Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what contribution the Government is (a) making and (b) has plans to make to NATO's (i) new Command in Norfolk, (ii) new Command in Ulm, (iii) Counter Hybrid Support Teams, (iv) Cyber Operations Centre, (v) Hub for the South in Naples and (vi) capacity building programmes in (A) Iraq, (B) Jordan and (C) Tunisia.
Answered by Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
The UK remains committed to NATO and to Euro-Atlantic security. We were a leading proponent of the decision made at the Warsaw Summit in 2016 to recognise cyberspace as a domain of operations and will continue to support its full implementation, and play an active role in supporting the development of NATO's Cyber Operations centre. The UK is also engaged with NATO's efforts to project stability across the Middle East and North Africa region through our southern partnerships and the Defence and Related Security Capacity Building initiative. Discussions within NATO regarding the exact nature of individual Allies' contributions to its new Commands in Norfolk and Ulm, and to the Counter Hybrid Support Teams, are still ongoing. Once this information becomes available, I will write to my right hon. Friend with further detail.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to the Answer of 5 November 2018 to Question 184831 on Armed Forces: Mental Health Services, when he plans to provide verified figures of the number of non-permanent staff employed by Defence Medical Services in mental health care roles at the end of each financial year since 2011; and what the shortfall in FTE in the number of permanent staff employed by Defence Medical Services against total posts in the roles of (a) psychiatrists, (b) psychologists, (c) mental health nurses and (d) social workers was at the end of each financial year since 2011.
Answered by Tobias Ellwood
The attached table shows the number of Temporary Healthcare Workers (non-permanent staff) employed by the Defence Medical Services (DMS) in Mental Healthcare (MH) roles at the end of each Financial Year (FY) since 2011.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many (a) permanent and (b) non-permanent staff were employed in (i) Departments of Community Mental Health and (ii) other secondary mental health care services in the Armed Forces at the end of each financial year since 2009-10; and what the ratio of military staff to civilians in those services was in each of those years.
Answered by Tobias Ellwood
The table below shows the numbers of Regular, Reserve and Civilian permanent staff employed in the Defence Medical Services since 2011. We do not hold the data requested for 2009 and 2010. It is not possible to break down the figures into those employed in Departments of Community Mental Health (DCMHs) and elsewhere within the Defence Medical Services.
Non-permanent staff such as locums may have been employed during this period to fill temporary vacancies and staff absences, such as operational deployments. It has not been possible to obtain verified figures for these within the timescale available.
| Regular | Reserve | Civilian |
2011 |
|
|
|
Psychiatrist | 10 | ~ | Not available |
Psychologist | 0 | 0 | Not available |
Mental Health Nurse | 120 | 50 | Not available |
Social Worker | 0 | 0 | Not available |
| 130 | 50 | 0 |
2012 |
|
|
|
Psychiatrist | 20 | ~ | Not available |
Psychologist | 0 | 0 | Not available |
Mental Health Nurse | 120 | 30 | Not available |
Social Worker | 0 | 0 | Not available |
| 140 | 30 | 0 |
2013 |
|
|
|
Psychiatrist | 10 | 10 | 5 |
Psychologist | ~ | 0 | 10 |
Mental Health Nurse | 120 | 50 | 10 |
Social Worker | 0 | 0 | 10 |
| 130 | 60 | 35 |
2014 |
|
|
|
Psychiatrist | 10 | ~ | 5 |
Psychologist | ~ | 0 | 10 |
Mental Health Nurse | 120 | 40 | 10 |
Social Worker | 0 | 0 | 10 |
| 130 | 40 | 35 |
2015 |
|
|
|
Psychiatrist | 10 | ~ | 5 |
Psychologist | ~ | 0 | 20 |
Mental Health Nurse | 110 | 40 | 20 |
Social Worker | 0 | 0 | 10 |
| 120 | 40 | 55 |
2016 |
|
|
|
Psychiatrist | 15 | ~ | 5 |
Psychologist | ~ | 0 | 25 |
Mental Health Nurse | 105 | 50 | 15 |
Social Worker | 0 | 0 | 40 |
| 120 | 50 | 85 |
2017 |
|
|
|
Psychiatrist | 15 | ~ | Not available |
Psychologist | 0 | 0 | Not available |
Mental Health Nurse | 90 | 45 | Not available |
Social Worker | 0 | 0 | Not available |
| 105 | 45 |
|
2018 |
|
|
|
Psychiatrist | 15 | ~ | 5 |
Psychologist | 0 | 0 | 25 |
Mental Health Nurse | 85 | 50 | 40 |
Social Worker | 0 | 0 | 45 |
| 100 | 50 | 115 |
The tilde (~) denotes a number less than five.
Figures are rounded to the nearest five.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when his Department plans to respond to the Defence Committee's 6th Report of Session 2017-19 entitled The Government's Proposals for Future Security Partnership with the European Union, which was published on 8 June 2018.
