|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent meetings he has had with the Bevin Boys Association to discuss the case for a medal for Bevin Boys; and when he expects to report on the outcome of his work examining the merits of such a medal. 
Derek Twigg: My office has been in regular contact with the Vice President of the Bevin Boys Association since officials met him on 30 August 2006. I plan to meet him shortly. I am also consulting with interested ministerial colleagues and will make an announcement on this work in due course.
Mr. Ingram: Ministry of Defence officials discussed the use of cluster munitions with some NATO allies this year. This has been useful in order to inform internal policy deliberations on cluster munitions, and to assist with determining our approach with international partners.
Mr. Ingram: In response to a UK proposal at the recent Certain Conventional Weapons Review Conference we achieved consensus with the major users and producers of cluster munitions within the Certain Conventional Weapons Convention to urgently address their humanitarian impact. Cluster munitions are permitted under international humanitarian law and UK forces use them strictly in accordance with international humanitarian law. The UK plans to phase out and destroy so-called dumb cluster munitions by the middle of the next decade.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what support the British Army is prepared to give to support the joint United Nations-African Union peacekeeping force for Darfur in terms of (a) personnel, (b) equipment and (c) logistical support. 
Currently, the British Army fill five posts. The Ministry of Defence keeps its contribution to both UNMIS and AMIS under constant review and will consider any requests for support, as they are received.
Derek Twigg: Candidates having either type 1 or type 2 diabetes are considered unfit for entry into the armed forces. For those already serving in the armed forces, the first priority if diagnosed with either type of diabetes is always the full assessment, treatment and stabilization of their condition. All personnel suffering either type of diabetes mellitus should be referred to a Medical Board when a decision on their medical category(1) will be made. Each case is considered on its merits.
The illnessits severity, its stability, the required treatment
The individualtheir wishes, their motivation and commitment
Their service historyexperience, trade, specialization
Their utility in a Service environment (once other factors have been considered)
Clear differentiation should be made between those personnel suffering from insulin dependent (Type I) or non-insulin dependent (Type II) diabetes mellitus, and the respective risk levels with military service. For this reason all cases should be graded P31 or P71 when first diagnosed while their disorder is assessed. Following assessment, they are graded as follows:
a. Non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM). Those suffering from NIDDM (i.e. asymptomatic glycosuria), controlled by diet or biguanide hypoglycaemic medication, with no other signs or risk factors present (e.g. a personal/family history of heart disease, stroke, other endocrine dysfunction, smoker, obesity, hyperlipidaemia, eye or renal disease etc.), and whose functional capacity is otherwise unaffected, may be graded P2(1). However, most in this category with anything other than asymptomatic glycosuria should be graded P3(1) or P7(1). This includes individuals on sulphonylurea hypoglycaemic medications which carry a risk of hypoglycaemia.
b. Insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (IDDM). Those with well controlled insulin dependent diabetes, with no other signs or risk factors present, and whose functional capacity is otherwise unaffected, may be graded P3(1,2) all others should be graded P7(1). Brittle or poorly controlled diabetes which either degrades the functional capacity and, or is failing to respond satisfactorily to treatment, may require to be medically invalided (P8(1)).
c. Special work problems and restrictions. For those with IDDM, if considered fit to continue work in the military. The following are recommended:
1. Avoidance of physically high-energy demanding activities or emergency type work.
2. Restricted aircrew, diving, seafaring duties etc.
3. Vocational Group 2 drivers are subject to individual assessment by DVLA, but are unlikely to be considered fit.
4. Shift work can be problematic; however, if sensible working practices are adopted, it is not absolutely contra-indicated.
5. All should be afforded easy access to both nutritional and medical supportive facilities."
In summary, the continued employment of personnel with diabetes mellitus is a complex issue that is determined on an individual basis. In practice, it is unusual for someone with type 1 diabetes to remain in the services. Those type 1 and type 2 diabetics who are retained will usually be in a reduced medical category with restrictions on their activities depending on the aforementioned factors. This can range from full duties on a ship where there is a medical officer on board or base areas only at the milder end of the disease spectrum to home only or no sea service at the more severe end.
(1) Physical capacity (P) Definition
0Medically unfit for duty and under medical care
2Medically fit for unrestricted service worldwide
3Medically fit for duty with minor employment limitations
Limited operational deployability subject to individual assessment
4Medically fit for duty within the limitations of pregnancy
7Medically fit for duty with major employment limitations
Medically unfit for operational deployment
8Medically unfit for service
(2) This is subject to individual circumstances and single services requirements.
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a list of the stakeholders being consulted about the commemorations planned for the 25(th) Anniversary of the Falklands conflict. 
The Confederation of British Service and Ex-Service Organisations;
South Atlantic Medal Association 82;
HM Ship, regimental and squadron associations;
Merchant Navy Association;
Trustees of FI Memorial Chapel Pangbourne;
Falklands Families Association;
Buckingham Palace Staff and other Royal Households;
Foreign and Commonwealth Office;
Archbishop of Canterburys Office;
Baroness Thatchers office;
Falkland Islands Government;
British Broadcast Corporation;
Corporation of London;
Metropolitan and City of London Police;
Vulcan to the Sky project;
Civil Aviation Authority;
Chamber of Shipping;
Westminster City Council;
Falklands Defence Force;
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to ensure that the whole House has ownership of the commemoration of
the 25(th )Anniversary of the Falklands conflict, as urged by the then Under-Secretary of State in his answer on 26 June 2006, Official Report, column 11; and which Opposition hon. Members have been consulted. 
Derek Twigg: It is my intention to keep the House fully informed about our plans for the Falklands 25 commemorations and I refer the hon. Member to my written ministerial statement of 16 November 2006, Official Report, column 2WS; a further update will be provided to the House early next year. I hope that Members from all parties will apply, via the Speakers Office, to participate in the event planned on Horse Guards Parade on 17 June 2007.
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what correspondence his Department has sent to potential recipients of the Far East prisoners of war ex-gratia payment living in Australia; when the letters were sent; how many letters were sent; and how many responses were received. 
Derek Twigg: We are aware of 1,964 claims under the Ex-Gratia Payment Scheme from former far east prisoners of war and civilian internees who have given an address in Australia and have corresponded with these as necessary to decide their claims. Following the implementation earlier this year of the rule extending eligibility to British internees with at least 20 years' residence in the UK between 1 January 1945 and 7 November 2000, the Veterans Agency have written to formerly rejected civilian claimants inviting them to provide further information to establish if they might now qualify for a payment. 271 of these had addresses in Australia. As at mid-November, responses had been received in 99 cases.
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average number of flying hours for a RAF (a) Hercules C-130, (b) Nimrod MR2 and (c) Harrier aircraft was in each of the last 12 months. 
|Hercules C-130||Nimrod MR2||Harriers|
Aircraft undergoing more in-depth maintenance activities such as long-term repairs or a major modification programme by joint RAF and civilian contract engineering teams on aircraft Main Operating Bases, or by civilian contractors in a specialist civilian industry repair facility/factory have not been included.
Mr. Harper: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which units will be operating outside harmony guidelines as a result of the deployment to Iraq of Telic 9 and Telic 10; and what the average tour gap number is for each unit. 
(1) A unit is defined as any Regiment deploying with a Regimental Headquarter and at least two manoeuvre sub units. A deployment is considered to be a period of at least four months.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|