| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
20 Apr 2009 : Column 44W—continued
I hope that the above information addresses your concerns on this matter.
I will place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House.
Mr. Holloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel at each grouping of rank served in Operation (a) Herrick 4, (b) Herrick 5, (c) Herrick 6 and (d) Herrick 7; how many who served in each have been treated for (i) psychological disorders, (ii) post-traumatic stress disorder and (iii) physical injuries; and how many have been discharged as a consequence of (A) a psychological disorder and (B) a physical injury. [268208]
Mr. Kevan Jones [holding answer 31 March 2009]: Data on the total number of personnel at each rank deployed on Operation Herrick 4-7 is provided in the following table.
34 UK armed forces personnel attended the UK field hospital during Herrick 4-7 for psychiatric reasons. Due to the small number it is not possible to provide attendances for psychiatric reasons by roulement.
The number of personnel who were referred to a Department of Community Mental Health (DCMH) in 2007 following deployment on Operation Herrick 4-7 is provided in the following table. Of the 414 who were assessed as having a psychological disorder, 47 were diagnosed with PTSD.
| New attendances at a DCMH in 2007 by Herrick roulement( 1) and initial assessment diagnosis | ||
| Herrick roulement | ||
| Initial assessment | Herrick 4-5 | Herrick 6( 2) |
| (1) These figures show the number of new attendees who have been identified as deployed to Herrick prior to their first referral at a DCMH. (2) Includes 156 people who had also deployed to Herrick 4-5, of which 10 had PTSD. | ||
Five armed forces personnel who have returned to the UK for treatment from Op Herrick 4-7 have been medically discharged for mental and behavioural disorders.
2,141 armed forces personnel attended the UK Field Hospital during Herrick 4-7 for physical injuries. The following table provides the breakdown by roulement.
| Op Herrick 4-7 UK military initial field hospital attendances for physical injuries, numbers( 1) | |
| Roulement | Physical injuries |
| (1) Data source: Operational Emergency Department Attendance Register (OpEDAR) | |
A proportion of those with physical injuries were returned to the UK for treatment. Since October 2007 these patients have been tracked through their care. For those deployed on Herrick 7 178 personnel were returned to the UK for treatment of their injury.
Of the 178 personnel who were returned to the UK for treatment, eight have since been medically discharged for injury related-conditions.
It should be noted, that the medical discharge may not be as a result of their injury in Afghanistan and Medical Boards do not make decisions on attributability to service.
Mr. Holloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel at each grouping of rank who served in Operation (a) Herrick 4, (b) Herrick 5, (c) Herrick 6 and (d) Herrick 7 have left the armed forces. [268209]
Mr. Hutton [holding answer 1 April 2009]: Data on the number of deployed personnel at each rank broken down individually for each of Operations HERRICK 4, 5, 6 and 7 and who have left the armed forces are not available and as such could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Mr. Holloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many rounds of (a) 51 mm and (b) 81 mm mortar ammunition of all natures were used in Operation (i) Herrick 4, (ii) Herrick 5, (iii) Herrick 6 and (iv) Herrick 7. [268210]
Mr. Hutton [holding answer 1 April 2009]: Officials are collating and validating the data needed and this is taking longer than anticipated. I will write to the hon. Member when this work is complete.
Mr. Ancram: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what forewarning the US military gives to British armed forces commanders in Afghanistan of (a) Predator unmanned aerial vehicle attacks into Pakistan and (b) Predator unmanned aerial vehicle flights originating within Pakistan. [268694]
Mr. Hutton: British armed forces personnel in Afghanistan are not forewarned of alleged US Predator unmanned aerial vehicle attacks into Pakistan or whether Predator unmanned aerial vehicle flights over Afghanistan originate within Pakistan.
Anne Snelgrove: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many soldiers from The First Battalion The Rifles have sustained injuries in Afghanistan in the category of (a) very seriously injured, (b) seriously injured, (c) temporary incapacitating illness and (d) injury unlisted. [268770]
Mr. Hutton: Since the Rifles formed on 1 February 2007, up to 28 March 2009, there have been two very seriously injured (VSI) and one seriously injured (SI) casualty from 1 Rifles in Afghanistan. We do not publish data on less severe injuries, so this information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Nick Harvey:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what training on improvised explosive devices
is provided to armed forces personnel assigned to duties in Afghanistan before deployment; what percentage of infantry personnel received such training before deployment in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [268973]
Mr. Hutton: All personnel deploying to theatre, including infantry, undertake either collective or individual reinforcement training, which includes counter-improvised explosive device (C-IED) training. During pre-deployment training, they are given training in current tactics, techniques and procedures (TTPs) to deal with IEDs. These TTPs are constantly being improved in theatre, and the training conducted prior to deployment reflects the latest developments. A number of individuals are then given more in depth training on the use of specialist equipment for detection of other explosive devices. Training for patrolling skills includes detailed improvised explosive device awareness and avoidance techniques in both the mounted and dismounted roles.
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many armed forces personnel have been (a) seriously and (b) very seriously (i) injured and (ii) wounded by improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan in each year since 2001. [268974]
Mr. Hutton: Since the start of operations in Afghanistan in 2001 and up to the 15 March 2009, the latest date for which statistics are available, 82 UK service personnel have suffered very serious injuries (VSI) and 103 have suffered serious injuries (SI). These figures include all injured personnel, regardless of the mechanism or circumstances of their injury.
I am withholding further information on the numbers of personnel injured by improvised explosive devices (IEDs) as its disclosure would, or would be likely to prejudice the capability, effectiveness or security of the armed forces.
Defence Analytical Services and Advice (DASA) compile statistics on the number of operational casualties in the UK armed forces, the latest reports are available at the following websites:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/Operations Factsheets/OperationsInAfghanistanBritishCasualties.htm
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FactSheets/Operations Factsheets/OperationsInIraqBritishCasualties.htm
DASA update the casualty tables fortnightly, a fortnight in arrears on the MOD website.
Nick Harvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tasks private contractors are undertaking in Afghanistan on behalf of his Department. [268975]
Mr. Hutton: The main tasks undertaken in Afghanistan by private contractors listed as working for the Ministry of Defence are: troop welfare, leisure and retail services, logistics, provision of catering supplies, and works and maintenance services.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many and what proportion of UK service personnel deployed in Afghanistan are engaged in tackling heroin production. [269817]
Mr. Hutton: UK troops, as part of International Security Assistance Force, support Afghan security forces to target narcotic traffickers and facilities that are supporting the insurgency. UK forces have also provided support to both the Poppy Eradication Force and the Governor-led eradication plan within Helmand province. The number of UK troops engaged in such activities varies both on a day-to-day basis and also by season.
Armed Forces
Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his Department’s policy is on the (a) purchase and (b) use on operations of personal kit by members of the armed forces. [265148]
Mr. Bob Ainsworth: Armed forces policy states that service personnel are not encouraged, at any time, to buy any items of personal protection. No service person is authorised or would be allowed, to deploy to any theatre with any item of protection which has not been issued by MOD.
MOD seeks to provide all necessary items of equipment, but while there is no need to do so, we are aware that some personnel personalise, and occasionally supplement some of their issued kit. This is purely due to personal preference, and supporting guidance to ensure the safety and welfare of all personnel is issued by the chain of command in each theatre.
Armed Forces Pay Review Body
Dr. Murrison: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 31 March 2009, Official Report, column 53W, on Armed Forces Pay Review Body, from which budgets he plans to allocate the funding for that component of the pay award which is in excess of his Department’s planning assumptions of 2.5 per cent. referred to at paragraph 2.13 of the 2009 Report of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. [268939]
Mr. Hutton: The MOD’s planning assumption included a 2.5 per cent. pay bill increase in 2009-10; 2 per cent. for the core pay settlement and 0.5 per cent. for targeted measures. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body’s recommendations, which were accepted in full, provide for a 2.8 per cent. core pay settlement and 0.5 per cent. for targeted measures, bringing the total award to 3.3 per cent. Provision for the additional 0.8 per cent. above the planning assumption, which equates to some £65 million, has been generated from within the Defence programme as a whole during the current planning round.
Dr. Fox: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the additional expenditure by his Department above its 2.5 per cent. financial planning assumption increase necessary fully to implement the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body for 2009; and from which sources within the defence budget this funding will be drawn. [269185]
Mr. Hutton:
The armed forces Pay Review Body’s recommendations, which were accepted by the MOD in full, provide for a 2.8 per cent. core pay settlement and
0.5 per cent. for targeted measures, bringing the total award to 3.3 per cent. Provision for the additional 0.8 per cent. above the planning assumption, which equates to some £65 million, has been generated from within the Defence programme as a whole during the current planning round.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |