Select Committee on Defence First Report


6 Legacy issues

Treatment of former personnel and their dependants

121. Changes, many of them improvements, have been made to the schemes over time. A number of former personnel and their dependants feel aggrieved, either because of the level of benefits that they are entitled to in itself, or because they see that other personnel have received more generous benefits. The Forces' Pension Society (FPS) and Royal British Legion, organisations representing these veterans and their dependants, have raised these issues with us on several occasions. As the FPS has put it to us, "victims of previous injustices … see themselves ignored whilst improvements are lavished on current and future generations".[142]

122. The FPS identifies four "principal issues that require immediate resolution":[143]

—  pre 1973 retirees whose widow(er)s will only receive one third pensions,

—  pre 1978 retirees who contracted post retirement marriages, whose widow(er)s receive no pension,

—  widow(er)s who have remarried, and therefore lost their pensions,

—  pensioners affected by 'pension troughs', where short-term pay restraint has adversely affected the real value of their pensions.

123. When we took evidence from the previous Minister for Veterans in December 2001, he was insistent that retrospective changes could not be made to pension benefits:

    Retrospection is a rule which all governments have looked at very, very severely indeed. I try to maintain very good relationships with my pension societies, war widows and other groups … I have every sympathy with them, but the government has decided that a line will be held and the line is held.[144]

His main line of argument was that such changes would be unaffordable, and that they could not be introduced for Armed Forces pensioners without also extending them to other public service pensioners who are in a similar position in terms of their pension entitlements.[145] His position has been reiterated by the current Minister.[146]

124. We have a great deal of sympathy for pensioners who see themselves as having lost out. But it would hardly be reasonable of the Government to avoid making better provision for future pensioners so that previous pensioners do not feel aggrieved. Under the new pension scheme, for example, the Government proposes to use a mechanism which should avoid 'pension troughs' arising in the future. This can only be a good thing, even if it does make victims of previous 'pension troughs' more upset.[147]

125. Nonetheless, certain categories of pensioners have real grievances, which should not be lightly dismissed. We are particularly struck by the position of certain classes of widow(er) who, if they remarry or cohabit, lose their pension. It must be the case, as the FPS suggests, that some of these people will be faced with a choice "between financial well being and happiness in a future relationship". The FPS states that this is "morally indefensible".[148] We are inclined to agree.

POSSIBLE REMEDIES

126. The position of the FPS on most of these issues has shifted since December 2002. The Society now accepts that full retrospection is unlikely to be affordable, and proposes a number of alternative solutions, at least one of which it claims would be "cost neutral". It claims that

127. The MoD should look carefully and with a fresh eye at the suggestions put forward by the Forces' Pension Society as possible solutions to a number of 'legacy issues', and should establish whether any of them can be implemented, and at what cost. Former Armed Forces personnel and their dependants deserve no less. The Government risks giving the impression that it has forgotten or is ignoring these people, and that it fails to appreciate the fundamental validity of many of their concerns.

FUTURE 'LEGACY' ISSUES?

128. The Government should also take care that its new schemes do not give rise unnecessarily to future 'legacy' issues. We have already mentioned the potential for 'troughs' in early departure payments.[150] The FPS points out the complexities surrounding widow(er)s' and partners' pensions, particularly where death is not attributable to service.[151] Unmarried partners of personnel remaining in the existing pension scheme will only be entitled to benefits where the death of their partner is attributable to service. Although in the long run, this will be a matter of choice, in the shorter term it is possible, after introduction of the new scheme on 6 April 2005, that someone in the Armed Forces may not have been given the chance to join the new scheme before death, and that their partner will lose out as a result. Similarly, widow(er)s of personnel who remain in the existing pension scheme will not retain their pension on remarriage or cohabitation. The Government needs to ensure that the important effects of these kinds of choice are properly conveyed to personnel, and that the transition to the new schemes is smoothly handled, if future 'legacy' grievances are not to arise. The Government should examine, for example, whether it would be possible to ensure that dependants of existing personnel do not lose out if their partner in the Armed Forces should die between the new pension scheme coming into effect for new entrants, and their partner being given the opportunity to choose between the schemes.

COMPENSATING PERSONNEL WHOSE PENSIONS WERE IMPROPERLY TAXED

129. In our evidence in December 2002, we questioned the then Minister about the situation which had led to the pensions of well over 1,000 veterans being improperly taxed, often over the course of many years. The FPS tells us that "these men have suffered severe financial pain over many years".[152]

130. We welcome the expression of regret by the then Minister for what had happened:

    Let there be no mistake about it, this is something the Department is taking very seriously indeed and something which we are determined to put right. That is no compensation and no consolation for those who lost out over the years when the money would have been of most value to them.[153]

131. The FPS suggests that these men or their dependants should be compensated "at a rate which ensures they are no worse off than they would have been if they had lent their money to Government through National Savings plus an element for damages".[154] We agree. This was the Government's mistake, and veterans and their families have already suffered enough for it. They deserve proper recompense.

132. We heard from the then Minister that many of the victims had already received some compensation, but that not all had been identified, and that a final package of compensation, including, for example, the level of compound interest to be paid, had not yet been finalised. This package has still not been finalised.

133. The Minister told us in December 2002:

    I would certainly expect this to be done within the timescale of the other cases we are reviewing which we hope to have completed by the summer, and I would hope I would get it done much more quickly than that.[155]

Yet, when the current Minister for Veterans came before us, nearly a year later, and well beyond this deadline, he told us that the Government was "still considering whether to pay compensation in addition to the repayment supplement that has already been provided under the Inland Revenue's legislation", promising us a decision "no later than 18 December".[156] The FPS regards the delay in finalising this package as "extremely shabby treatment" of the former personnel involved, many of whom are very old, and some of whom have died over the last year.[157]

134. The MoD has repeatedly set itself and then missed deadlines for finalising compensation payments to former personnel whose pensions were improperly taxed. The delays so far are unacceptable. We expect a package of compensation to be announced by 18 December, as promised, to be implemented promptly and to include compensation along the lines of that recommended by the Forces' Pension Society.


142   Ev 30 Back

143   Ev 30 Back

144   HC (2002-03) 188-i, Q 38 Back

145   HC (2002-03) 188-i, Qq 36, 29 Back

146   Q 40 Back

147   Ev 53 Back

148   Ev 35 Back

149   Ev 30 Back

150   See para 58 above Back

151   Ev 35 Back

152   Ev 30 Back

153   HC (2002-03) 188-i, Q 74 Back

154   Ev 30 Back

155   HC (2001-02) 188-i, Q 69 Back

156   Q 100 Back

157   Ev 30 Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2003
Prepared 16 December 2003