|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Albania, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, and United States of America.
The precise numbers of forces deployed by each nation fluctuates. At present the largest ISAF troop contributors are the following: the UK (around 5,000), Germany (around 2,750), Canada and the Netherlands (around 2,000), Italy (around 1,600), US (around 1,300), and France (almost 1,000); and many nations are also contributing essential enablers and capabilities such as helicopters, air support and medical facilities.
Identification of additional forces and capabilities for deployment is a matter for the NATO force generation process. We are working with NATO Allies and non-NATO troop contributors to ensure that commanders on the ground have access to the resources they need to carry out the ISAF mission.
There are also around 18,600 international troops in and around Afghanistan under the coalition-led Operation Enduring Freedom. The bulk of these are from the US, but this also includes forces from a number of NATO Allies.
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which (a) Ministers, (b) hon. Members and (c) Members of the House of Lords visited British troops in Afghanistan in (i) July and (ii) August 2006. 
James Arbuthnot MP
David Borrow MP
Dai Havard MP
David Hamilton MP
Adam Holloway MP
Brian Jenkins MP
Kevan Jones MP
Mark Lancaster MP
Willie Rennie MP
John Smith MP
Mrs. Humble: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the topics covered on induction courses for civilian medical staff taking up post at Army initial training establishments; and what advice is given concerning (a) the detection of bullying and (b) confidential reporting procedures. 
Derek Twigg: Civilian medical staff attend induction training at their respective place of employment within the initial training organisation. They receive further induction training specific to their medical facility and the Army Primary Health Care Service (APHCS). Induction training covers broadly the following topics:
Unit organisation and personalities
Chain of command and lines of communication
Pay and personnel procedures
Health and Safety
Fraud and Theft
Training and development
Equality and diversity
Harassment and how to deal with it
Code of Practice for Instructors, for all military and civilian staff
Equality and diversity, and harassment and how to deal with it cover advice during the induction process on the detection of bullying. Annual mandatory Equal Opportunities and Diversity Awareness training further enhance this. All staff have a number of MOD publications available to them which include The MOD Harassment Complaints Procedures, The Civil Service Bullying and Harassment Leaflet and the Adjutant General's Joint Equality and Diversity Directive.
Confidential reporting procedures are covered by the Army Primary Health Care Service guide on Confidentiality which refers to the Data Protection Act 1998, Human Rights Act 2000, and Department of Health guidelines on Protecting and Using Patient Information. All civilian medical practitioners are governed by General Medical Council Good Medical Practice, which includes matters of confidentiality and guidance on protecting and providing information.
David T.C. Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many serving Regular Army personnel have (a) left and (b) given notice of their intention to leave the army within 12 months of completing service in Iraq since 2003. 
Derek Twigg [holding answer 11 September 2006]: Figures for Outflow from UK Regular Forces are published monthly in Tri-Service Publication 1 (TSP1), a copy of which is held in the Library of the House.
Des Browne [holding answer 13 September 2006]: The currently planned capital expenditure at the two AWE sites at Aldermaston and Burghfield is in the order of £340 million in 2006-07 and £420 million for 2007-08, both at outturn prices. Spending plans for subsequent years have yet to be finalised.
Mr. Maples: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether all serving military personnel in (a) Iraq and (b) Afghanistan are provided with body armour which protects vital organs in addition to the heart; and whether soldiers being sent to each country will be issued with the old body armour which protects the heart only. 
Des Browne: Military personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are provided with appropriate body armour for the tasks that they are undertaking. All troops deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan are issued with Enhanced Combat Body Armour (ECBA) as standard. This contains protective ceramic plates at the front and rear, which protect the heart and other organs in the upper thorax of the body. Two other body armour sets are available in theatre: Enhanced Personal Protective Equipment, known as 'Kestrel'; and Improved Performance Body Armour, known as 'Osprey' which provides additional protection, for example to the neck and shoulders.
Whether ECBA, Kestrel, Osprey or indeed, whether any body armour is worn, is determined by the commander's assessment of the nature of the task, the current threat, and the environment in which they are operating in.
Derek Twigg: The Ministry of Defence spent approximately £3,200 on the printing, purchase and posting of Christmas cards in 2005. This excludes a small amount spent by Defence Attachés (for representational purposes) which is not identifiable without disproportionate cost.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the latest estimates are of the savings made by his Department arising from the EDS contract for the Defence Information Infrastructure project for each of the first three years. 
Mr. Ingram: [holding answer 13 September 2006]: The estimate of savings to be made by the Department for each of the first three years of the Defence Information Infrastructure Project is shown in the following table:
|Financial year||Savings (£ million)|
John Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the degree to which Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) provisions were incorporated into the business case for the End 2 End (E2E) Logistics Review Air Depth Support Recommendation 40; and if he will make a statement; 
(2) what assessment he has made of the application of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations (TUPE) in the awarding of contracts for (a) Tornado RB199 Operational Contract for Engine Transformation (ROCET), (b) Tornado CMU, (c) Harrier Joint Upgrade and Maintenance Programme (JUMP) and (d) Tornado Tiger Team 1, VC10 Javelin Red; and what estimate he has made of the costs of TUPE-related activity in each case; 
(3) what provision was made for the cost of the TUPE obligations in the (a) Tornado RB199 Operational Contract for Engine Transformation (ROCET) and (b) Tornado CMU and Harrier Joint Upgrade and Maintenance Programme; and what the resultant costs were. 
Mr. Ingram [holding answers 13 September 2006 and 18 September 2006]: The AMICUS trade union presented a claim against the Ministry of Defence, BAE Systems plc and Rolls Royce plc in the Cardiff employment tribunal on 26 July 2006, seeking, on behalf of affected employees, a declaration and an award for an alleged failure to consult under the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981/2006 (TUPE) for certain transfers of work which may be linked to the Tornado ROCET, Tornado Combined Maintenance and Upgrade and Harrier JUMP contracts.
At present, it is not appropriate to comment in detail on the applicability of the aforementioned regulations and related costs to these contracts as we are still considering our response to the employment tribunal to avoid prejudicing the proceedings.
As I made clear in my letter to my hon. Friend of 25 July 2006, now placed in the Library of the House, it is clear that the overall costs of DARA work force restructuring/redundancy would have been broadly comparable irrespective of whether or not the provision of TUPE apply.
We are considering the application of TUPE regulations as it relates to the study carried out by Tornado Tiger Team 1. I will write to my hon. Friend when this work has been completed. Under the Red and Amber phases of the VC10 Javelin programme, no
work which had been undertaken by the DARA work force was transferred to either industry or a new owner. TUPE regulations therefore did not apply.
John Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost of (a) voluntary and compulsory redundancies and (b) compulsory early retirement measures were at DARA St. Athan in each financial year between 2002-03 and 2005-06, broken down by contract; and what the estimated costs for 2006-07 are on the same basis. 
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 13 September 2006]: The voluntary and compulsory redundancy costs and compulsory early retirement costs for each financial year from 2002-03 at DARA St. Athan were as follows:
|(1 )Figures for redundancy costs for DARA St. Athan during 2002-03 and 2003-04 were not collected separately and are shown as totals.|
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where the planned new mental health provision for demobilised reservists will be located; what services will be provided; how much it is expected to cost; when the service is expected to commence; and if he will make a statement. 
Derek Twigg [holding answer 18 September 2006]: I refer the Member to the statement made to the House on 16 May 2006, Official Report, columns 43-46WS, to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson).
David T.C. Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements are in place to ensure that ex-Territorial Army soldiers who served in Iraq receive assistance from his Department if they become subject to post traumatic stress disorder. 
Derek Twigg [holding answer 18 September 2006]: The responsibility for the medical care of ex-service personnel, whether regular or reserve, lies with the NHS. This has been the established practice since 1948 under successive Governments. Where an individual is also a war pensioner, he or she is entitled to priority treatment for his or her accepted condition within the NHS. Priority is decided by the clinician in charge and applies to physical and mental health problems. For conditions that are due to service where treatment is not available under the NHS, the Government also funds care at the specialist mental health charity Combat Stress facilities, which last year cost £2.8 million.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|