---

Reinsurance Companies

Mr. Cousins: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what inquiries the Serious Fraud Office has carried out (a) on its own behalf and (b) on the behalf of non-United Kingdom police and regulators into the affairs of Dai Ichi Kyoto, Kobe Reinsurance, North America Fidelity and CRM Insurance Services. [16946]

Mr. Nelson [holding answer 24 February 1997]: I understand that it is the policy of the Serious Fraud Office not to give operational details of inquiries it may make or be asked to make pursuant to mutual legal assistance arrangements relating to alleged fraud.

Mr. Cousins: To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many managing agents for reinsurers are located in the United Kingdom. [16942]

Mr. Nelson [holding answer 24 February 1997]: A figure for the number of managing agents of reinsurance companies is not readily available.

Mr. Cousins: To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what investigations his Department has carried out into the London managing agency CRM Insurance Services; and what conclusions were reached; [16945]

(2) what investigations his officials have carried out into the reinsurance companies, Dai Ichi Kyoto, Kobe Reinsurance and North American Fidelity; and what conclusions were reached. [16947]

Mr. Nelson [holding answers 24 February 1997]: My Department will always consider carefully any information brought to its attention which may be relevant to its regulatory responsibilities for insurance; but it is the Department's policy not to confirm or deny whether it has carried out an investigation into the affairs of particular companies.

Mr. Cousins: To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) which bodies have regulatory responsibility for the London reinsurance industry and its managing agencies; and by what means they report to Parliament;[16943]

(2) what recent reviews he has conducted of the regulation of United Kingdom managing agents for offshore reinsurers. [16941]

Mr. Nelson [holding answers 24 February 1997]: Reinsurance companies which carry on insurance business in the United Kingdom in the terms of the Insurance Companies Act 1982 are required to be authorised and regulated by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who is directly accountable to Parliament. Managing agents are not subject to regulation separate from that applied to the reinsurance company or companies they

26 Feb 1997 : Column: 251

represent. Agents who are registered brokers are, however, subject to control by the Insurance Brokers Registration Council, which is an independent statutory body. There is no requirement on it to report to Parliament but the Secretary of State has responsibility for approving its rules and for the appointment of five of the 17 members of the Council. Members of Lloyd's and Lloyd's managing agents are regulated by the Council of Lloyd's under the Lloyd's Acts 1871 to 1982.

My Department is currently considering what, if any, further measures might be appropriate in relation to the provision of insurance in the UK by overseas reinsurers or insurers which are neither authorised under UK legislation nor entitled to provide insurance in the UK on a services basis on the basis of an authorisation issued in another European Economic Area member state.

26 Feb 1997 : Column: 252

Research Councils

Mr. Ingram: To ask the President of the Board of Trade what were the success rates for applications for project and programme grants to each research council in each year since 1979. [17364]

Mr. Ian Taylor [holding answer 24 February 1997]: This information is not available for all councils for some of the earlier years. There has been some increase in the number of grant applications, fuelled by the increase in numbers of researchers in the system, both as a result of the change of status of the "new" universities and increasing numbers of contract researchers drawn into the "old" universities by the growth in research funding in the university system. The success rates by number of grant applications are as follows:

26 Feb 1997 : Column: 251

Success rates percentage

	AFRC(8) project	AFRC(8) programme	BBSRC(8) project	BBSRC(8) programme	SERC	EPSRC	ESRC(8)	MRC(8) project	MRC(8) programme	NERC (9)	PPARC (8)
1979							45
1980							41
1981							33
1982							37
1983					58		31
1984					51		39
1985					54		35
1986	26				53		29
1987	36				44		34
1988	40				50		30			37
1989	33				47		29			40
1990	27				35		34			39
1991	33				36		27			40
1992	30	34			40		27			35
1993	32	31			38		24	30	62	27
1994			30	28	37		20	26	36	23	50
1995			24	36		44	27.5	30	59	23	60
1996				(10)34		42

(8) Data are for financial years.

(9) NERC does not classify grants as project/programme. The figures given are for non-thematic grant applications.

(10) Provisional.

26 Feb 1997 : Column: 251

DEFENCE

Range Facilities

Dr. John Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 14 January, Official Report, columns 228-30, if the calculations of income, operating cost and range use were prepared on the same basis for both the Eskmeals and Shoeburyness ranges; and if he will make a statement. [16955]

Mr. Arbuthnot: This is a matter for the chief executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

Letter from John Chisholm to Dr. John Cunningham, dated 25 February 1997:

I have been asked to reply to your follow-up question about the income, operating cost and range use figures for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) ranges at Eskmeals and Shoeburyness, since as Chief Executive of DERA this is a matter for which I am responsible.

The figures which I gave in my letters of 14 January on these issues were prepared on the same basis.

I hope this is helpful.

26 Feb 1997 : Column: 252

Gulf War-related Illnesses

Mr. Tracey: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to make available to the House the findings of the further investigation into the advice given to Defence Ministers concerning organophosphate pesticide used during the Gulf war, announced by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on 10 December 1996, Official Report, column 122. [18140]

Mr. Soames: 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.

26 Feb 1997 : Column: 253

(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 my letter 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.

Mr. Alfred Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on seeking costs in respect of action for compensation for undiagnosed Gulf war-related illnesses taken by ex-service men and women; what plans he has to review that policy in respect of Gulf war veterans ineligible for legal aid; and if he will make a statement. [17675]

Mr. Soames: My Department's general policy is to seek to recover its costs where a case is successfully defended only where claimants are not legally aided. There are no plans to review this policy in respect of Gulf war veterans. However, if illness or injury can be shown--to the satisfaction of a court if necessary--to have resulted from MOD negligence in individual cases which are legally aided, and the same particular circumstances can be shown to apply to non-legally aided claimants, those individuals will not be forced by the MOD to enter into litigation to establish their own right to compensation.

Mr. Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish the terms of reference of his organophosphate pesticide investigation team; and if he will make a statement on its work. [17676]

Mr. Soames: I wrote to the right hon. Member on 18 February, enclosing a copy of the terms of reference of the organophosphate pesticide investigation team. A copy of that letter was also placed in the Library of the House.

26 Feb 1997 : Column: 254

---