Answered by Gavin Williamson
The Government Response was sent to the Defence Committee on 6 September 2018.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will make it his policy to establish permanent arrangements to be activated automatically at the start of any UK military campaign to (a) record and (b) report estimated civilian casualties caused by UK military action; and if he will make an assessment of the potential merits of such arrangements being established (i) within his Department exclusively or (ii) on a cross-departmental basis.
Answered by Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
I refer my right hon. Friend to the answer I gave him to Question 158137 on 4 July 2018.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what his Department's timetable is for the publication of a report on the implementation of the recommendations of Sir John Chilcot's Report of the Iraq Inquiry, published on 6 July 2016; and whether progress on that implementation is planned to be announced (a) in instalments or (b) simultaneously for all the recommendations of that report.
Answered by Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
The Government responded on 19 December 2017 to a 16 March 2017 Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report (HC656) on Lessons still to be learned from the Chilcot Inquiry. This included an annex by the National Security Advisor which summarised the lesson learning process undertaken across the National Security Community in response to the Iraq Inquiry. The Ministry of Defence has no plans to publish any further progress reports, though considerable progress has been achieved in responding to the findings of the Iraq Inquiry Report. This includes introduction across the Department of a 'Guide to Reasonable Challenge' to ensure that decision-making is as well informed as possible; training and education on challenge, including at the Defence Academy; publication of a handbook for those involved in operational policy and its implementation ('The Good Operation', available at
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-good-operation);
a programme of increased professionalisation for those working in the policy profession; and work to improve the capture and curation of (and access to) knowledge. On 5 July 2018, the MOD is hosting a conference entitled Chilcot Two Years On which will take stock of progress in responding to the Report.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what progress has been made on the implementation of recommendation 280 of Sir John Chilcot's Report of the Iraq Inquiry, published on 6 July 2016, on his Department making arrangements to co-operate with NGOs and other specialists to compile estimates of civilian casualties caused by UK military action (a) in real time and (b) retrospectively.
Answered by Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) takes very seriously the conclusions set out at paragraphs 277 ("The Inquiry considers that a Government has a responsibility to make every reasonable effort to identify and understand the likely and actual effects of its military actions on civilians") and 280 ("The Government should be ready to work with others, in particular Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and academic institutions, to develop such assessments and estimates over time") of Section 17 of the Iraq Inquiry (Chilcot) Report. Since the publication of the Report, officials have been in discussion with several NGOs concerning these conclusions. In response to this dialogue, the Department now releases statistics relating to the number of civilians admitted to UK military field hospitals. In addition, the MOD publication 'The Good Operation' (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-good-operation), a handbook for those involved in operational policy and its implementation published in January 2018, highlights paragraph 277 of Section 17 (on page 8); invites policy-makers to assess the likely impact of an operation on the populace, including factors such as protection of non-combatants (page 23); and draws attention to the legal dimension of operational planning, including targeting and rules of engagement, on pages 33-35. These considerations are a central part of our planning and campaign assessment processes. We are keen to continue the dialogue with NGOs over the coming period to ensure that, as far as practicably possible, we continue to address the conclusions set out in paragraphs 277 and 280 of Section 17.
The current official statistics on operational casualties are available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-armed-forces-and-uk-civilian-operational-casualty-and-fatality-statistics
The operations on which we are currently reporting (KIPION, SHADER and TORAL) do not incorporate a deployed field hospital, hence no civilian casualty data are currently being reported regarding admissions to deployed UK military medical facilities. We intend to start reporting on numbers of casualties for Op TRENTON (South Sudan) as a UK field hospital is deployed, subject to further work on data compliance issues.
We have previously published civilian numbers being treated in a UK field hospital as part of reporting for Op GRITROCK in Sierra Leone, at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-armed-forces-and-uk-civilian-operational-casualty-and-fatality-statistics-financial-year-20142015
It is also important to stress that we do everything we can to minimise the risk to civilians from UK military action, not least through the professionalism of our personnel. Reports of civilian casualties are taken very seriously and will continue to be. We already have in place a process by which we identify any evidence that a civilian casualty may inadvertently have occurred. Any such evidence is assessed and if it is credible, it is passed to the relevant authorities for investigation. The results are published where any investigation shows that the UK has been responsible.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what progress has been made on the implementation of recommendation 277 of Sir John Chilcot's Report of the Iraq Inquiry, published on 6 July 2016, on establishing a practical method for identifying civilian casualties caused by UK military action.
