| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Paedophilia
Lord Eames asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether in the light of widespread public concern they have considered the establishment of a Royal Commission to consider the effects and consequences of paedophilia.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): The Government are committed to doing all they can to combat the problem of paedophilia. We have introduced a number of important legislative measures this session to strengthen the protection of the public, and in particular children, against sex offenders. A review by Sir William Utting is also under way, looking at the adequacy of existing safeguards for children looked after away from home. We do not consider that a Royal Commission would add significantly to these initiatives.
Equal Opportunities Commission
Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Answer given by Lord Henley on 9 December (WA 76-77), which set out the qualifications for appointment to the Equal Opportunities Commission, whether, in the light of the fact that there are only three men out of a total of 13 commissioners, they will institute an enquiry
into whether the appointments board itself is discriminating against male applicants, or alternatively request the Equal Opportunities Commission itself to institute a study into why so few men possess the qualities necessary for appointment to the commission.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): Appointments to the Equal Opportunities Commission are made by the Secretary of State. Since July 1996, she has done so on the basis of comments from an interview panel following the recommendations of the Nolan Committee.
Four of the present commissioners are men.
Since 1994, five of the 13 new appointees to the commission have been men. For the most recent round of appointments, some 470 applications were received in response to newspaper advertisements, of which 230 were from men and 240 from women. Of the four appointments announced on 23 January 1997, two were men.
In the light of these figures and current procedures, the Government do not believe there is a need to take the further action proposed by the noble Lord.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the answer given by Lord Henley on 9 December (WA 77-78) whether, in the interests of equality, they will now ask the Equal Opportunities Commission to consider whether the Women's National Commission should be abolished.
Lord Henley: No. The Women's National Commission was established in 1969 in recognition that women were seriously under-represented in places where decisions are made. The position has improved to some extent since then, but I know the Equal Opportunities Commission would agree with the Government and the Women's National Commission that full equality between women and men has not yet been achieved. Both organisations have their distinct part to play.
Dr. Jawad Hashim: Payments to Counsel
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Further to the Answer of the Lord Chancellor on 10 October 1994 (H.L. Deb., WA 94), what is the total sum paid out of the legal aid fund to each of the four counsel named concerning the proceedings between Dr. Jawad Hashim and the Arab Monetary Fund.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): The total paid to each counsel is as follows:
- Mr. Colin W. G. Ross-Munro QC, £767,200.
Mr. Ian Brownlie QC, £69,178.
Mr. Hugo A. M. Page, £531,734.
Mr. Adam V. S. Lewis, £194,205.
Gulf War: Use of Organophosphate Pesticides
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein asked Her Majesty's Government:
- When they expect to make available to the House the findings of the further investigation, into the advice given to Defence Ministers concerning organophosphate pesticide use during the Gulf War, announced by the Earl Howe on 10 December 1996 (H.L. Deb., col. 956).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): The further investigation has now been completed. It came to the following conclusions: (a) The answers to six PQs in 1994 concerning pesticide usage during Operation Granby were incorrect because Ministers were given flawed advice by Service and Civil Service staff, who had obtained and used inaccurate information when preparing the draft answers. (b) The submission of flawed advice concerning pesticides to Ministers in July 1994 and again in November 1994, together with repeated submissions of the same inaccurate information
at later dates, constituted a fundamental failure of the working practices adopted by Service and Civil Service staff within the area of MoD concerned. (c) As a result of internal confusion about the subject, MoD gave incomplete information to the HCDC in a memorandum dated 9 December 1994 concerning the non-OP pesticides which had been used during Operation Granby. (d) In the course of 1995, MoD Service and Civil Service staff received a number of indications that during the Gulf War British troops might have obtained locally and also used some OP pesticides, but this information was neither assessed nor followed up properly. (e) No later than early June 1996, some MoD Service and Civil Service staff knew that OP pesticides had been used more extensively during Operation Granby than had previously been reported and that this new information would embarrass the department. However, appropriate action was not taken. (f) Although new information concerning OP pesticide usage during Operation Granby had emerged much earlier, MoD Service and Civil Service staff failed to provide Ministers with appropriate written advice on the subject until 25 September 1996. Thereafter Parliament was informed at the earliest opportunity that incorrect statements had been made.The investigation also identified an additional occasion, in March 1995, when a ministerial private office received advice which included material relating to possible OP pesticide use in the Gulf War. A Memorandum concerning the investigation is being published today and a copy has been placed in the Library of the House, together with a copy of the letter of my honourable friend the Minister of State to the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, dated 20 February 1997.
Taken together, the six conclusions constitute serious failures in the formulation of advice within the MoD. I must once again apologise for the way in which flawed advice was presented to Parliament.
Armed Forces: Honorary Consultants and Doctors
Lord Ironside asked Her Majesty's Government:
- How many honorary consultants and doctors are now employed in each of the Armed Services.
