A personal view from Mel Pullan, Director of Communications of the Army Families Federation

Insult on injury

AN Iraqi teenager who was shot accidentally by a British soldier is to receive £2 million in compensation for his injuries.
The boy, who was 13 when the incident happened, had befriended the British guards at an outpost in southern Iraq. The soldier’s weapon slipped and went off, shooting the boy in the spine. He was flown for treatment to England, where he has remained ever since.

His payment of £2 million dwarfs payouts to other Iraqi civilians injured by British Forces. This is because grievances by Iraqi nationals are normally settled in Iraq where the largest so far is thought to be about £24,000.

Yet the severely injured Bdr Ben Parkinson was initially offered just £152,150 for the wounds he sustained in combat, although this was later increased to the maximum award of £285,000 following a review by the MoD – a review prompted by the loud protestations of Ben’s outraged parents and the media.

What about those soldiers who do not have such persuasive forces behind them? Many have had to content themselves with lesser amounts because they don’t “meet the criteria”. Another badly wounded soldier, LCpl Martin Edwards, was awarded just £115,000 after suffering brain damage in 2007. This despite his need for lifetime care and a wife and child to support.

There are two very different issues here that are connected but need to be looked at from different angles.

The first is that a child, crippled by a negligent discharge from the weapon of a British soldier, has been awarded compensation to cover the cost of his care during his lifetime.

It is no more than he deserves and the fact that he is an Iraqi citizen should not be relevant.

The second – and the one that really gets my goat – is the number of British Army soldiers who have suffered horrific injuries in the service of their country and who are offered a maximum lump sum payout of only £285,000.

The MoD will protest that payments made to civilians in a civilian court cannot be compared directly to the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme, which is complete rubbish.

Guaranteed Income Payments (GIPs) are being used as an excuse not to overhaul what is an unfair and seemingly arbitrary insult of a lump sum payment.

There are very few areas in Britain today where you could purchase a house for £285,000 and equip it adequately to cope with the special requirements of those who have suffered life-changing injuries.

Even if the family manages to buy a home – and modify and equip it – they often need a permanent carer, medical assistance, an adapted vehicle and so on. The list goes on and I haven’t even mentioned the financial and emotional pressures on the spouse, parents, children and family.

Of course soldiers know the risks when they go to war; they are putting themselves in the line of fire. But they should not be treated in such a shabby and penny-pinching way if they are debilitatingly injured.

Thanks to the amazing care by field hospitals and the staff at Selly Oak and Headley Court, many more now survive their injuries and want to go on to lead happy and fulfilled lives. If the Government is spending all this money making people well again and willing them to recover, why do they then go on to insult them with a cheap offer of compensation?

The sum should be such that the soldier can establish a home with their family or carer(s). That home should be adapted and equipped as necessary and the soldier should be able to afford an appropriate level of professional care if it is necessary.

Maybe one solution would be to award the GIP as a lump sum and allow the soldier and his or her family to decide the most appropriate way for it to be invested. If this is good enough for a civilian compensation scheme then why not for our Armed Forces?

www.afj.org.uk

Soldier magazine is not responsible for the content of external internet sites