| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
16 Jun 2006 : Column 1524W—continued
Hutton Report
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what time of day, and on what day, the press statement from his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), on the appointment of Lord Hutton to conduct an inquiry into the death of Dr. David Kelly was (a) cleared for release and (b) released under embargo to the media. [65234]
Des Browne: My right hon. Friend, the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) did not issue a press statement on the appointment of Lord Hutton while he was serving as the Secretary of State for Defence. A press notice was issued by the Department for Constitutional Affairs on 21 July 2003.
Iraq
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many casualties were treated on Royal Fleet Auxiliary Argus during the period 18 March 2003 to 18 May 2003; and how many of those were classed as injured in combat; [67171]
(2) how many casualties were treated by 202 Field Hospital during the period 18 March to 18 May 2003; and how many were classed as injured in combat. [68478]
Des Browne [holding answer 8 May 2006]: Records from these two facilities are currently being cross-checked and verified against our existing records from the Shaibah Facility, Aeromed returns and Notification of casualty reporting. I will write to the hon. Member once this process is complete.
Norman Baker: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many casualties were treated by 33 Field Hospital in the period 18 March 2003 to 18 May 2003; and how many of those were classed as injured in combat. [69450]
Mr. Watson [holding answer 8 May 2006]: From the 17 March until the 8 April 2003, 33 Field Hospital was deployed in Iraq as the theatre reserve. It then returned to the United Kingdom. We are currently verifying its records for the period it was deployed to Iraq. I will write to the hon. Gentleman once this process is complete.
Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many injured personnel were treated (a) aboard (i) RFA Argus, (ii) Royal Navy ships and (iii) Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships and (b) in British field hospitals during Operation Telic; and what type of injury each had sustained; [74971]
(2) how many UK personnel injured in Iraq since 2003 were treated by US medical personnel in US facilities; [74972]
(3) how many personnel who served in Iraq have been (a) killed and (b) injured since 2003; [74973]
(4) how many of each type of injury has been sustained by UK forces in Iraq since 2003; [74974]
(5) what steps the Department is taking to collate centrally comprehensive injury figures for personnel involved in Operation Telic; [74975]
(6) what the record of casualties is from Operation Telic. [74976]
Des Browne: As at 28 May 2006, we very much regret that a total of 113 UK military and civilian defence personnel have died, or are missing presumed dead, while serving on Operation Telic since the start of the campaign in March 2003.
Of these, 84 are classed as killed in action, including as a result of hostile action, 29 are known to have died either as a result of illness, non-combat injuries or accidents, or have not yet been officially assigned a cause of death pending the outcome of an investigation. These figures may change as inquests are concluded.
During the period March 2003 to the end of April 2006, the best centrally available, verified, figures show that: around 240 UK military and civilian personnel have been treated at the UK's main Field Hospital in Shaibah for wounds received as a result of hostile action and; up to 4,000 UK personnel were medically evacuated from Iraq from all causes, the majority due to accident, illness, or for routine outpatient activities.
Separate records for the same period from Notification of Casualty reporting (NOTICAS), show that around 40 UK military and civilian personnel have been categorised as Very Seriously Ill/Injured/Wounded (VSI) from all causes, and that around 75 personnel have been categorised as Seriously Ill/Injured/Wounded (SI) from all causes. These figures include some personnel treated for wounds received as a result of hostile action. The figures are only comprehensive, including personnel treated at non-UK facilities, from April 11 2005 onwards. During the early phases of Operation Telic the tempo of operations meant that the paperwork associated with the NOTICAS process was not always completed properly and we cannot be certain our records are complete.
We are working to improve our casualty reporting for Operation Telic. We are currently verifying records from the other Field Hospitals which deployed on Operation Telic including RFA Argus, and are engaging with the US to find out a comprehensive figure on how many personnel were treated at their facilities. As far as we know no UK personnel serving in Iraq were treated on Royal Navy or Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships other than RFA Argus. We are also in the process of transferring the paper records sent back from medical facilities deployed on Telic to the Central Health Records Library.