Earl Howe: Honorary consultants and doctors serving in the Armed Forces are medical officers appointed as Honorary Surgeons or Physicians to
HM The Queen. The numbers in each of the Services are as follows:| Honorary Surgeons to HM The Queen | Honorary Physicians to HM The Queen | |
| Royal Navy | 3 | 3 |
| Army | 4 | 6 |
| Royal Air Force | 4 | 4 |
In addition, each of the Services appoint civilian consultants, some in an honorary capacity. There are currently 60 civilian consultants to the Royal Navy who are contracted to provide clinical services when requested. They receive fees for their services and travel and subsistence costs are also payable. The Army has 74 honorary consultants whose role is to provide clinical services and assistance with postgraduate training on request. They receive no fees but travel and subsistence costs are payable. There are 52 civil consultants to the Royal Air Force who are retained on three year contracts to provide clinical services when requested. They receive fees for their services and travel and subsistence costs are payable. The Royal Air Force also has 27 honorary civil consultants who are generally retired civil consultants to the Royal Air Force and who do not take an active part in clinical care, but who retain links with the Service.
Joint Strike Fighter: MoD Officials' Employment
Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether any of the Ministry of Defence officials who participated in the development of the Royal Navy's requirement for a Joint Strike Fighter are now working with either of the US firms competing for the contract.
Earl Howe: Under my department's regulations, such officials are required for two years after leaving Crown services to apply for permission to accept employment with either of the US firms competing for the next phase of the Joint Strike Fighter programme. No such applications have been received.
Defence Medical Services Organisation
The Earl of Clanwilliam asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What progress has been made in restructuring of the Defence Medical Services.
Earl Howe: The Defence Medical Services Organisation (DMSO) is established primarily to provide medical care for service personnel deployed on operations. This is a vital task. To provide this capability, the DMSO must comprise peacetime structures and a recognised training base which can produce uniformed medical personnel with the right skills and in sufficient numbers to meet forecast operational demands. That peacetime structure can also
make a significant contribution to the provision of secondary medical care for all service personnel and, in certain circumstances, for their dependants. To facilitate effective training, it works closely with the NHS.Since 1984 there has been a series of separate studies into the Defence Medical Services, aimed at rationalising an area which was consuming over 2 per cent. of the defence budget and adapting them to the changing strategic environment. This work culminated in the Defence Costs Study in 1994, which recommended major restructuring of the DMSO to enable it to provide sufficient rapidly deployable units, primarily manned by regular personnel, to support forces deployed on operations, and a more efficient and cost-effective support structure, including establishing a number of Agencies to provide secondary medical care and recognised training for medical personnel.
These necessary changes have meant major upheavals for the Defence Medical Services which, naturally, not all those involved have welcomed. The DMSO was suffering from some shortages of personnel (particularly anaesthetists, orthopaedic surgeons and intensive care nurses--mirroring shortages in the NHS) and we are striving to improve this situation. We have established all of the key elements of the new organisations and we are now focusing on achieving the right balance in their relationships with the NHS and their function as military units in the light of experience with the operation of the new structure.
Three regular field hospitals of 200 beds have now been established with permanent command and administrative staff. The clinical staff to support the field hospitals will be drawn from the Defence Secondary Care Agency (DSCA). There are currently gaps in some specialties which we look to fill, as we did in the Gulf and in Bosnia in other specialisations, by volunteer reservists under the provisions of the Reserve Forces Act 1996. We have provided the proper level of medical support to British troops on operational deployment in the Gulf, Bosnia and elsewhere.
Defence planning to reflect the changing strategic circumstances has already evolved further since 1994.
We have therefore set up a study team to examine whether these new circumstances, together with recent changes in medical practice, require further changes to our detailed assumptions for the provision of medical support to the front line. This should report by the middle of the year.We continue to improve our holdings of medical equipment and supplies. Two sets of containerised modular operating theatres are now in use in Bosnia. We intend to purchase more of those in the future; the next will be delivered later this year. We also plan to improve medical facilities in RFA Argus for its role as a hospital ship.
At the time of the restructuring of the DMSO--which involved the closure of three service hospitals and the concentration of medical facilities at the Royal Hospital Haslar and in three MDHUs (Ministry of Defence Hospital Units) at Derriford, Frimley Park and Peterborough--waiting lists increased. They have now been substantially reduced through robust management action by the new Defence Secondary Care Agency. There is also a programme of improvements at the Royal Hospital Haslar. Most of the enhancements to the clinical facilities should be complete by June 1997, with the remaining programme of capital works (for health and safety) completed over the next two years.
Work to align terms of service for medical personnel in each of the three Services and so produce a more cohesive DMSO is well in hand. The first measures will be implemented in April. Naval and army medical and dental officers will be allowed to extend their short service commissions in line with current RAF policy to enable them to complete their clinical training in uniform, and there will be a common return of service for that training.
Young officers are being attracted into the Defence Medical Services, on cadet schemes, and there are early and encouraging signs that an increasing number of them are prolonging their service to take advantage of the improved facilities and opportunities offered by the new structure. We are determined to build on this, and to provide the Armed Forces with the medical support appropriate to their needs.
| Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |