The Royal British Legion submission to
the Ministry of Defence (6 July 2001)
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on
the MoD's Joint Compensation Review. The Review has been considered
very carefully and the logic and detailed thoughts supporting
the Legion's view are contained in our main paper, a copy of which
is attached. This covering letter is written in the form of an
Executive Summary.
Regretfully we have to say that the Compensation
Review proposals, in their current form as a package, are unacceptable
unless certain key areas are improved upon. We believe that the
Ex-Service community would expect nothing less for ex-Service
personnel, and for those who will join the ex-Service community
in the future, who they will expect to be as well looked after
in the future as in the past.
The main areas requiring recognition and improvement
are:
Status
The paper completely ignores the status of War
Pensioners and War Widows and is seeking to put the ex-Serviceman/woman
on the same level as civilians and those injured in criminal activities.
This belief is the fundamental flaw in much of what follows in
the paper—levels of compensation, no mention of a welfare
service, no priority in the NHS for those injuries received as
a result of service. The status of individuals as War Pensioners
or War Widows is important to society and its impact should not
be underestimated.
Service Personnel are required to serve anywhere
in the world at a moments notice irrespective of the local political
situation, climate or exposure to disease or civil violence: they
are on call for 365 days a year. These factors alone differ from
those involved in the emergency services whose responsibilities
are usually confined to their own locality. Additionally, service
personnel are subject to military law and far harsher penalties
for disobedience for minor infringements than their civilian counterpart.
Their social situation is also far different in that they are
required to move house as often as every two years and periods
of long separation from family and friends are the norm: leave
remains a privilege and not a right. Ultimately as part of their
service, even on peacekeeping duties they can be called upon to
sacrifice their lives in situations that arise following Government
policy and not just life saving operations. These factors combined
give service personnel a very special status which should be reflected
in the compensation packages available to them when their health
and wellbeing is adversely affected as a result of service to
their country.
Lump Sum Principle.
We believe that it would be fundamentally wrong
to pay a lump sum as the compensation for lost earnings as opposed
to an income stream. The ex-Service community have experience
of this when lump sum payments were made from the South Atlantic
Fund, following the Falklands Conflict. Many of these payments
were sizeable but sadly a significant number of the recipients
quickly, usually as a result of poor advice, lost the funds awarded
and had to return to charities for ongoing support. Therefore
the proposal in the paper to have a Guaranteed Income Stream (GIS)
is welcomed.
Levels of Award
It is considered that it is fundamentally wrong
to put injuries received in war/action on a par with those received
in criminal actions. Here again, the status of ex-Servicemen/women
is called into question. The levels need to be increased to reflect
this. Linkage to the Criminal Injuries Compensation (CIC) scheme
will give the wrong signals, especially as it has been largely
discredited. We strongly believe that the awards are too low.
The Law Commission has called for a doubling of current rates
in the compensation arena at the top end and a rise by half at
the bottom end of the scales eg total blindness to increase from
£105,000 to £220,000. The tariff only recommends £75,000,
which shows how low the figures are and seemingly reflects a lack
of acceptance of the Status of those who die or are injured in
the service of their Country. There also seems to be no index
linking.
DETERIORATION
The Review appears only to allow for average
deterioration. We feel it does not fully take into account that
deterioration could be more excessive in some cases. Alternatively,
a later review might be a better way of handling this element.
Tax Status of Service Invaliding Pension (SIP)
in the proposed Armed Forces Pensions Scheme (AFPS)
The GIS for those longer serving personnel who
are medically discharged (or die—WGIS) could be quite small.
The loss of earnings is only worked out to the age of 55. Consideration
must be given to the tax status of the SIP in the proposed Scheme
(which would offset this factor if tax free for attributable awards)
or to factoring in loss of earnings to the pension age of 65 for
those worst disabled and who are unable to work.
Scheme Administration
Consideration should be given to the WPA running
the Scheme on behalf of the MoD, especially as the WPA has joined
the MoD from the DSS. The WPA has ample experience in this field
and we are sure their Medical Staff, who also have considerable
experience in this area, could cope with the two differing systems.
We would additionally suggest the use of an Independent Body to
oversee the Scheme, certainly in its early years. This would give
both the Serviceman and Ex-Service community the confidence that
the Scheme would work. Certainly any Appeal Mechanism should be
independent of the MoD. It is also important that any new scheme
is handled efficiently and should reflect the current targets
that the WPA have set for death in Service Widows and those medically
discharged.
Aftercare
As mentioned earlier the Review makes no mention
of the status of those injured in the future and the spouses of
those killed and we emphasise this. It is an issue that leads
on naturally to after Service Welfare and Priority Treatment in
the NHS for the former for their accepted disabilities. Once a
person is a War Pensioner or War Widow, this allows access to
the War Pensioners' Welfare Service (WPWS), which is an excellent
nation-wide service provided by the WPA. There is no mention of
any replication of this service. The MoD possesses no aftercare
welfare, other than using the ex-Service charities. The modern
welfare state leaves large gaps in its provision and our experience,
mirrored by other charities, is that once the local DSS finds
out the individual is an Ex-Serviceman/woman, they often back
off, generally with the excuse they have no funds, and leave it
to the charities to pick up the shortfall.
This omission must be addressed; even if it
were that the WPWS carry on. Secondly, the Priority treatment
in the NHS principle must continue.
All of the points detailed above are fully amplified
in the main paper together with additional peripheral areas that
will also require attention.
| 