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at which locations British troops are being treated for injuries sustained in Iraq. [76990]
Des Browne: Role 1 Medical Treatment Facilities (providing Primary Healthcare, specialised first aid, triage, resuscitation and stabilisation) in Iraq are at the following locations:
Al Udeid (Aeromedical Evacuation Liaison Officer and Primary Healthcare Nurse)
Baghdad (Aeromedical Evacuation Liaison Officer and Primary Healthcare Nurse)
Basra air station
Seeb (Medical Admin Primary Healthcare and Aeromedical Coordinator)
Tallil (UK Aeromedical Evacuation Liaison Officer deployed to US 2 Medical Brigade)
A Role 2 Medical Treatment Facilities (reception and triage of casualties, resuscitation and treatment of shock to a higher level than a Role 1 facility) is located at Al Muthanna/Al Amarah.
A Role 3 Medical Treatment Facilities (Field Hospital) is located at Shaibah Logistical Base.
Additional medical provision is also available in theatre from coalition forces.
When patients are aeromedically evacuated to the UK, care can also be provided in Cyprus at The Princess Mary Hospital, RAF Akrotiri, if required.
Since 2001, the Royal Centre for Defence Medicine at Selly Oak Hospital, Birmingham, has been the main receiving unit for patients aeromedically evacuated from an operational theatre. Following clinical needs assessment at Selly Oak, if a long hospital stay is expected, patients can be transferred to a hospital closer to their home for less acute treatment, enabling them to be nearer to their family. The decision to do this is based on comparative waiting times and on convenience for the individual patient and their family.
Patients with multiple injuries including amputees and those with brain injury are transferred to Defence Medical Rehabilitation Centre at Headley Court.
Patients with moderate or minor musculoskeletal injuries, who have been assessed and given a working diagnosis and a planned care pathway are referred to the appropriate Regional Rehabilitation Unit at: Aldershot, Bulford/Tidworth, Catterick, Colchester, Cranwell, Edinburgh, Halton, Honnington, Lichfield, Headley Court (near London), Plymouth, Portsmouth, GĂ1/4tersloh (Germany) and Hohne (Germany).
Patients requiring treatment for a mental health condition are referred to one of the MOD's regional Departments of Community Mental Health at Kinloss, Leuchars, Faslane, Aldershot, Brize Norton, Catterick, Colchester, Cranwell, Marham, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Tidworth, Donnington, Woolwich and Lisburn, or satellite centres overseas.
Patients aeromedically evacuated from Iraq by US forces may be treated at US facilities in Ramstein, Germany, before continuing to Selly Oak for treatment in the normal way.
Personnel who are normally based in Germany and who are injured in Iraq will usually be aeromedically evacuated to the UK in the normal way. If, on subsequent return to Germany, they require follow-up treatment, they are treated at the medical facilities used by the garrisons at Mönchengladbach, Paderborn, OsnabrĂ1/4ck, GĂ1/4tersloh or Hohne.
Nuclear Weapons
Alan Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much his Department has spent on research into nuclear weapon science in each of the last 20 years. [74426]
Des Browne: A very wide and diverse range of individual research topics might conceivably be interpreted as falling within the scope of the overarching description “nuclear weapons science”. Costs are neither collected nor reported in such a way as to enable the compilation of complete, definitive or reliable totals to meet this description. Such figures could be provided only at disproportionate cost, if at all. Overall Ministry of Defence research statisticsare however published annually by the Defence Analytical Services Agency and can be found at www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/ukds/2005/ukds.html.
Nyala Armoured Vehicle
Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the suitability of the Nyala RG-31 armoured vehicles for use in (a) Afghanistan and (b) Iraq. [76502]
Mr. Ingram: The Ministry of Defence considered the RG-31, alongside a number of alternatives, to supplement our current fleet of vehicles, but concluded that its size and profile did not meet our needs.