Answered by Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) takes very seriously the conclusions set out at paragraphs 277 ("The Inquiry considers that a Government has a responsibility to make every reasonable effort to identify and understand the likely and actual effects of its military actions on civilians") and 280 ("The Government should be ready to work with others, in particular Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and academic institutions, to develop such assessments and estimates over time") of Section 17 of the Iraq Inquiry (Chilcot) Report. Since the publication of the Report, officials have been in discussion with several NGOs concerning these conclusions. In response to this dialogue, the Department now releases statistics relating to the number of civilians admitted to UK military field hospitals. In addition, the MOD publication 'The Good Operation' (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-good-operation), a handbook for those involved in operational policy and its implementation published in January 2018, highlights paragraph 277 of Section 17 (on page 8); invites policy-makers to assess the likely impact of an operation on the populace, including factors such as protection of non-combatants (page 23); and draws attention to the legal dimension of operational planning, including targeting and rules of engagement, on pages 33-35. These considerations are a central part of our planning and campaign assessment processes. We are keen to continue the dialogue with NGOs over the coming period to ensure that, as far as practicably possible, we continue to address the conclusions set out in paragraphs 277 and 280 of Section 17.
The current official statistics on operational casualties are available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-armed-forces-and-uk-civilian-operational-casualty-and-fatality-statistics
The operations on which we are currently reporting (KIPION, SHADER and TORAL) do not incorporate a deployed field hospital, hence no civilian casualty data are currently being reported regarding admissions to deployed UK military medical facilities. We intend to start reporting on numbers of casualties for Op TRENTON (South Sudan) as a UK field hospital is deployed, subject to further work on data compliance issues.
We have previously published civilian numbers being treated in a UK field hospital as part of reporting for Op GRITROCK in Sierra Leone, at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-armed-forces-and-uk-civilian-operational-casualty-and-fatality-statistics-financial-year-20142015
It is also important to stress that we do everything we can to minimise the risk to civilians from UK military action, not least through the professionalism of our personnel. Reports of civilian casualties are taken very seriously and will continue to be. We already have in place a process by which we identify any evidence that a civilian casualty may inadvertently have occurred. Any such evidence is assessed and if it is credible, it is passed to the relevant authorities for investigation. The results are published where any investigation shows that the UK has been responsible.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what steps his Department has taken to implement the recommendations of Sir John Chilcot's Report of the Iraq Inquiry, published on 6 July 2016, on future (a) recording and (b) reporting of civilian casualties caused by UK military action; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton
The Ministry of Defence (MOD) takes very seriously the conclusions set out at paragraphs 277 ("The Inquiry considers that a Government has a responsibility to make every reasonable effort to identify and understand the likely and actual effects of its military actions on civilians") and 280 ("The Government should be ready to work with others, in particular Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and academic institutions, to develop such assessments and estimates over time") of Section 17 of the Iraq Inquiry (Chilcot) Report. Since the publication of the Report, officials have been in discussion with several NGOs concerning these conclusions. In response to this dialogue, the Department now releases statistics relating to the number of civilians admitted to UK military field hospitals. In addition, the MOD publication 'The Good Operation' (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-good-operation), a handbook for those involved in operational policy and its implementation published in January 2018, highlights paragraph 277 of Section 17 (on page 8); invites policy-makers to assess the likely impact of an operation on the populace, including factors such as protection of non-combatants (page 23); and draws attention to the legal dimension of operational planning, including targeting and rules of engagement, on pages 33-35. These considerations are a central part of our planning and campaign assessment processes. We are keen to continue the dialogue with NGOs over the coming period to ensure that, as far as practicably possible, we continue to address the conclusions set out in paragraphs 277 and 280 of Section 17.
The current official statistics on operational casualties are available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/uk-armed-forces-and-uk-civilian-operational-casualty-and-fatality-statistics
The operations on which we are currently reporting (KIPION, SHADER and TORAL) do not incorporate a deployed field hospital, hence no civilian casualty data are currently being reported regarding admissions to deployed UK military medical facilities. We intend to start reporting on numbers of casualties for Op TRENTON (South Sudan) as a UK field hospital is deployed, subject to further work on data compliance issues.
We have previously published civilian numbers being treated in a UK field hospital as part of reporting for Op GRITROCK in Sierra Leone, at: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/uk-armed-forces-and-uk-civilian-operational-casualty-and-fatality-statistics-financial-year-20142015
It is also important to stress that we do everything we can to minimise the risk to civilians from UK military action, not least through the professionalism of our personnel. Reports of civilian casualties are taken very seriously and will continue to be. We already have in place a process by which we identify any evidence that a civilian casualty may inadvertently have occurred. Any such evidence is assessed and if it is credible, it is passed to the relevant authorities for investigation. The results are published where any investigation shows that the UK has been responsible.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Ministry of Defence:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether he plans for seven Astute class submarines to be constructed; and what name is planned for the seventh boat.
Answered by Guto Bebb
Our plans for the Astute Class submarine programme have not changed. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Defence will announce the name approved by Her Majesty The Queen for the seventh boat in due course.