Revised MoD compensation scheme: a con

Last month the MoD trumpeted the changes it was making to its injuries compensation scheme claiming that the new arrangements would bring improved benefits to those wounded on the frontline.

Well to a certain extent they did, or rather to a very limited extent they did. It has now emerged that from the conflicts of the last three years only 24 claimants have qualified for the improved payout. One of them is Lance Bombardier Ben Parkinson, who lost both legs when his Land Rover ran over a mine in Afghanistan. It was the public outcry over the derisory compensation that he was originally offered which forced the MoD into revising the compensation payments for the most seriously injured. For the vast majority, however, the low level of compensation remained unaltered.

Before the current compensation scheme was introduced in 2005, 90% of claimants were successful but under the new scheme only 35% of those applying receive any kind of payout. Of the 4,000 claims, 2,600 applicants received nothing and those that the MoD did agree to pay received only minimal.

And not only that. The current scheme puts the burden of proof of injury on the claimant whereas under the old scheme the MoD had to prove otherwise.

The Times article gives some examples of the real impact that the MoD's money-saving techniques are having on the lives of soldiers injured in the service of their country. Can it be that the MoD, to offset some of the costs of the massive overspends on its capital projects (not to mention the cost of all the new furniture and decor for the civil servants' Whitehall offices), is actively seeking to minimise the amount it pays out through the compensation scheme?

The "improved" compensation scheme: all spin and no substance!

Link> The Times: Injury payouts for troops ‘a sham’

Link> Ben Parkinson: moD agrees high compensation
Link> MoD injury compensation levels: compare and contrast