asked the Minister for Defence if he is prepared to reconsider his decision regarding the claim by the late ex-Private Michael Thorpe, 21 Shannon Hill, Enniscorthy, for a pension under the Army Pensions Acts, in view of the fact that this applicant died before a decision was made in his case.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Enniscorthy Army Pension Claim.
Mr. Corish
Under the Army Pensions Acts pensions may be granted to ex-members of the Forces who at the date of their examination by the Army Pensions Board are found to be suffering from a prescribed minimum degree of disablement attributable to service in the Forces. Examination by the board is a statutory prerequisite to the grant of a pension, and as the late Mr. Thorpe died before it was possible to have him examined by the board, no award of pension could be made in his case.
Do I understand from the Minister's reply that no award can be made because the individual in question died before a decision had been arrived at?
That is correct.
Whose fault was it that a decision was delayed? Was there no application made until after his death?
Applications have to be taken in the form in which they are listed and naturally if there is a long list and they are taken in the order in which they come in, they cannot all be dealt with in the way that I think the Deputy has in mind. It is quite possible that if this particular individual had been examined, it might have been found that his case was not attributable to his service. So, as a medical examination did not take place, no award can be granted. That is the statutory position.
Might I ask the Minister if that is a complete alteration in established precedent within the Army with regard to cases of death? The Army health record is there from the day the man joined the Army, during his service and on the day of discharge. If there was delay in dealing with an application for pension and the unfortunate individual died before a decision was reached, surely there is sufficient information available for any medical board to assess the attributability of his disability. Is not the Minister aware that that has been done frequently in the past? It would be a terrible injustice that the next-of-kin and relative should be deprived of compensation because of possibly undue delay by departmental officers or officials.
Mr. Corish
Is it not a fact that the Department were made aware of the critical condition of the late Mr. Thorpe and, in all fairness, that the Department should have seen that the examination was carried out inasmuch as his death was imminent? His application for pension was made about nine or ten months prior to his death and it seems very unfair that his dependents should be deprived of this pension simply because the Department were very slow to make the necessary examination.
Will the Minister inquire further into the matter?
It is true, of course, to say that there were representations made on behalf of this man. It is also true to say that there would be a number of applicants in a similar position and the board cannot take out any particular case and give it priority over another.
Does the Minister mean that our Army Disability Pensions Acts are in such a state of chaos that if a man happens to die suddenly or unexpectedly on service before all the machinery of an application can be put through, there is no machinery for granting him a pension? I am putting that question in fairness to the Minister because I know the information in his reply is not correct and I am giving him an opportunity of mending his hand before he nails his colours too firmly to the mast.
If a man dies on service, as the Deputy states, the position is entirely different. These are people who had left the service.
Yes.
I am rather surprised at the suggestion made by the Deputy. It would be quite impossible to decide what the individual died of, whether his disease was attributable to service or not, after he had left the service. It is quite possible, as we all know, that an individual who had given military service could have died from a disease that would not be attributable to military service—cancer, for instance, or some other disease of that kind.
Is not there such an establishment in this country as a registry of births, deaths and marriages; is not the cause of death officially certified by a duly qualified medical practitioner, and what is the point in trying to puzzle and confuse the Deputies present? I am speaking as an ex-officer of the Minister's Department and as a medical practitioner and I know very well that there is no difficulty whatsoever in ascertaining from the records available whether a man's disability was attributable to service or not and a medical certificate will testify whether he died from that disability or not.
I beg leave to differ.
This is a shame.
Is it not a fact that awards have been made after a man's death and the next-of-kin were not entitled to it as the man had died before the award was actually made?
If an award was not made, no payment can be made either. That is the statutory position.
Mr. Corish
Is it not a fact that if this man had lived about another week and if the pension had been awarded, the pension would have been paid for a whole year, but unfortunately the ambulance happened to arrive at this man's house the day before he died, and the letter addressed to me by the Department of Finance said in callous terms that the case of Michael Thorpe was decided by his death? It is a ridiculous state of affairs.
That is the position.
Does the Minister contemplate any amendment?
No.