Injured Grenadiers (Hansard, 10 June 1991)

§ Mr. John Browne
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what resettlement arrangements were made upon the medical discharge of the three injured Grenadiers, Adrian Hicks, John Ray and Sean Povey.

§ Mr. Archie Hamilton
Lance corporal Ray is still in the Army and has embarked upon the resettlement process. Guardsman Povey is also still in the Army but has yet to start resettlement.
Guardsman Hicks has left the Army. He spent a total of 235 days, divided into two periods, at the defence services medical rehabilitation unit RAF Headley Court, where he passed his driving test. He has received guidance from the MOD's resettlement advice officer and the employment services disablement resettlement officer. He was assessed at an employment resettlement centre last year and subsequently underwent a resettlement training course at Henswell, near Lincoln. After discharge from the services, any further training is the responsibility of the disablement resettlement officer of the employment services, but of course his regimental association will continue to take an active interest in his after care.
465W

§ Mr. John Browne
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he personally has read the findings of the board of inquiry into the Army exercise accident involving guardsmen Adrian Hicks, John Ray and Sean Povey on 7 July 1989.

§ Mr. Archie Hamilton
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been briefed on the content of the board of inquiry's report.

§ Mr. John Browne
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he will make available documents key to the cases of Grenadier guardsmen Adrian Hicks, John Ray and Sean Povey in formulating their cases under the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987, and in particular the Range Orders, the full findings of the subsequent board of inquiry and the precise safety briefings given to men prior to embarking on the training exercise of 7 July 1989;
(2) why documents key to Grenadier guardsmen Adrian Hicks, John Ray and Sean Povey in pursuing their cases of negligence under the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987 have not yet been made available to them.

§ Mr. Archie Hamilton
The solicitors acting for Guardsmen Hicks, Ray and Povey already have a summary of the findings of the board of inquiry report. A copy of the exchange of notes between the United Kingdom and Canadian Governments regarding the training of United Kingdom forces in Canada and of the Batus range standing orders have now been sent to them. No information on the briefing provided for the training exercise is held by the Ministry of Defence but safety precautions, including the procedures for reporting and disposing of unexploded ammunition are covered in the range standing orders.

Mr. John Brown
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cases have been brought under the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act since it came into force in 1987; and in how many of those cases a claim of negligence was upheld.

§ Mr. Archie Hamilton
Since the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987 came into force, and as at 20 May 1991, a total of 1,619 claims have been received. Of these, 235 have been accepted and settled. 331 have either not been pursued further by the claimant or have not been accepted and 1,053 are currently under investigation.

§ Mr. John Browne
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what precise steps were taken to ensure the effective execution of safety procedures by the 1 Battalion Grenadier Guards on the Batus training area in Canada on 7 July 1989.

§ Mr. Archie Hamilton
Comprehensive range safety procedures are laid down in the range standing orders, which must be followed by all units.
The steps to be taken to ensure that these procedures are known to all Batus personnel are laid down in the orders. It is the responsibility of commanders at all levels to ensure that the safety procedures are rigorously obeyed.
The board of inquiry convened to investigate this incident did not identify any contravention of any order, procedure or drill.

§ Mr. John Browne
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will provide the details, including assumed466W discount rate and time of money flows, behind the actuarial assessment of the £150,000 present value equivalent award which he gave to the House in the Adjournment debate on 3 June, Official Report, column 136.

§ Mr. Archie Hamilton
In arriving at the estimated present value equivalent to the MNOD and DSS benefits awarded, future pension payments (which are linked to the retail price index) payable from discharge until death were discounted at a rate of just over 4 per cent. per annum, this being the assumed rate of investment return available in excess of future price increases, based on the real return available in December 1990 on idex linked British Government securities.
The present equivalent award was estimated at about £143,000 assuming the death occurs at age 60, or £161,000 assuming death at age 75.