To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 21 April 2008, Official Report, column 1645W, on armed forces: insurance, for what reasons Territorial Army personnel are treated differently from the Regular Army for insurance cover while on deployment; and for what reasons the company Abacus refuses Territorial Army personnel cover during deployments. (202971)

As I explained in my answer of 21 April 2008, Official Report, column 1645W, MOD facilitates the PAX, RPAX and Service Life insurance (SLI) schemes by means of contracts with the commercial providers. The cover for SLI is the same for TA as for regulars and that for RPAX will replicate the PAX cover in the near future. I understand that my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State will be writing soon, in response to an issue you raised during the recent debate on the commemorations of the 100^th anniversary of the Territorial Army, to explain that the premiums for SLI are the same for the TA as for regulars and that RPAX will remain cheaper than PAX even when the premium increase has been applied.

PAX and RPAX have different insurers but the same brokers. They are intended to run in parallel with the same cover, but with RPAX premiums slightly cheaper. It was decided to implement the PAX changes first because PAX is the larger scheme.

In addition to PAX RPAX and SLI there are a number of private insurance schemes available to Service personnel which MOD does not facilitate; the scheme provided by Abacus is one of these. We do not have contracts with the providers of these schemes and are unable to comment on the cover which they provide.