Vol. 406 No. 5
2 Mrs. Taylor-Quinn asked the Minister for Defence if he will undertake to hold an examination of the case of widows as of now, whose husbands opted out of the optional insurance Defence Forces scheme; and if his attention has been drawn to the serious difficulties that exist for these women.
32 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Defence if, since taking office, he has examined the case of widows whose husbands, as members of the Defence Forces, opted out of the optional insurance scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 2 and 32 together. I would invite attention to the statement made in relation to this matter during the course of the Adjournment Debate on 22 November last. The position has not altered in the meantime.
I should say that, while I, too, have every sympathy for widows whose late husbands chose not to become members of the contributory scheme, it would be inappropriate at this stage to extend the scope of the scheme to cover cases where the liability involved had already matured. In this regard, I must emphasise that the scheme is based on the insurance — and not the assistance — principle.
Would the Minister of State agree that these widows are the victims of circumstances, that their rights and entitlements were signed away by their husbands and that they had no knowledge of the fate that would befall them on the death of their husbands? Will the Minister of State now outline the position of these women? Their husbands had the authority to sign their rights away at the time but they have been neglected and are the innocent victims of circumstances. Will the Minister of State have their cases re-examined with a view to having them included in the scheme?
I sympathise with the widows concerned but I should point out that membership of the scheme was compulsory in the case of personnel who enlisted on or after 1 February 1978. In the case of soldiers who served at any time between 1 June 1977 and 31 January 1978 membership of the scheme was voluntary. Therefore, such soldiers had to be given the choice as to whether they wished to join the scheme or not. In addition to those who opted to join the scheme, those who neglected to exercise any option were actually enrolled as members. Thus, only those soldiers who specifically gave notice in writing that they were opting not to enter the scheme were not enrolled. This was done at their own request and there was no misunderstanding about this at the time.
Can I put it to the Minister of State that while the soldiers were given a choice their spouses were not and that the decision of the soldier had implications for the spouse on the death of the soldier? Those spouses had their entitlements signed away. Will the Minister of State outline their position under EC directives and legislation dealing with equality and pension rights?
Again, I must make clear that those who decided not to enrol were contacted on three occasions and on each occasion they made it quite clear that they knew what they are doing in opting not to join the scheme.
A final and brief question.
Given that it was the soldiers and not the spouses who were contacted, the spouses should have the right of redress. Can the Minister of State not see that what happened was unfair and, consequently, have their cases re-examined?
We are having repetition.
It is more than likely that the spouses were aware of the decision taken by their husbands.
That is a supposition.
I am sure most couples discussed this matter before a decision was made.
