Written question asked by Paul Keetch (Liberal Democrat) on Tuesday, 13 February 2001, in the House of Commons. It was due for an answer on Monday, 26 February 2001. It was answered by Lord Moonie (Labour) on Monday, 26 February 2001 on behalf of the Ministry of Defence.

Ministry of Defence

Question: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his Answer of 1st February, Official Report, 362 c262-3W, on Sierra Leone, for what reasons his Department (a) accepted the validity of the personal injury claim for one serviceman and (b) rejected the validity of the personal injury claims for 14 servicemen; what factors influenced that decision; and if he will make a statement.

Answer: Mr. Keetch: To 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 the validity of the personal injury claims for 14 servicemen; what factors influenced that decision; and if he will make a statement. [150899] Dr. Moonie: The 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.

Secondary information