| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
27 Apr 2006 : Column 1270W—continued
Iraq
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many (a) serious injuries and (b) fatalities have been sustained by members of the Iraq security forces since March 2003. [61846]
John Reid: This is a matter for the Iraqi Government.
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the capacity of the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein to have produced a dirty bomb; and if he will make a statement. [65190]
John Reid: In 1987 the Iraqi regime carried out tests to assess the capability of disseminating radioactive material in bombs dropped from aircraft for use possibly as a radiological device (dirty bomb). The project was abandoned and there is no evidence of any subsequent attempts to develop radiological devices.
Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether all British service personnel injured in Iraq are being screened for the possibility of a traumatic brain injury. [65915]
John Reid: All service patients who are injured in Iraq and who have symptoms and signs of brain injury are treated appropriately. However, personnel are not automatically screened for brain injury, as screening patients whose injury would have no impact on their brain function (e.g. a sprained ankle) would be clinically inappropriate.
Joint Strike Fighter
Mr. Bone: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he has had discussions with his US counterparts on software source code access in relation to the Joint Strike Fighter; and if he will make a statement. [65418]
Mr. Ingram:
I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 30 March 2006, Official Report, column 1154W to my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones). Regular discussions take place at all levels with the US Administration on all aspects of the joint strike fighter programme. I can assure my hon. Friend that the UK has identified in detail the specific aspects of the Government-to-Government technology transfers that are necessary to ensure operational sovereignty of the
27 Apr 2006 : Column 1271W
Joint Strike Fighter when operated by the RAF and RN. HMG has been similarly clear regarding the absolute necessity of receiving this information.
Mr. Bone: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the UK has the capability to develop a new weapon for the Joint Strike Fighter aircraft separately from the USA; and whether this would be possible without the software access code. [65420]
Mr. Ingram:
The ability to upgrade our Joint Strike Fighters through life to meet the needs of our armed forces is an important part of ensuring operational sovereignty in their use. We have made it clear to the United States that to proceed with the purchase of the
27 Apr 2006 : Column 1272W
aircraft we require access to the information necessary for operational sovereignty, and we remain optimistic that this will be achieved.
Campaign Medals
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list campaigns since 1945 for which Naval General Service Medals and/or clasp have been awarded for which the qualifying period would be fulfilled by (a) an aggregated and (b) a continuous period of service in theatre. [65387]
Mr. Touhig: Since 1945 there have been a total of 12 campaigns for which the Naval General Service Medal and/or clasp have been awarded.
The following campaigns required aggregated service.
The following campaigns required continuous service.
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason no naval representative was included on Lord Guthrie's sub-committee on the award of service medals and clasps in respect of the Canal Zone. [65388]
Mr. Touhig: The range of expertise encompassed by the membership of the sub-Committee of the Committee on the Grant of Honours Decorations and Medals, which was established in November 2002 to discuss the case for a medal for service in the Suez Canal Zone between 1951 and 1954, was extensive and comprehensive. The Chairman was a former Chief of the Defence Staff and as such represented all three Services.
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether Lord Guthrie's sub-committee on the awarding of medals and clasps for service in the Canal Zone referred to a requirement that the qualifying 30-day period for naval personnel had to be continuous. [65390]
Mr. Touhig: The eligibility criteria for the awarding of medals and clasps for service in the Canal Zone reflect the discussions of Lord Guthrie's sub-committee of the Committee on the Grant of Honours Decorations and Medals, which deliberated the matter in November 2002. This includes the requirement that the qualifying 30-day period for the medal had to be continuous rather than aggregated service.
Mental Health Services
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what (a) charities and (b) other organisations receive funding from his Department for the treatment of veterans with mental health conditions; and how much each received in each of the past five years. [55582]
Mr. Touhig: In relation to income received by the Ex-Services Mental Welfare Society ("Combat Stress") by way of expenses defrayed under article 26 of the Naval, Military and Air Forces Etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 9 March 2006, Official Report, column 1191W, to the hon. Member for Putney (Ms Greening). Costs may be defrayed under article 26 in respect of other veterans with mental health conditions and in relation to other providers of treatment, but such expenditure is not separately identifiable.
In addition the Ministry of Defence also provides grant-in-aid for the Royal Hospital Chelsea, which provides a range of services, including some mental
27 Apr 2006 : Column 1273W
health care, to elderly veterans. However it is not possible to break this down to separate out costs for treatment.
Missile Defence
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 30 March 2006, Official Report, column 1154W, on missile defence, what the conclusions were of the NATO Feasibility Study into options for Alliance missile defence. [65955]
John Reid: The NATO Missile Defence Feasibility Study is classified and the disclosure of its conclusions would, or would be likely to, prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of UK armed forces or our Allies. A number of options are considered in the study, based on a range of assumptions and the expected performance of potential Alliance missile defence capabilities. NATO will now review those assumptions and decide how to take the work forward.
Nuclear Testing
Mr. Baron: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the risks associated with the use of DDT in nuclear testing conducted by his Department. [64797]
Mr. Touhig: The UK atmospheric nuclear tests took place in areas with high levels of tropical insect pests which presented a risk to health. To minimise this, aerial spraying of DDT was carried out. There is no reliable evidence that DDT causes adverse health effects in man and the Ministry of Defence has not undertaken any specific assessment of the risks associated with the use of DDT in nuclear testing.
Mr. Baron: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment has been made by his Department of the long-term effect on (a) servicemen and (b) their offspring of exposure to radiation in connection with nuclear testing on Christmas Island in 1958. [64605]
Mr. Touhig:
In 1983, the Ministry of Defence commissioned from the National Radiological Protection Board and Imperial Cancer Research Fund an independent epidemiological study of participants of the UK atmospheric nuclear tests, including those present at the 1958 Christmas Island tests. The study compared a representative group of over 20,000 participants with a control group of men who did not take part in the tests but were otherwise similar. Analyses of mortality and cancer incidence in the groups have been published in the peer-reviewed mainstream medical literature in 1988, 1993 and 2003. These studies showed that overall mortality and cancer incidence was similar both in the participant and control groups and lower than the UK national rate, The 1988 study suggested a slightly raised level of multiple myeloma in participants compared with controls. However, this was not confirmed in the 1993 and 2003 reports and is likely to have been due to chance. There does appear, from all three studies, to be a small increased risk of leukaemias in test participants, apart from chronic lymphatic leukaemia, especially in the early years after the test. The MOD has not formally assessed the health of offspring of UK atmospheric nuclear test participants and is unaware of any such studies in the international published peer-reviewed medical or scientific literature.
27 Apr 2006 : Column 1274W
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |