asked the Minister for Defence whether he is aware that serving soldiers applying for pensions have often been turned down by the medical board because of illnesses contracted while in the service, and that the board ruled in a number of cases that the illnesses from which the applicants were suffering did not result from their Army service although they were admitted to the service medically fit; and, if so, whether, in view of the grave hardship caused by such rulings to soldiers with long service, he will have the system reviewed.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Army Pensions.
I am aware that certain applications under the Army Pensions Acts for disability pensions have been refused as it had not been established that the disabilities claimed for were attributable to service in the forces during the emergency period. These Acts make no provision for the consideration of claims in respect of disease contracted in the course of Army service subsequent to that period. No proposals which would alter this position are contemplated.
Is the Minister not aware that this is a grave injustice on serving soldiers? If a soldier is certified as medically fit when he is beginning his service in the Army, it seems very strange that after a lapse of five, ten, 15 and, in this case which I have in mind, 19 years, he should be told that the disease from which he is suffering is not due to Army service. If that principle were applied to every other Department of State or to the local authorities, nobody at all would get a pension.
The Deputy is making an argument.
Surely it is time to rectify this matter which I regard as a grave injustice?
Is the Minister further aware that, in the course of his reply to the debate on the Estimate for the Department of Defence last year, he gave a specific undertaking that this matter would be reviewed?
This matter—I am replying now to Deputy McQuillan's supplementary question—has been examined very, very often. It was examined in 1937, 1952, 1953 and again since last year. There are no provisions in the Garda Síochána regulations in respect of disease contracted by members—nor in the Civil Service, either. In peacetime, the view is that the duties of members of the Defence Forces are no more arduous or exacting than those of the duties of many other sections of the community. Therefore, it is not considered that it would be reasonable to make any other provision than that already made under the various Social Welfare Acts for the serving soldier. I must say that, under the Social Welfare Act, a soldier, N.C.O. or man, while in the Army, is insured under that Act and any disease that arises is covered in that way.
The Minister has not answered the question I put to him. I will go to my grave trying to understand why it is that if a medical board or a medical officer passes a man as physically fit to enter the service, then anything that may happen to him afterwards is not the responsibility of the employer, if the position is a pensionable one. I am not aware of any other employees being treated in the manner in which Army personnel are being treated.