Vol. 453 No. 2
8 Mr. Kenneally asked the Minister for Defence if he has satisfied himself in relation to the procedures followed regarding the refusal to approve an Army disability pension for a person (details supplied) in County Waterford; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [9025/95]
A disability pension may be granted under the Army pensions Acts to a former member of the Permanent Defence Force in respect of permanent disablement due to (a) a wound or injury attributable to service in the Defence Forces; (b) a disease, but only if attributable to or aggravated by service with a United Nations force. The Acts prescribe that application for a disability pension must be made within a statutory time limit of 12 months after discharge or retirement in wound or injury cases and eight years in cases of disease.
The person in question was discharged from the Defence Forces at his own request in June 1979. He submitted an application for a disability — disease — pension in respect of his medical condition in June 1990, when the eight year statutory time limit had expired.
As the period for the making of an application is strictly governed by statute it is regretted that the application from the person concerned for a disability pension could not be accepted and that there is no provision to extend the time limit for the making of such applications in individual cases.
As I have heard it so often, I could nearly recite the Minister's reply by heart. The problem is that a figure of eight years is stipulated. On 3 May I tabled a question for written reply, Question No. 166, in which I asked if people discharged before 1992 were aware of this stipulation. In his reply the Minister did not address the question. He stated that it has been established practice for many years to provide all Defence Forces personnel on their discharge or retirement with information setting out their possible entitlements under the Army pension Acts and emphasising the statutory time limits for submission of completed applications. This information is included with each individual's discharge documents. All this man received in the post was his Army discharge book which contains details of length of service, conduct while in the Army, courses attended and so on. He received no notification that a figure of eight years was stipulated. Written documentation to this effect can be supplied, if necessary. Recently I asked someone who was discharged in 1988 or 1989 if he was aware of this stipulation but he had no knowledge of it. The person concerned developed symptoms in 1984 and had he known that a figure of eight years was stipulated he would have applied in time. In those circumstances it is only fair that his case should be reconsidered.
Is the Deputy saying that the Defence Forces were obliged to inform him and did not or is he saying that they were not obliged to do so but in all fairness should have done so?
I am not sure whether they are obliged to do so but in all fairness they should bring it to the attention of the people concerned.
I am statutorily bound by the regulation and it is not open to me to change it. If there is a requirement that the Defence Forces inform people about this matter and they failed to do so, I will take up the matter, but if there is no such requirement my intervention could open the floodgates. I will make inquiries in the matter and come back to the Deputy on it.
I do not believe it would open the floodgates. The individual concerned left the Army in June 1979 and the problem arose five years later, in 1984. That can be medically documented. It would not open the way for a flood of cases because the disease in this case was contracted within the eight-year period. I would appreciate if the Minister would look into the matter.
It is curious that somebody who discovered in 1984 that they had a serious problem did not bring it to the attention of the Defence Forces for such a long period afterwards.
He did not know about it.
