LONDON, Jan 15, 2008 (AFP) - The British government agreed Tuesday to increase compensation for the worst-injured soldiers after a row over the size of payout to a veteran who was horrifically wounded in Afghanistan.

Currently, they receive a lump sum only for their three worst injuries, leading to cases like Lance Bombardier Ben Parkinson's, who received 152,000 pounds (201,000 euros, 300,000 dollars) after a landmine accident in 2006.

Described by experts as one of the most seriously wounded troops ever to survive, Parkinson lost both legs and suffered serious injuries including to his skull, cheekbone, nose, jaw, pelvis, vertebrae, spleen and chest.

Under the new rules, which come into effect on February 8, troops with the most serious multiple injuries can receive full compensation for all of their injuries up to a total of 285,000 pounds.

This is in addition to monthly payments tax-free on discharge for the rest of their lives, which defence minister Derek Twigg said in a statement could total 'hundreds of thousands of pounds'.

The new rules on lump sums will also be backdated to April 2005, meaning that Parkinson should receive the full amount.

The Ministry of Defence rates all injuries on a scale of one to 15 which ranges from the full 285,000 pounds for the loss of all four limbs to just over 1,000 pounds for a broken finger.

Previously, it paid 100 percent of the relevant fixed figure for the first injury, 30 percent for the second and 15 percent for the third, while troops also received cash to cover loss of earnings.

This discounting system will continue to apply in the case of less seriously injured troops.

Parkinson's case triggered fury about the treatment of injured troops in the media.

An editorial in The Observer newspaper in August last year said: 'Young men and women sign up to serve their country on the understanding that they may be risking their lives.

'But nowhere are they told that, when their youth and their health have been spent in service, they will see their sacrifice denigrated by a penny-pinching bureaucracy.'