|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
Mr. Dai Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the new operational annex added to the United Kingdom-United States mutual defence agreement on atomic energy matters 1958. 
No new operational annex has been added to the United Kingdom-United States Mutual Defence Agreement. I refer the hon. Member to the
answer I gave on 2 March 2009, Official Report, column 1370W, to the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey)
Jenny Willott: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what systems are in place for the military medical services in theatre in (a) Iraq and (b) Afghanistan to procure stocks of blood products locally should stocks supplied from the UK run out; and if he will make a statement. 
For routine transfusions, deployed UK military hospitals maintain stocks of blood sourced from UK National Blood Service (NBS) donor centres, which screen and test their donors according to nationally mandated standards. For most patients, this blood is all that is used or needed for their trauma care. However, in circumstances when standard blood stocks might not be sufficient, or where the properties of whole fresh blood are needed, an emergency blood transfusion from donors at a field hospital on or near the battlefield can be the only way of saving lives of gravely wounded UK personnel.
To enable blood to be obtained in such an emergency, UK field hospitals maintain an Emergency Donor Panel (EDP), consisting of a group of pre-screened volunteer donors who are available to donate blood at short notice. The volunteer donors will have been screened for suitability in accordance with UK NBS guidelines prior to deployment. Prior to donating at an EDP, a further
check is made through use of a health questionnaire and an examination of the veins of the potential donors. Blood samples are taken to confirm a donor's blood group, and for retrospective testing by the UK NBS to confirm that the blood transfused remained free from transfusion transmitted infections.
The military forces of our coalition partners in both Iraq and Afghanistan have their own procedures for pre- and post-screening of blood obtained from their equivalent of an EDP. If seriously-injured UK casualties are treated in a coalition medical facility, they may be given a life-saving transfusion of such blood for the same reasons as apply in a UK field hospital, with the coalition facilities using the same procedures as would be used to treat one of their own nationals. On a few occasions UK field hospitals have also made use of blood and blood components provided by US Forces, to support UK casualties in an emergency.
Jenny Willott: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the cost of supplying blood products to the armed forces based in (a) Iraq and (b) Afghanistan in each year since military operations began in each theatre has been; and if he will make a statement; 
(2) how much (a) blood, (b) blood platelets and (c) blood plasma has been transported to (i) Iraq and (ii) Afghanistan for use by the armed forces in each year since the start of operations in each theatre; and if he will make a statement. 
Mr. Kevan Jones: The cost and quantity of blood and blood products supplied to Iraq and Afghanistan is shown in the following table. Records prior to June 2006 are not held centrally and the information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
|Product||Units shipped||Cost (£)|
It is not possible to quantify the exact volume of blood and blood product supplied to Iraq and Afghanistan, as due to variations in donors physiology, donations are not the same size. Red Cell Concentrate and Fresh Frozen Plasma units are single donations; platelets units are an Adult Therapeutic Dose and can be a single donation or a mixture of four donors; and Cryoprecipitate is one mega unit that represents five individual donations.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make an assessment of the implications for the national interest of the disposal by QinetiQ of their underwater systems business at Winfrith to a non-UK company. 
Mr. Quentin Davies: While final decisions on the future of QinetiQ plc's underwater systems business based at Winfrith and Bincleaves in Dorset are a commercial matter for the company, we are aware that discussions that might lead to a sale are ongoing with third parties. Any sale to a company subject to foreign control and influence would be conditional on the acquirer providing national security guarantees to HM Government regarding security of information and technology, and in particular the sustainment of onshore capacity and British expertise to carry out military research and development vital for the national interest.
Angus Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what collisions between Royal Navy submarines and other vessels took place between 1979 and 1997; and which vessels of which class were involved in each collision. 
Mr. Hutton: The Trafalgar Class submarine HMS Trenchant and the Swiftsure Class submarine HMS Sceptre snagged fishing nets in November 1990 and November 1989 respectively. The Churchill Class submarine HMS Conqueror collided with a private yacht in 1988, as did the Oberon Class submarines HMS Otus and HMS Opportune in 1988 and 1992 respectively.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the progress of the EU Water Initiative Africa Working Group towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals on water and sanitation. 
Mr. Michael Foster: Sub-Saharan Africa is the region most off-track against the water and sanitation targets. The European Union (EU) is addressing this problem and last year disbursed nearly £1 billion to the water sector in Africa. The EU Africa Working Group (AWG) works with the African Ministers Council on Water (AMCOW) to improve the effectiveness of this aid. The European Commission recognises that improvements can be made to the way the AWG is structured and recently carried out an internal evaluation of the group that concluded that its roles, responsibilities and procedures need clarifying. The AWG has responded by agreeing to redesign the Project Logical Framework, so that the roles of all stakeholders are more clearly identified and the activities of the group can be more closely monitored.
The Department for International Development (DFID) is this year co-chairing the AWG with AMCOW. This has led to a strengthened engagement with African partners and donors to ensure that future aid provided to Africa more closely matches the needs of those countries to meet the water and sanitation targets. Other progress has also been made by the AWG, notably the development of the Africa-EU Statement on Sanitation that supports the eTekwini Declaration on Sanitation signed by 32 African Ministers in Durban in February 2008. Strong and clear commitments were given by African leaders to give higher priority to sanitation, make further funds available and take concrete action to meet the MDG target.
|Next Section||Index||Home Page|