I think I have gone as far as it is reasonable to expect me to go in meeting the case that has been made by agreeing to introduce amendments to double the normal period, by extending it from four years to eight years, although I know of no good reason why that should be done except for the fact that this comparatively speaking unknown quantity of tropical diseases enters into this question. I am advised that even in the case of tropical diseases, there is no reason to believe that they would not show up within the four years. The best advice available to me indicates that doubling the period would give plenty of opportunity.
For obvious reasons, there is need for some time limit. That should be obvious to everybody. It is in every-body's interest that the claim should be made as soon as possible. It is necessary to establish that the disease from which the disability arises is due to service within a definite period, within the period, in this case, of United Nations service. Except on presumptions which have not been established or in respect of which no evidence has been produced to support them, I can see no reason for suggesting there is any need for the removal of a time limit altogether.
As I said, when speaking earlier today, I am quite satisfied that if a case arose in which it was not possible to make the claim within the eight year period, steps would be taken by any Government to cover it. I have no reason to believe that such cases would arise. It was stated that there were cases over the years in which disease contracted during the Emergency did not appear until well after the four year limit. My Department knows nothing about that. We know claims have been made but it is practically impossible to believe that such claims could be established after the four year period since the Emergency. We believe that these diseases would have manifested themselves within that four year period, that is, if they had been, in fact, contracted during the Emergency period. It is impossible to believe they would not have manifested themselves within the four year period.
It was also argued that we should consider the peculiar nature of the service that gives rise to this Bill today. Of course, that is what we have done and that is why I have agreed to extend the time limit as I am doing in the amendment. It is because of the peculiar nature of that service.
I did not quite understand what Deputy Corish was getting at when he spoke about injuries that might be received on the sports field. If the sports in which the member of the Defence Forces was engaged when he was injured were connected with his Army service—if it was an Army match or something like that—then he would be covered by the existing legislation. Of course, that is not disease. That is already covered by the legislation. It would be looked upon as a wound and it does not then really arise in this Bill.
Deputy Sherwin stated the Minister had authority to open cases at any time in connection with some of the other Acts. That is not so. What the Minister has authority to do is to re-open cases that have been turned down, if there is fresh medical evidence produced which purports to establish the claim which had already been turned down. In that event, the case can always be reopened.
I do not think it is reasonable to ask me to remove this time limit altogether because no case has been made except on the basis of pure surmise that there may be some disease which does not show itself within the eight year period, but my medical advisers do not know of any such disease and I am quite certain that if such a case did materialise, steps would be taken to cover it. Why should we cover things that nobody knows to exist?
The other points raised have nothing to do with this Bill. Deputy O'Sullivan referred to a member of the Defence Forces injured in an accident being treated by the Army and then taking a civil action to recover damages. He objected to the Department of Defence insisting that their interests should be covered in any settlement arrived at. Surely it is obvious that that is one of the things that should be covered. No person should make a settlement and ignore the claims of the Department of Defence. We would not countenance that. If the State is at expense in respect of an accident for which somebody is held responsible, obviously the State is entitled to recover in any settlement arrived at. That is completely irrelevant to the present Bill. I am moving this amendment to extend the time limit for applications from four years to eight years. I am quite satisfied that that will be ample.