The Report
of the Iraq Inquiry
766.
The MOD
provided additional cover. If an insurer rejected a claim on a
secondee’s
life policy
solely because the secondee was deployed to Iraq or travelling in
an MOD
aircraft,
the MOD would pay the beneficiaries whatever sum they would
otherwise have
received
from the insurer. The MOD would indemnify a secondee injured in
Iraq on the
same basis,
but to a maximum of £50,000. Those indemnities were standard terms
of
MOD
deployment to operational areas and not Iraq‑specific.
767.
The paper
listed two discrepancies not mentioned in Sir Michael Jay’s
covering
letter:
•
DFID alone
had encouraged staff to increase death benefit by making
additional
voluntary
contributions to the Civil Service Pension Scheme.
•
FCO and
DFID contracts required contractors to take out
personal
accident
and travel insurance before deployment. The full cost was
reimbursed
by the FCO
and DFID up to a maximum death benefit of £300,000 (FCO)
or
£250,000
(DFID).
768.
In May 2004,
DFID reviewed insurance provisions for its staff working in
or
visiting
dangerous locations.492
The absence
of adequate provision was said to be
discouraging
some existing staff from continuing to contribute to reconstruction
in Iraq
and
Afghanistan. Financial incentives were not thought to be an
issue.
“Ministry
of Defence research suggests that there is no significantly greater
risk
of death
for service personnel embarking on operational deployment to
dangerous
locations
compared to working in the UK. Our own discussions with the
Government
Actuary
Department and the Office of National Statistics suggest that the
probability
of death or
injury in Iraq or Afghanistan is too random to
predict.”
770.
DFID officials
believed that there was a limited and, arguably, small additional
risk
of death
and injury. DFID staff were generally “less exposed to the same
risks as service
personnel
in Iraq/Afghanistan”. In line with its duty of care obligations,
DFID had taken
all
reasonable steps to protect staff:
“However,
in the prevailing circumstances in Iraq and Afghanistan, it
is
understandable
that staff have reviewed their insurance cover … And
insurance
companies
have responded to the increased perception of a higher risk of
death and
injury … by
substantially increasing premiums …”
492
Minute
MacDonald to PS/Suma Chakrabarti, 13 May 2004, ‘Insurance for DFID
Personnel Working [in]
or Visiting
Dangerous Locations, Particularly Iraq and
Afghanistan’.
374