Dáil debates

Tuesday, 9 May 2006

Other Questions.

Army Compensation Claims.

2:30 pm

Photo of Brendan HowlinBrendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 67: To ask the Minister for Defence the number of cases which have been subject to review under the compensation rule since 2000 in respect of injury and disease; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17197/06]

Photo of Emmet StaggEmmet Stagg (Kildare North, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 121: To ask the Minister for Defence the number of former members of the Defence Forces who applied for disablement pensions since 2000 in respect of injury and disease; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17195/06]

Photo of Brendan HowlinBrendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 126: To ask the Minister for Defence if the rule which precludes double compensation applied to both injury and disease claims; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [17196/06]

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I propose to take Questions Nos. 67, 121 and 126 together.

The Army Pensions Acts provide for the grant of pensions and gratuities to former members of the Permanent Defence Force in respect of permanent disablement due to a wound or injury attributable to military service, whether at home or abroad, or due to disease attributable to or aggravated by overseas service with the United Nations. These pensions are commonly known as disability pensions but, under the Acts, those granted in wound or injury cases are, in fact, wound pensions.

Section 13(2) of the Army Pensions Act 1923, as amended, provides that "Any compensation which may be received from or on behalf of the person alleged to be responsible for the act which caused the wounding . . . may be taken into consideration in fixing the amount of any pension, allowance or gratuity which might be awarded under this Act to or in respect of such officer or soldier and if such compensation is received after the award of any such pension or allowance the Minister may review the award and, having regard to the amount of such compensation, either terminate or reduce the amount thereof". The underlying objective of section 13(2) is to prevent double compensation in respect of the same disablement. Compensation of the kind in question would usually result from a civil action for damages against the Department of Defence, but compensation received from any other source is not excluded.

From 1 January 2000 to 30 April 2006, 297 applications for pensions under the Army Pensions Acts were made. Of these, 188 were in respect of wound and injury only, 46 were in respect of wound, injury and disease, and 63 were in respect of disease only. Of the 297 applications, 191 have been found eligible for a pension or gratuity, 83 have been unsuccessful and final decisions have not yet been made in the remaining 23 cases. Of those found eligible, 59 wound pension and gratuity cases have been or are being reviewed under section 13(2) of the 1923 Act. A full or partial reduction of benefit has been applied in 48 of these cases while final decisions have yet to be made in nine cases. Section 13(2) does not apply in cases related solely to disablement due to disease attributable to or aggravated by overseas service with the United Nations.

Photo of Joe CostelloJoe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Minister for his answer. Will he give a breakdown of the figures for each year since 2000?

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We will supply those.

Photo of Joe CostelloJoe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Are all 59 cases being reviewed under section 13(2) of the 1923 Act wound or injury cases? What kinds of injuries are involved? Is it solely because there is the danger or suspicion of double compensation in those cases?

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I undertake to supply Deputy Costello with the yearly figures. Some 297 applications were made and 191 were deemed eligible for a pension or gratuity. Of those found eligible, 59 were wound pension and gratuity cases relating to compensation for a specific wound or injury. These are being reviewed. An actuarial report is prepared on the value of the compensation and the person in receipt of compensation is invited to submit personal financial information to the Department. Ultimately, the Minister decides by how much, if at all, the pension will be reduced. Those 59 cases fall into that category and relate to wound or injury cases.

Someone may lodge a claim on the basis of having suffered malaria on service abroad even though there is no specific wound or injury. They may make a civil claim, arguing that the Department of Defence did not provide the necessary protection or medication. Such compensation cannot be taken into account because when the Act was drafted it was not envisaged that people could sue for disease contracted abroad. There is a difference between the two categories. There is a third category, where someone suffers disease directly resulting from a wound or injury. If someone suffers a fracture while on overseas service and subsequently sues in respect of rheumatism that developed from the fracture, compensation is taken into account because it can be traced to a specific wound or injury.

Photo of Joe CostelloJoe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Double compensation applies to injury but not to disease if the disease is contracted in such a way that might suggest neglect. Will the Minister explain the third category and confirm that injury equates with double compensation but disease does not?

Photo of Willie O'DeaWillie O'Dea (Limerick East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is complex. If someone suffers a bullet wound or a leg fracture while on army service, it is regarded as a wound or injury and he or she can apply for a pension in respect of this. If the person sues the Department of Defence and receives compensation, this will be taken into account.

If someone suffers a wound or injury which does not merit compensation and subsequently develops a medical condition arising from that wound or injury and decides to sue, compensation received will be taken into account in estimating the pension payment. Someone may contract malaria, which is not related to a specific wound or injury, and in such a case, compensation received is not taken into account. Avoidance of compensation applies to the first two categories but not to the third category, where one suffers a disease resulting from overseas service. I hope that clarifies matters for Deputy Costello.

Photo of Joe CostelloJoe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will read the Minister's response in detail.