been ruled as ineligible for compensation because of a lack of a blood link with the United Kingdom. 
Dr. Moonie: Precise numbers of people who were detained in Japanese camps in World War Two as British, but have now been ruled as ineligible for payment under the ex-gratia scheme because of a lack of a blood link with the United Kingdom are not available, as records have not been maintained in this form. This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on restrictions placed by Her Majesty's Government on the eligibility for compensation of former British civilian internees in Japanese prisoner-of-war camps. 
Dr. Moonie: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 11 July 2001, Official Report, column 517W to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).
Mr. Bercow: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the letter of 24 October from the hon. Member for Buckingham to the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), will be answered. 
Dr. Moonie: The Ministry of Defence aims to answer its Ministerial correspondence within 15 working days of receipt in the Department. The hon. Member's letter was received on 30 October and I replied to him on 12 November.
Mr. Keith Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what lessons learned have been made available to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs based upon the Army's experience of the foot and mouth outbreak. 
Dr. Moonie [holding answer 16 November 2001]: The foot and mouth epidemic has been brought under control by the joint efforts of a number of Government Departments and agencies. Throughout the epidemic, there was a constant interchange of information and
19 Nov 2001 : Column: 14W
advice, based on past and present experience, between armed forces personnel and those other agencies and Departments, including DEFRA. The Ministry of Defence is committed to supporting the work of the foot and mouth disease inquiries announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 9 August.
Mr. Weir: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department's policy is in relation to departmental spending for supplies concerning the purchase of Fair Trade goods. 
Dr. Moonie [holding answer 16 November 2001]: The supply of food for the armed forces has been contracted out to "3663" and we require them to seek the best price in the open market, consistent with meeting our quality standard; indeed to do otherwise would contravene European law. In the case of Fair Trade products, it is my Department's policy to require the contractor to give full consideration to such goods whenever they meet these criteria.
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has in relation to the naval hospital in Gibraltar. 
Dr. Moonie: At present the naval hospital is a unit of the Defence Care Agency. Existing plans for replacing the hospital with a new-build facility have been under review by the Agency to assess, among other things, whether there might be scope for improved integration with the primary care facilities at Gibraltar. We expect ownership of the hospital to change in line with the recommendation by the Medical Quinquennial Review (MQR). I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), on 17 October 2001, Official Report, column 1224W to the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright). It was noted in the summary of emerging findings of the MQR that responsibility for the management and funding of all medical functions, including secondary care, in Cyprus and Gibraltar should be vested in the respective overseas commands. Consequently the studies into a replacement for the existing hospital will now be taken forward by the Permanent Joint Headquarters.
Mr. Rosindell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the causes of breakdown in armoured vehicles on exercise Saif Sareea 2; when such breakdowns had been anticipated in advance by (a) his Department and (b) service staff; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Ingram: Detailed information on the causes of the limited number of breakdowns among the 395 armoured vehicles deployed during the six weeks of Exercise Saif Sareea 2 has not yet been collated but should be available early next year as part of our standard post-deployment assessment. Providing the information at this stage would incur a disproportionate cost.
19 Nov 2001 : Column: 15W
We did not anticipate any specific causes of breakdown for individual armoured vehicles types although some unplanned maintenance was inevitable given the challenging environment.
Overall the armoured vehicle fleet deployed on Exercise Saif Sareea 2 performed very effectively. The experience gained from the exercise will provide valuable lessons for future deployments.
Mr. Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) pursuant to his answer of 8 November 2001, Official Report, column 380W, on the application of the Race Relations Act 1976 to service personnel, if he will list the overseas military bases where the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 do not apply to service personnel working wholly there; 
(3) what assessment his Department made of Article 6(1) and Article 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to the case of Surinder Nath Saggar of Brompton on Swale, North Yorkshire. 
Mr. Ingram: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave on 26 October 2001, Official Report, column 404W. I hope that I will be in a position to write to the right hon. Member with a full substantive reply shortly, and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.
Mr. Swayne: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the personnel operational and retained task requirement for each medical specialty within the Defence Medical Services, indicating the current strength in each specialty. 
Dr. Moonie [holding answer 16 November 2001]: The operational and retained task requirement for each medical specialty within the Defence Medical Services and the strength in each as at 1 October 2001 are shown in the tables:
|Specialty||Operational and retained task requirement(1)||Trained consultants in specialty(1),(2)||Specialists undergoing training(3)|
|Obstetricians and gynaecologist||3||0||1|
|Burns and plastic surgery||11||3||5|
|Accident and emergency||23||3||20|
|Oral maxillofacial surgeons||10||8||8|
|Ear, nose and throat||10||3||8|
|Rheumatology and rehabilitation||6||6||3|
19 Nov 2001 : Column: 16W
|Operational and retained task requirement(1)||398|
|Vocationally trained GMPs(1)||160|
|GMPs undergoing vocational training(4)||73|
|No vocational training(5)||186|
(1) Command and staff posts are excluded from the Operational and Retained Task Requirement and trained manpower figures.
(2) In addition to the figures shown there were five Associate Specialist anaesthetists and one Staff Grade general surgeon who would be deployable under the supervision of a consultant.
(3) The figures provided comprise Specialist Registrars and Senior House Officers. Specialist Registrars within two years of accreditation are deployable within their specialty under the supervision of a consultant while all others are deployable as general duties medical officers.
(4) GP Vocational Trainees are deployable as general duties medical officers.
(5) This figure comprises medical officers who have yet to start training in a primary or secondary care discipline or who qualified prior to the introduction of GP vocational training.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|