| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 1125
tax-free lump sum of three times the annual rate of pension awarded. Because many service men have to retire early, the rate of pension paid for shorter periods of service is enhanced to be better than strictly proportional to the service given. This is to compensate for the short career which may be all that is available, and, as I said, service men can therefore retire on pension by about the age of 40.I have already referred to lump sums paid on retirement at the end of a full career, and lump sums are also paid on a similar basis where pensions are awarded for shorter periods of service, and where invaliding occurs. Additional lump sums are paid where injury or death is attributable to service.
I have given an outline of the main benefits which are available today. However, as with other pension schemes, there have been developments over the years which have gradually introduced changes and improvements in what is provided. I fully recognise that the benefit provisions have reached their current excellent level over a considerable period. In many cases, changes have been made in step with general developments in occupational pension provisions in this country. Others have been particularly devised for members of the armed forces.
Overall, the changes have included the introduction in 1960 of scales for officers linked to length of service, instead of standard rates for service of at least a minimum length ; a substantial revision in 1972 following the introduction of the military salary, incorporating a direct link with representative rates of pay ; in 1973, an improvement in the benefits available on invaliding, including where that was attributable to service, and for widows ; the introduction in 1975 of deferred pensions for short periods of service ; the introduction of pensions for widows of post- retirement marriages in 1978 ; and, four years ago, the introduction of pensions for the widowers of female personnel, thus ensuring equal treatment between the sexes.
It is against that background of progressive improvement, and the additional costs associated with each new development, that I shall address the points raised by the debate. I understand, and sympathise with, the feelings of those who have retired in earlier years and do not receive benefits at the same level as are available to those who have retired more recently. The fact that there are such differences is not unique to the armed forces scheme and the hon. Gentleman acknowledged that. It could be found in the great majority of schemes, and for similar reasons. As I mentioned earlier, improvements must be paid for. If we had applied every improvement retrospectively, the costs involved would have been significantly greater and it is unlikely that we would have been able to reach the standard which exists today.
The scheme as it now stands is very good. I am afraid that we cannot turn back the clock and confer additional entitlements on those who are ineligible because of their earlier dates of discharge. The position for the Department of Social Security's war pensions scheme is, however, somewhat different. Pensions and other benefits payable under that scheme are at standard rates which apply to all those who are eligible, regardless of when they served in the armed forces or the particular date on which that service came to an end.
Column 1126
I acknowledge the valuable part which is played by the many organisations particularly associated with serving or ex -service personnel in providing help and care for those who have need of them. Such needs are not necessarily financial. They can take many forms. Recently, with the conflict in the Gulf, we have seen how ready such organisations are to help in any way possible. Happily, with the swift and successful conclusion of the Gulf operations, little was needed. But I, and hon. Members present today, will wish to pay tribute to those dedicated people, many of whom are themselves ex-service men and some with their own war disabilities, who do so much which is out of the public eye.I come to the case of the hon. Gentleman's constituent, Mr. Leonard Pell. Mr. Pell's service with the Royal Air Force occurred in a number of stages. He initially joined in May 1943 for air crew training but was released in June 1944. After the war, in 1947, he enlisted on an eight-year engagement, which he completed normally and was released in August 1955. In 1959 he again re-enlisted, this time for a 12-year engagement with the Royal Air Force Regiment, which was subsequently extended, on the basis of his continuing in service until age 55. But, as the hon. Gentleman explained, Mr. Pell was invalided from service in 1967, having fallen below the required medical standard for his branch.
As a result, under the provisions which were in force at that time, he was awarded an invaliding pension under the armed forces pension scheme, and a lump sum. His case was also referred to the Department of Social Security for consideration under the provisions of the war pensions scheme. The claim was accepted and, since Mr. Pell's level of disability was at that stage assessed as being in the range of 6 to 14 per cent., he was paid the appropriate lump sum under that scheme. The hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Pell was assessed at 70 per cent., but that was a later development. The initial assessment was between 6 and 14 per cent. His pension from the Royal Air Force also became tax free.
As the House may know, war pensioners may seek reassessment if their disability appears to increase or if new disabilities emerge. This is what has happened in Mr. Pell's case. His position has been subject to review, with the result that his overall level of disability is now assessed at 70 per cent., covering a number of different conditions. He has also become eligible for a number of allowances under the scheme which, with his basic war disability pension, are today worth just under £200 per week.
I have here the figures showing how this is made up. There is a 70 per cent. war disability pension, unemployability supplement, comforts allowance, invalidity allowance, wife allowance, dependants allowance, age allowance and mobility supplement. Together, they make up a figure of £198.94 per week. That is non-taxable and is in addition to his tax- free pension from the Royal Air Force which, as the hon. Gentleman said, is just under £30 per week. Mr. Pell therefore receives, tax free, about £230 per week. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, the war pension provisions are substantially better than those that would be available under the industrial injuries scheme, had corresponding disabilities occurred as a result of civilian employment.
The hon. Gentleman said that Mr. Pell had no occupational pension, but he was working from 1967, although he may have found it more difficult to work recently, and that would have given him the opportunity to
Column 1127
contribute to an occupational scheme or to fund one through the work that he was doing. I accept that Mr. Pell's armed forces pension would have been larger if the improvements made to the scheme in 1972 and 1973 had been in force in 1967. His pension would also have been larger today had he not elected, as he was perfectly entitled to do, to commute part of his initial award shortly after his discharge in order to raise additional capital. As I have explained, there are cogent reasons why we feel unable to make the scheme improvements retrospective, but I hope that the House will agree that the provisions which are available, taken together, represent a very reasonable recognition of Mr. Pell's needs.The hon. Member referred to the debate in which I was involved on war widows, and we have seen his early-day motion, which is on the Order Paper today, suggesting that we should make special provision for war disability pensioners whose service ended before March 1963 in some similar way to what has been done for war widows whose husbands' service ended before that date. As the House will recall, it was announced on 11 December 1989 that special payments would be introduced for war widows whose husbands had been killed, or whose service had ended, before March 1973. However, the House will also recall that those special payments were introduced in recognition of the view, held widely in this House and the
Column 1128
country as a whole at the time, that the pre-1973 war widows are a unique category for whom quite exceptional measures were appropriate. That was a view also accepted by the organisations representing ex-service men, including those with war disabilities.There may also be those who recall that I acknowledged in the House on 23 November 1989 that there was nevertheless some correlation between the position of war widows and those with war disabilities, depending upon service ending before or after March 1973. The connection is, of course, that for both widows and the disabled benefits available from the Ministry of Defence are influenced by the improvements made to the armed forces occupational scheme in 1973. As I have said previously, this date has no significance whatsoever for the standard benefits paid under the separate war pensions scheme administered by the Department of Social Security. The benefits payable under the revised occupational scheme are better than those available previously. However, the similarity in origin does not mean that the situation is, in all respects, the same.
Question put and agreed to.
It being Three o'clock, Madam Deputy Speaker-- adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Resolutions [13 May], till Monday 3 June.
| Written Answers Section
| Home Page |