Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the exercises carried out by Her Majesty's armed forces in Kenya in each of the last five years. [114429]
Mr. Spellar: The Following exercises have been carried out, or are to take place in the immediate future, in Kenya by Her Majesty's Armed Forces in the years 1996 to 2000:
22 Mar 2000 : Column: 564W
Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he expects the Defence Diversification Council to present its first Annual report; [115038]
Dr. Moonie: The Defence Diversification Agency began to operate last year and is already providing a substantial service, particularly to small and medium enterprises. The Defence Diversification Council has not yet been established.
Mr. Hancock: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact of, and reasons underlying, the change from minutes to days, as a measure of the United Kingdom's deterrent capability. [115539]
Mr. Hoon: There has been no impact on our ability to deter threats to our interests. As we made clear in the Strategic Defence Review (SDR), improvements in the strategic environment now enable us to safeguard our national security at a lower level of nuclear deterrent readiness.
One element of the change in posture announced in the SDR was the decision to maintain our nuclear forces at a "notice to fire" measured in days, rather than minutes. This reduced state of alert allows greater use of ballistic missile submarines for secondary tasks. The flexibility of the Trident system ensures, however, that we can restore a higher state of alert should it ever become necessary to do so.
Mr. Gordon Marsden: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what would be the cost of making payments, in line with the payments which would be made to the spouse of someone who had served all of their time in the armed forces after 6 April 1978, to spouses of deceased ex-service personnel (a) who married after their spouse retired from the armed forces, (b) whose spouses served in the armed forces before 6 April 1978 and (c) to both groups. [115355]
Mr. Spellar:
The MOD could not identify from its records the number of servicemen who retired before 1978 and subsequently married or remarried. As such marriages did not create pension entitlements, records of them were not kept. It would theoretically be possible to identify from pensions records the surviving widows of servicemen who retired after 1978 and subsequently married or remarried, and to calculate the pension entitlement which would be generated if service before 1 April 1978 qualified for a
22 Mar 2000 : Column: 565W
widow's pension; however, this would require a manual search of 76,000 widow's pensions files and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
Mr. Gordon Marsden:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to review the position of spouses of deceased ex-servicemen who are not entitled to the forces family pension as part of his review of forces' pensions. [115354]
Mr. Spellar:
The question of spouses' pensions is being addressed as part of the Review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) in which all aspects of the AFPS are being examined. The Review is scheduled to report during the summer and it would be premature to speculate about its outcome.
Mr. Gordon Marsden:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many spouses of deceased ex-service personnel are not eligible for a forces family pension; and for what reasons; [115352]
Mr. Spellar:
No records are kept of the numbers of spouses of deceased service personnel who are not eligible for a Forces Family pension. When a serviceman dies, unless survivor benefits are payable, the pension record is closed and the personal file is archived. It follows that it is also impossible to calculate the notional total value of pensions which might be paid to the spouses of deceased ex-service personnel who at present do not receive them.
Surviving spouses of service personnel are currently entitled to receive a widow/widowers' pension unless:
Mr. Gordon Marsden:
To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many spouses of deceased ex-service personnel are entitled to only a part of the forces family pension; and for what reasons. [115353]
Mr. Spellar:
This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost as each of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme's 76,000 widow's files would have to be searched manually.
A widow or widower might receive only a part of a Forces Family Pension for any of the following reasons:
If she is the widow of a deceased officer or other rank who married after retirement but on or after 6 April 1978. Such an individual would be entitled only to half that part of the spouse's pension which relates to service from that date.
22 Mar 2000 : Column: 566W
If he is the widower of a deceased officer or other rank who married on or after 1 October 1987. Such an individual would be entitled only to half that part of the spouse's pension which relates to service from that date.
Where a widow, on or after reaching age 60, or a widower, on or after reaching age 65 remarries or cohabits. In those circumstances only the Guaranteed Minimum Pension contracted out of SERPS remains in payment.
(2) what is the notional total value of pensions to which spouses of deceased ex-service personnel are not entitled. [115339]
Their partner was engaged on non pensionable terms of service.
Where a spouse's pension is received, it is calculated at one half the rate of the spouse's pension for service after 1 April 1973; and at one third the rate of the spouse's pension for service before that date.
They have remarried or co-habit (except that widows over 60 and widowers over 65 continue to receive the Guaranteed Minimum Pension contracted out of SERPS).
They are a widow of a post retirement marriage whose partner retired from the armed forces before 6 April 1978.
They are widowers whose partner retired from the Service before 1 October 1987.
Their partner has opted out of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme in favour of a personal pension plan, and their death was not attributable to service.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |