|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Sandra Gidley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to the answer of 17 January 2007, Official Report, column 1230W, on public health, what the figures were in each of the previous three years; 
Caroline Flint: Estimates of primary care trust expenditure on public health are available from the healthy individuals category in the programme budgeting returns. Expenditure in this category covers immunisation, screening and general/routine health examinations. However, not all spend on public health will necessarily be picked up in this category.
The net spend on healthy individuals as a proportion of total net operating expenditure, for each primary care trust in England for the financial years 2003-04, the first year these data were collected, 2004-05 and 2005-06 has been placed in the Library.
is there a clear sense of vision and purpose in the proposal?
do the services proposed meet a gap in current provision?
do the services proposed improve on current provision?
is there a sense of innovation in the proposal?
do the services proposed fit strategically with the local health and social care economy?
have clients been involved, or will be involved, in contributing to the design of services?
have staff been involved, or will be involved, in contributing to the design of services?
are there plans to involve stakeholders?
does the proposal demonstrate a vision for the service's social objectives and how these will be realised?
are robust governance arrangements planned or in place?
is there a sense that there is sufficient management capability in the organisation?
is there explicit commissioner support for the application, or a clear demonstration that the scheme will be financially viable?
Mr. Lidington: To ask the Prime Minister whether his office cleared in advance the interview given by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the New Statesman for publication in its issue of 22 January; and if he will make a statement. 
The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the press briefing given by my official spokesman on 18 January 2007. A transcript of this is available on the No. 10 website and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House.
The Prime Minister: I replied to the hon. Member on 19 January 2007. I understand that because of a printing error my answer did not appear in the Official Report for that day, although it has now done so.
The MOD records centrally costs of regional operations as a whole and does not apportion operational cost to the specific command authority at the time. Consequently, it is not possible to distinguish between the EU and NATO costs in all cases
|Total cost (£ million)||Notes|
|(1 )FOR ALTHEA (Bosnia and Herzegovina) commenced 12 December 2004. (2) Operation ARTEMIS: June to September 2003. (3) Operation EUFOR RD Congo: April to November 2006.The UK contribution to this operation consisted of one staff officer in Potsdam and one officer in Kinshasahence the operational cost to the UK was negligible (4) Operation CONCORDIA: March to December 2003|
Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made on negotiations towards agreement pursuant to article 6 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, on nuclear disarmament measures; and what assessment he has made of the key obstacles to such negotiations. 
Des Browne: The UK is committed to progress in multilateral disarmament and plays a strong role in all the relevant international fora. We continue to press for multilateral negotiations towards mutual, balanced and verifiable reductions in nuclear weapons. The forum responsible for nuclear disarmament is the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, whose achievements include the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty, ratified by the UK in 1998. Our current priority is the early start of negotiations, without preconditions, on a Fissile Material Cut-Off treaty (FMCT). The US tabled a draft treaty text in 2006. The start of such negotiations is subject to the agreement by consensus of all states represented at the conference. While there has been no agreement on a programme of work for the Conference on Disarmament, significant progress was made last year by the conferences presidency, and the UK is committed to building on this momentum.
Julia Goldsworthy: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate his Department has made of the cost of backdating armed forces preserved pensions before 1975; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Ingram: No specific estimate has been made of the cost of backdating armed forces preserved pensions before 1975. However, in view of the fact that this issue is common to other public service schemes, not just the armed forces, the cost, whether to the armed forces or more widely, would be considerable and could run into billions of pounds.
The number of recruits joining the armed forces can be found in Tri-Service Publication (TSP) 1Strength, Intake and Outflow of UK Regular Forces. TSP 1 is published monthly. The most recent publication shows figures for the 12 months to 1 December 2006 and can be found at http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/tspl/gender.html. Copies of TSP 1 are also available in the Library of the House.
(1) Revised. Army officer inflow figures were revised in the 1 June 2006 TSP 1 publication.
(2) Provisional. Due to the introduction of a new personnel administration system for RAF and Naval Service, data are provisional and subject to review.
Mr. Iain Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Departments total expenditure was on the Royal Navy in each year since 1990; what the projected spend is on the Royal Navy in each of the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Ingram: Defence spending is not broken down by service. Instead, the MOD operates a system of delegated authority to top level budget (TLB) holders. Some are single service but several, for example, Defence Estates and the Chief of Joint Operations support all three services and their budgets are not broken down by service.
Information about spending by TLBs can be found in the Governments expenditure plans (GEP) 2006-07 to 2007-08, Ministry of Defence (Cmd 6822), as well as in the Ministry of Defences 2005-06 annual report and accounts. This includes the fleet top level budget, which covers the main operating and personnel costs of the Royal Navy.
Spending plans for future years are being reviewed in the current departmental planning round, and will also be shaped by the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, which will set the defence budget from 2008-09 to 2010-11.
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel injured in (a) Iraq and (b) Afghanistan have (i) lost both legs and both arms, (ii) lost both legs at or above the knee, (iii) lost both legs below the knee, (iv) lost one leg at or above the knee, (v) lost one leg below the knee, (vi) lost both arms at or above the elbow, (vii) lost both arms below the
elbow, (viii) lost one arm at or above the elbow, (ix) lost one arm below the elbow, (x) received deep second degree or third degree burns to more than 70 per cent. of the body, (xi) been blinded in both eyes and (xii) been made deaf. 
Mr. Ingram [holding answer 22 January 2007]: Information on casualties sustained in Iraq and Afghanistan is recorded in terms of clinical severity, so as to aid medical staff in providing the appropriate levels of care at each stage of treatment and in planning for future operations. Casualties are recorded as Very Seriously Injured (VSI), Seriously Injured (SI) or Un-Listed (UL).
Information on the number of military personnel who have lost limbs due to combat, have received serious burns, or had sensory deprivation is not recorded. To find this number would require the examination of the individual medical records of each patient who has been classified as VSI or SI in Iraq and Afghanistan. These records can only be viewed for non-clinical reasons with the express consent of the individual concerned, to protect patient confidentiality.
The Ministry of Defence publishes data on battle and non-battle casualties that have resulted from our operations in Iraq from March 2003 and Afghanistan since January 2006. The best centrally available casualty statistics can be found on the Ministry of Defence website at:
Between March 2003 and 31 December 2005, 40 UK military and civilian personnel were categorised by the Notification of Casualty (NOTICAS) system as VSI from all causes and 70 personnel have been categorised as SI from all causes in Iraq. These figures will include those who lost limbs due to combat, but also include other VSIs and Sis sustained as a result of combat and non-combat injuries.
Between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2006, 11 UK personnel were categorised as VSI and 19 as SI from all causes excluding disease. As aforementioned, these figures will include those who lost limbs due to combat, but also include other VSI and SIs from combat and non-combat causes.
Between 1 January 2006 and 31 December 2006, 17 UK personnel were categorised as VSI and 13 as SI from all causes excluding disease. As aforementioned, these figures will include those who lost limbs due to combat, but also include other VSI and SIs from combat and non-combat causes.
Those classified as VSI have sustained illness or injury of such severity that life or reason is imminently endangered. SI covers those whos condition is of such severity that there is cause for immediate concern, but there is no imminent danger to life or reason.
It is likely that those who received deep second or third degree burns to 70 per cent. of the body would be included in either the VSI or SI figures, but this would depend on the severity of their injury. It is not possible to say whether all those blinded in both eyes or made deaf would be included.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|