§ Mr. KeetchTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 1 February 2001,Official Report, columns 262–63W, on Sierra Leone, for what reasons his Department (a) accepted the validity of the personal injury claim for one serviceman and (b) rejected
554W
Peace keeping tours of duty Unit/Corps Number of Gurkhas1 Area 1 RGR 22 August-25 December 1997 182 Bosnia 20 April-4 January 1999 74 Bosnia 7 June-22 August 1999 610 Kosovo 2 PGR January-June 1996 154 Bosnia (3 RGR) September-December 1999 291 East Timor Queen's Gurkha Engineers March-September 1996 42 Bosnia December 1997-January 1998 6 Cyprus June-November 1999 72 Kosovo August 2000-February 2001 83 Kosovo November 2000-June 2001 11 Cyprus December 1998-June 1999 6 Cyprus Queen's Gurkha Signals April 1996-on going 82 Bosnia March 1999-on going 732 Kosovo October-December 1999 5 East Timor Queen's Own Gurkha Transport Regiment 9 November 1996–1 February 1997 70 Bosnia 28 August-19 October 1997 15 Bosnia 6 October 1997–22 April 1998 9 Bosnia 17 March-20 September 1999 124 Bosnia 5 August-4 November 1999 7 Kosovo 22 October-10 December 1999 2 East Timor 19 November-10 December 1999 3 Bosnia Gurkha Reinforcement Company 1 HLDRS 3 July 1998–13 June 1999 105 Bosnia (1 RS) 13 July-16 October 1999 105 Bosnia (1 RS) the validity of the personal injury claims for 14 servicemen; what factors influenced that decision; and if he will make a statement. [150899]
§ Dr. MoonieThe Ministry of Defence has accepted liability for one claim for compensation from a serviceman suffering from malaria following deployment to Sierra Leone on the basis that he was not given an anti-malarial tablet until he had been in theatre for a few days and therefore was not afforded adequate protection.
Claims from 14 servicemen were repudiated on the basis that they were issued with anti-malarial tablets on 6 May 2000, prior to deployment the following day. The British National Formulary states that the anti-malarial tablets can be started
up to one or two days before travel".Thus, unlike the first case, the Ministry of Defence did not consider it had a legal liability to pay these servicemen compensation.
These decisions were based on legal advice.