§ Lord Morris of Manchesterasked Her Majesty's Government:
What research they have undertaken or commissioned on alleged abuse of the war pensions scheme arising from placing the burden of proof for entitlement on the Ministry of Defence, leaving the claimant only needing to raise a "reasonable doubt"; and what figures they have on the prevalence of such abuse in each of the past five years. [HL4318]
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach)The Ministry of Defence deals with a small number of claims that are made fraudulently or in error, but these are not the principal issue in this case. The question is whether it is right to pay awards where service is unlikely to have been the cause of death or injury and whether these resources would not be better used to improve the level of awards to the more seriously disabled who are not well served by current arrangements.
For claims made within seven years of leaving service, war pension legislation provides that there is no burden on the claimant to prove that service caused the injury or death in question and that he receives the benefit of any reasonable doubt. The claimant himself is not required to raise that doubt. For claims made more than seven years after leaving service, the burden is on the claimant, but only to the extent that he has to raise a reasonable doubt.
It is inevitable therefore, given the eligibility criteria, that war pensions will be awarded where it is unlikely—and in some cases highly unlikely—that the injury or death was caused by service. No figures are kept on the number of war pension claims which succeed because of the preferential burden of proof, though the recent analysis of the effect of the amendment to the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill proposed by the noble Lord gives our estimate of the effect of changing burden and standard of proof for the new Armed Forces Compensation Scheme. I am placing a copy of this in the Library of the House.
§ Lord Morris of Manchesterasked Her Majesty's Government:
What evidence the Ministry of Defence estimates that the cost to the department of abandoning the proposals to transfer the burden of proof in respect of war pension claims from the Ministry of Defence to the claimant, and to substitute "balance of probabilities" for "reasonable doubt" as the standard of proof in deciding claims, could be up to £200 million. [HL4319]
57WA
§ Lord BachBased on assumptions provided by the Ministry of Defence on the effect of deciding all compensation claims under the new Armed Forces Compensation Scheme on the basis of the war pension scheme burden and standard of proof, the Government Actuary's Department has estimated the additional cost at over £300 million over a 10-year period. I am arranging to place a copy of this letter in the Libraries of both Houses. The MoD is confident that the assumptions are a fair and realistic assessment of the effect that such a change will have on the number and levels of awards.