Orion Laser
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the projected capital costs are for the production of the Orion laser at the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston. [76763]
Des Browne: Project Orion has a maximum contract value of £183 million against the current contract deliverables.
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to co-ordinate Orion laser production with the National Ignition Facility. [76764]
Des Browne: None. Orion is a UK facility.
Parliamentary Questions
Dr. Julian Lewis: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will reply substantively to Question 74482 on the classification of al-Qaeda and Taliban forces as insurgents or as terrorists, tabled for named day answer on 8 June. [77793]
Des Browne: I replied to the hon. Member on 15 June.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to answer question 57160, on defensive aids in Hercules aircraft, tabled by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South on 6 March 2006. [78398]
Mr. Ingram: I hope to be in a position to answer the hon. Member shortly.
QinetiQ
Mr. Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what stake (a) the Government and (b) Carlyle retains in QinetiQ following the initial public offering in January. [76987]
Mr. Ingram: The successful Initial Public Offering (IPO) of QinetiQ took place on 10 February 2006. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) continues to own 19.3 per cent. of the ordinary shares of the company and the Carlyle Group 10.5 per cent. The MOD has also retained a special share in QinetiQ to protect the defence or security interests of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage interest his Department retains in the profits on future disposal or revaluation of property assets of QinetiQ. [76988]
Mr. Ingram: As part of the Vesting Agreement between the Ministry of Defence (MOD) and QinetiQ in 2001 a Property Clawback Agreement was signed, through which the MOD retained an interest in future profits on disposal of QinetiQ property assets, to ensure that the MOD and therefore the taxpayer, gains from past investment. A summary of this agreement, which extends until 2013, was set out in the QinetiQ Global Offer Prospectus, a copy of which was placed in the Library of the House on 26 January 2006 (see p154). Management of the QinetiQ estate is the responsibility of the company.
Royal Ordnance
Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will visit the former Royal Ordnance sites at Bridgwater and Chorley to discuss future contracts. [77600]
Mr. Ingram: The Secretary of State for Defence has no plans to visit the BAES Land Systems sites at Bridgwater and Chorley.
Terrorism
Mr. Lancaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps the UK has taken to combat terrorism in (a) Djibouti, (b) Eritrea, (c) Ethiopia, (d) Kenya, (e) Somalia, (f) Sudan and (g) Yemen as part of the war on terror. [77695]
Mr. Ingram: The Ministry of Defence has not provided bespoke counter-terrorism assistance to Djibouti, Eritrea or Ethiopia.
The EU arms embargo in Sudan and the UN arms embargo in Somalia prohibit the provision of military assistance and training to those countries.
Some counter-terrorism assistance has been provided to Kenya and Yemen as part of HMG's extensive wider engagement with the region. However, I am withholding details of support provided by the Ministry of Defence because its disclosure would be to the detriment of the safety of individuals and to international relations.
Health
Addiction Treatment and Rehabilitation
Mrs. Iris Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding has been provided by her Department for addiction treatment and rehabilitation in each of the last 10 years. [77287]
Caroline Flint: In 2001, the Government introduced the pooled drug treatment budget (PTB) to spend money directly on delivering suitable drug treatment, as well as improving access to treatment for example for offenders via drug intervention programmes, and supporting drug misusers after they come out of treatment, for example aftercare and supporting people.
This funding has increased yearly since the creation in 2001, along with the Government’s estimated yearly local mainstream spend. Details are shown in table one as follows.
| Table 1 | |||
| £ million | |||
| PTB | Local funding( 1) | Total | |
| (1) Local authorities, primary care trusts, police and probation. (2) Estimated. | |||
There is no central funding provided for alcohol treatment. It is the responsibility of the local primary care trusts and their partners to fund the treatment needed for their community. We do not routinely collect data on the amount of funding they have provided for alcohol treatment, so we are unable to provide year on year details. However, the alcohol needs assessment research project, published November 2005 conducted a more in-depth survey for 2005 and reached a conclusion that about £217 million is being spent on alcohol treatment.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |