| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
1 Sept 2003 : Column 896W—continued
Anti-personnel Mines
Norman Lamb: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how far out to sea off Diego Garcia ammunition ships containing anti-personnel mines are anchored. [102348]
Mr. Rammell: I have been asked to reply.
Ships carrying ammunition are sent to pre-positioned anchorages between two and three nautical miles from shore within the lagoon.
Apples
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of apples consumed by the armed forces were grown in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) the United States of America and (c) Chile in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [126806]
Mr. Caplin: In the last 12 months 51 per cent. of the apples consumed by the armed forces were grown in the USA, 25 per cent. in the UK and 24 per cent. in Chile.
Armed Forces (Health Care)
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been paid to non-NHS health providers in (a) the UK, (b) Germany and (c) elsewhere for the treatment of (i) members of HM armed forces and (ii) their families in each of the past five years. [118799]
Mr. Caplin [holding answer 12 June 2003]: Payments to private healthcare providers in the United Kingdom in respect of treatment of Service personnel totalled £0.769 million in 2000–01, £4.095 million in 2001–02 and £3.326 million in 2002–03 These costs relate to centrally run treatment initiatives and single Service schemes. No expenditure on private healthcare providers has been recorded centrally prior to 2000–01. Medical care for dependents of Service personnel in the UK is the responsibility of the NHS.
Healthcare in Germany is provided by the British Forces Germany Health Service (BFGHS), a consortium comprising the Ministry of Defence, Guys and St Thomas' Healthcare Trust (GST) and the Soldiers' Sailors, and Airmen's Families Association (SSAFA). Secondary healthcare is mainly provided by 5 Designated German Provider (DGP) hospitals under contracts managed by GST on behalf of the BFGHS for all Service and MOD UK-based civil servants and their families.Total Payments to GST, SSAFA and to non-DGP hospitals in each of the last five years were as follows:
| Year | £ million |
|---|---|
| 1998–99 | 34.180 |
| 1999–2000 | 35.945 |
| 2000–01 | 32.498 |
| 2001–02 | 32.498 |
| 2002–03 | 34.687 |
1 Sept 2003 : Column 897W
The figures include the contract cost of primary and community care for Service and civilian personnel and entitled dependants. The figures exclude the cost of primary care for RAF personnel and their dependants prior to 2001–02 as this was provided separately by the RAF. It is not possible to identify separately costs incurred in respect of Service personnel and their dependents.
Details of payments to non-NHS healthcare providers elsewhere in the world are only available in respect of Cyprus and Gibraltar. Figures are not available for other locations, as they would only be recorded at unit level and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Figures for Cyprus and Gibraltar are shown as follows:
| Year | £ million |
|---|---|
| 1998–99 | 0.348 |
| 1999–2000 | 0.494 |
| 2000–01 | 0.174 |
| 2001–02 | 0.119 |
| 2002–03 | 0.129 |
The figures cover the cost of all treatment provided outside of the service hospitals at these locations, for Service personnel, MOD UK-based civil servants and their dependants, it is not possible to identify separately costs incurred in respect of Service personnel, their dependents and other entitled personnel.
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces have undergone treatment on the NHS in each of the last five years to ensure that they are able to be fully deployed. [118801]
Mr. Caplin [holding answer 12 June 2003]: Records are only maintained centrally of the numbers of Service personnel treated by NHS hospital trusts which host the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine (RCDM) and the MOD Hospital Units (MDHUs). Information on the numbers of Service personnel treated elsewhere in the NHS could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
The table shows the number of Service patients treated in the NHS trusts which host the RCDM and MDHUs in the five years 1998–99 to 2002–03. The figures represent all treatment provided as it is not possible, without disproportionate cost, to identify separately treatment which enabled Service personnel to become fully deploy able.
| In-patient andday cases | Out-patients | |
|---|---|---|
| 1998–99 | 5,759 | 14,663 |
| 1999–2000 | 5,497 | 12,183 |
| 2000–01 | 6,723 | 15,019 |
| 2001–02 | 9,005 | 21,372 |
| 2002–03 | 7,772 | 19,076 |
Notes:
1. Out-patient figures for 1999–2000 exclude MDHU Derriford due to problems with the hospital trust's patient administration system.
2. Figures include MDHU Northallerton from 1999–2000, the year it was established.
3. Figures from 2000–01 include the Royal Surrey County Hospital, which provides oromaxillofacial treatment under a separate SLA with MOD on similar terms to the MDHU SLAs.
4. Figures include the RCDM and MDHU Portsmouth from 2001–02, the year they were established.
1 Sept 2003 : Column 898W
Mr. Hoban: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures he has taken to enable members of the armed forces to receive priority treatment in the NHS. [118802]
Mr. Caplin [holding answer 12 June 2003]: Service personnel are entitled to the full use of NHS hospitals on the same basis as other United Kingdom citizens if appropriate military provision is not available. They will therefore benefit from the sustained investment through the NHS Plan which will reduce waiting times. Provision for accelerated diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation to return Service personnel back to fitness faster than would otherwise be the case is available through Service Level Agreements (SLAs) with NHS Trusts that host the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine (RCDM) in Birmingham and Ministry of Defence Hospital Units (MDHUs). These SLAs also include provision for fast-track out-patient appointments if Service personnel are needed for immediate operational deployment. In addition, in 2003–04, up to £8 million for accelerated diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation is available for use in the NHS or, as appropriate, with private healthcare providers. A pilot scheme for fast-tracking orthopaedic cases is currently being run at MDHU Northallerton. Finally, the joint MOD/Department of Health Reception Arrangements for Military Patients (RAMP) ensure that in times of conflict casualties are returned to the UK and receive the care that they need in NHS hospitals.
Challenger 2
Mr. Keetch: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 3 June 2003 to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), Official Report, column 32W, on armoured vehicles, and his answer of 3 June 2003 to the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), Official Report, column 40W, on Iraq, what the (a) operational, (b) logistic and (c) economic basis is for replacing the Challenger 2 tanks. [119491]
Mr. Ingram: The decision to reduce the number of Challenger tanks in Iraq to a single squadron, deployed with 19 Mechanised Brigade, was taken for purely operational reasons. The rest have been withdrawn since there is only a very limited security role for them following the end of the conflict with Saddam Hussein's regime.
Cluster Munitions
Harry Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 3 June 2003, ref. 110261, whether he has received reports of civilian casualties in Iraq as a consequence of the dropping of cluster bombs that have yet to be verified. [117759]
Mr. Hoon: The preponderance of unexploded munitions littering Iraq following decades of conflicts means that it is difficult to deduce definitively what injuries may have been caused by particular kinds of ordnance. United Kingdom Field Hospitals have reported eight injuries which may possibly have been
1 Sept 2003 : Column 899W
caused by cluster munitions. I am aware of the existence of further unsubstantiated reports in the media and from other sources.
Deceased Service Personnel
Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on procedures followed by his Department in notifying next of kin of deceased service personnel; what advice is given in respect to the speed with which next of kin must be informed of their bereavement; which personnel are involved; and what efforts are made to ensure that details are not released to the media in advance of the notification of the next of kin. [126102]
Mr. Caplin: There are well established procedures for the reporting of casualties and missing personnel. The overriding principle is to minimise distress to bereaved families and to ensure they received timely and accurate information. However, it does take time to establish the necessary details, particularly in operational circumstances. With plentiful sources of immediate communication and close media interest, inevitably there is a risk that families will learn of an incident before they are formally notified. The Ministry of Defence endeavours to minimise this risk. An officer is despatched to inform the family as soon as the relevant details have been established. Normally the officer would be from the relevant unit or parent establishment, but where a family lived a significant distance away, consideration would be given to using an officer from a closer unit (preferably, although not necessarily, of the same Service) or the civilian police. Service officers selected to notify families are senior and experienced; often the unit commander or deputy will conduct this important and difficult duty themselves.
We do not publish the names of fatalities until we have confirmation that the next of kin, and in some cases the extended family network, have been informed.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |