asked the Minister for Defence whether he is aware that a large number of men, discharged from the Army suffering from tuberculosis, have been refused compensation on the grounds that they could not produce evidence that their disability was attributable to, or aggravated by, service in the Defence Forces; that many of these decisions give the impression of being unjust and inconsiderate; and if he will take steps to have the regulations so changed that, in cases of this kind, the onus shall be thrown on the Defence authorities to prove that the disease was not attributable to nor aggravated by service.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Tuberculosis: Compensation to Ex-Soldiers.
I am not aware that a large number of men discharged from the Army suffering from tuberculosis have been refused compensation on the grounds that they could not produce evidence that their disability was attributable to or aggravated by service in the Defence Forces. No applicant has been refused a disability pension in respect of tuberculosis on the grounds that he could not produce evidence in support of his claim. In fact, the investigations carried out by the Army Pensions Board in these particular cases are conducted in the most careful and sympathetic manner possible, every care being taken to ensure that all the evidence available in support of an application is secured before a decision is taken, including an examination of the applicant's Army history, to ascertain any hardships endured during his service. An unfavourable decision is taken only after all possible evidence favourable to the applicant has been obtained. Everything possible has been done to facilitate these applicants in the making of their claims, and I cannot accept the principle that the onus of proving that the disease was not attributable to or aggravated by service should rest on my Department.
Do I understand the Minister to say that in no case has a man been refused compensation in respect of a claim that he had contracted tuberculosis while serving in the Army?
On the grounds that he could not produce evidence in support of this claim.
Will the Minister undertake personally to go into any case that I submit to him where the facts seem to be at variance with the statement he has just made?
I shall have any case the Deputy sends me personally examined.
Will the Minister say on what basis these examinations are made? I have from time to time received complaints from soldiers whose medical history sheets showed that, when they were enlisted for service, they were in good health and that when they were subsequently discharged, they were suffering from tuberculosis. Applications which were made for pensions were refused on the grounds that the disease was not attributable to, or did not arise out of, military service. I suggest to the Minister that cases such as these give rise to considerable dissatisfaction and I think the Minister should make available to the House details of the system under which soldiers are invalided out of the Army and are refused gratuities or pensions.
The applications are examined by the Army Military Pensions Board which consists of two civilians and a military officer. The evidence, as I have already stated, is carefully examined by the board and if it is such as will justify the granting of a pension, a pension is granted. If the evidence is not such as will satisfy the board that the disease was attributable to military service, then there is only one decision at which the board can arrive and that is a decision unfavourable to the applicant.
A point I should like to make is that there appears to be considerable difference between the treatment meted out to soldiers suffering from similar disabilities contracted under similar circumstances. Apparently the treatment is different.
The history of the applicant may be different.