MoD criticised for soldier compensation cut
Updated on 28 July 2009
As the bodies of four British servicemen killed in Afghanistan are flown home the MoD is criticised for seeking a compensation cut for some injured soldiers.
The Ministry of Defence has been accused of "appalling timing" over its appeal against increased compensation awarded to two injured soldiers by a court because of later complications in their injuries.
The appeal against the awards to Light Dragoon Anthony Duncan and Royal Marine Matthew McWilliams, was heard this morning, as the bodies of four more soldiers killed in Afghanistan are being brought home to grieving relatives.
Both injured soldiers had their payouts increased following complications, but the MoD is arguing that they should be compensated only for their "original injuries". It follows the ruling of three judges that the injuries should not be treated as being separate from subsequent treatment.
Anthony Duncan, a soldier with the Light Dragoons was shot in the left thigh while on patrol in Iraq during September 2005. Matthew McWilliams is a Royal Marine injured during a training exercise. After a series of operations to close the wound, Duncan suffered constant pain in his leg and required counselling to deal with "mental anguish" brought on by the injury.
He was initially given £9,250 in compensation, but he appealed and a tribunal awarded him a lump sum of £46,000 and a guaranteed weekly payment.
McWilliams is said to have been awarded £8,250, which was increased on appeal to £28,750 along with a guaranteed weekly payment because of damage to his knee following surgery.
The MoD claim they have to test the law because it applies across the public sector, but veterans have attacked the move and criticised the compensation regime.
In a panelled discussion about the compensation row British military historian and former army officer Major Gordon Corrigan told Jon Snow he felt that the government had committed a public relations catastrophe.
"This is the most crass example of governmental public relations since the German's shot Edith Cavell in 1915. It might be legal but what sort of a message does it send?
"We've got young soldiers climbing up the hills of Afghanistan fighting a tenacious and well armed enemy and when they switch on their world band radios tonight they're told that their government are trying to stop them getting any money when they get their legs blown off - it is disgraceful."
Major Corrigan went on to say that he felt the new compensation scheme was reasonable and that he believed "the government had nobody to blame but themselves" as it was not realistically possible to fight a war and have the army participate in the human rights act.
"The army defends democracy but it cannot share its values," he said.
Since the start of operations in Afghanistan in 2001, 191 British service personnel have been killed.
Compensation has "vastly improved"
Speaking to Jon Snow Veterans Minister Kevan Jones defended the current compensation scheme which he said had already "vastly improvement". Although refusing to say whether a review into the scheme should be fully independent Jones said he felt it was "important that it has an independent element to it."
"The fact of the matter is that under this scheme the maximum payout, for example, a mental health illness is £97,000 plus on top of that a guaranteed income for life.
"Contrary to what's been said in the last few days that somehow there's a five year cut off - that is not the case at all.
"It is a flexible scheme which allows people to bring cases after that five year limit - it also allows people to revisit their case where they think their condition has worsened.
"What I would ask people to do in terms of armed forces compensation is to look at the facts rather than some of the misrepresentation that’s been said in the last few days.
"It is a scheme that is new and is delivering compensation to those who are severely wounded.
"I'm also working with armed forces charities to announce something later this year that will not just look at compensation but how we can actually make sure we give the support for life not only for the most severely wounded but also for all ex-servicemen and women."
"Appalling" actions
Falklands war veteran Simon Weston, who was injured in the line of duty, told Channel 4 News the actions by the MoD were "quite appalling".
"What does that say to the people who are on the front line? What it says to them is that you are not going to be looked after properly, you are not going to get the proper amount of compensation regardless of what type of complication you suffer," he said.
Last week former prime minister Sir John Major questioned whether troops were being adequately compensated when injured by Taliban bombs.
He said the current system "does not adequately address lifelong disability and, particularly, disabling mental conditions".
Sir John also said the gap between the maximum payment for physical injury of £570,000 and the maximum for mental injury of £48,875 was "too wide".
A statement from the Ministry of Defence said: "The MoD is appealing in order to clarify an earlier judgment about how the scheme is administered, and to protect the key principle of the scheme: the most compensation for the most seriously injured.
"We have doubled the maximum tax-free lump sum payment for the most seriously injured to £570,000. This is in addition to the tax-free, index-linked monthly Guaranteed Income Payment, paid for life, which can be worth several hundred thousand pounds."
