asked the Minister for Defence if his Department will make medical facilities available after service for the treatment of chronic diseases or tropical diseases contracted during service.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Chronic Diseases Treatment.
31.
The Army Pensions Acts make provision for hospital and medical treatment in the case of persons who are in receipt of temporary awards of disability pension. Such treatment is afforded, on the recommendation of the Army Pensions Board, with a view to containing, reducing or finalising the pensionable degree of disablement arising out of service. The Army Pensions Acts make no provision for hospital or medical treatment in any other cases. Soldiers on discharge from the Permanent Defence Force are, however, as insured persons, eligible for normal health services under the Health Acts.
It is a general rule in other countries that military hospitals are available to personnel for the treatment of chronic diseases contracted during service. Bearing in mind that our military hospitals would have the case history and that there is a responsibility on the Defence Forces to ensure the continuity of proper treatment, would the Minister not consider making available to the personnel I mentioned in the question the facilities of these hospitals? It would be better if such treatment were given in the military hospital where the individual originally went for treatment rather than his being identified on leaving the Army as a digit on a medical card.
Under the Army Pensions Act there is no entitlement to medical or hospital treatment. A person who is in receipt of a temporary award of pension may, as a condition of his continuance, be required to undergo such treatment with a view to containing, reducing or finalising the pensionable degree of disablement. That is provided. These factors do not exist in the case of final awards and, consequently, a pensioner whose award is final is expressly excluded from treatment under the Acts. Treatment for temporary pensioners is normally provided on the recommendation of the Army Pensions Board. In other words, the Army Pensions Board, not the Minister for Defence or the Government, decide that a person who is in receipt of a temporary award of pension shall receive treatment. At the end of this treatment it is decided whether or not the person has recovered or whether there is permanent disability. If there is a permanent disability, then it is a question of money. It is as simple as that.
I am not concerned about the Army Pensions Board. I am concerned about the continuity of treatment in a service that has a responsibility to its personnel. The case history of the people I am referring to is with the military hospitals and I should like to know if the Minister will consider, where occupational diseases such as skin cancer are contracted during service in the Congo and elsewhere, giving such personnel treatment in military hospitals? In most cases these people would have been undergoing treatment for a long period in our military hospitals. Would the Minister consider, after such personnel have been discharged, giving them this treatment because the hospitals concerned have their case history?
No. I consider that it is extremely fair and proper that the Army Pension Board, which is a completely independent authority, should decide whether or not a disability is permanent in the first instance. If the board decides that disability is temporary, treatment is provided, and having provided treatment a decision is made as to whether or not the temporary treatment has not either brought an improvement in the person's condition, got rid of the trouble entirely or whether it will be a permanent disability. If there is to be a permanent disability, that same Army Pensions Board, not the Minister, the Government or anybody political, decides what the final award is to be by way of pension.
I was not concerned about the Army Pensions Board but about the continuity of treatment of personnel who have these diseases. Would the Minister consider the continuity of treatment for such personnel?
The Deputy is being entirely mischievous. When a final decision has been made it is a matter of money and what the Deputy is trying to suggest is that the unfortunate person who in the service of the State got a final and permanent disability should get money and the treatment as well. That is what the Deputy is trying to get across.
That is not what I am saying.
The Deputy is being deliberately mischievous.
It boils down to the fact that the Minister does not want to provide the treatment.