Tenth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation |
Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con): Does my hon. Friend know of any other piece of legislation that has gone through this House in relation to which the Opposition have had to resort to the tactic of drawing up regulations on the basis of a White Paper and tabling them as amendments, in order to be able to have proper debates? Mr. Howarth: No, as my hon. Friend knows, that is the only instance of which I am aware. It was not a sensible way to proceed, and it was a shame that we had to do it. However, that is all history. I have raised the principal points that I wanted to raise, and I shall be grateful to hear the Ministers answers. 3.15 pmMr. Brazier: I shall not detain the Committee for more than a minute or two. I have three simple questions for the Minister. First, can he confirm that the special measures that cover reservists on full-time service in active arenasI think that they are encapsulated in Statutory Instrument No. 309, the Reserve Forces (Call-out and Recall) (Financial Assistance) Regulations 1997will be covered by the draft regulations? They deal with appeals for hardship allowances and so on. Secondly, will the Minister take this opportunity to deny a rumour about the proposals for something for which the reserve forces have agitated for a long timea package to allow some updating of the allowances? Appeals will be dealt with through this statutory instrument, and the rumour is that the new package will come in a week too late for the thousands of reservists about to depart for Iraq on Telic 6, including 40 of my constituents. I am sure that the Minister knows that the package that is being consulted on now will be widely welcomed. At a time when the Territorials and reservists are feeling very overstretchedin some cases people are facing their third full-time attachmentit would be a blow to morale if they were to be told that they were going to miss out on the package by one week. I faxed a letter on the matter to the Minister this morning, but it might not yet have come to his attention. Column Number: 12 My third and final question goes back to the substance of the matters to which the appeals will apply. The Minister hinted during the final stages of the passage of the 2004 Act that the Government were looking again at the anomalies around Territorial pensionsthe unfairness of the fact that people who are in employment can get them but those who are self-employed cannot make pensions contributions in relation to the time when they are on full-time service. Will he indicate where Government thinking has got to on that? It is one of the matters on which people might appeal, and even now there are occasionally appeals in cases in which there are disagreements between the Ministry of Defence and the trustees of a pension fund. 3.18 pmMr. Burnett: Welcome to the chairmanship of the Committee, Mrs. Anderson. I have considered many statutory instruments in my time, but I think that this is the first time that I have served under your wise chairmanship. I should declare a series of interests. First, I am a lawyeralthough it gets better. Secondly, I am a former Royal Marine commando and, as such, a potential beneficiary of the regulations, although I hope that that does not dilute the force of what I hope to say about them. Thirdly, as I said earlier, I am a member of the Royal British Legionchairman of two of its branches and president of oneand a member of the Royal Marines Association, north Devon branch, which is a particularly vibrant branch. I listened to the Ministers list of consultees. The Royal Navy and the Royal Marines have associations that cover the whole of the naval service and Royal Marines and I am surprised that neither of them was on the list of consultees. Perhaps they should be. I think that there is a Royal Air Force Association, but I do not know what the Army doesit probably works through the regiments or corps. If the Army has an overarching association that deals with its conditions of service, it should have been consulted as well. I associate myself with the point made by the hon. Member for Aldershot that under the 2004 Act certain regulations and guidelines were to be published in connection with pensions, and that if they have not been published, it is incumbent on the Minister to publish them right away. We know that the Act comes into force on 1 April, which is when the regulations also come into force. It is nonsense to talk about appeals when we do not have the ammunition at hand to make any sense of the appeals process. I have some specific points to make about the regulations. I am sure that the Minister can confirm that legal aid is not available for representation at an appeal, but presumably he can also confirm that any appellant can invite any person to assist them before and during the appeal process. It is important to allow representation, whether by a lawyer, a lay person or some other individual, and that, in particular, there is no inhibition on ex-service organisations giving assistance in appeals. Column Number: 13 We are dealing with appeals to the pensions appeal tribunal, but a dissatisfied appellant will want to know whether they have any further rights of appeal. I appreciate that the appeal process cannot go on indefinitely and that we have to make matters final, but would the Minister nevertheless say whether there is any further appeal to a decision from the pensions appeal tribunal? Who will adjudicate on the tribunal? Will they be the usual tribunal members? I ask that because, regrettably, there are increasingly fewer people with service experience. When appeals such as pension appeals are heard, it is important for at least one person on the tribunal to have some naval, military or air force experience, because they should know the deprivation, difficulty and dangers that our servicemen face. On that point, I endorse what was said by the Minister and the hon. Members for Aldershot and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). All Members of Parliament are extremely proud of our service personnel. They are exceptional. I believe that all Committee members would want to be associated with those sentiments I have just returned from monitoring the elections in Iraq, where I was fortunate to meet a good many service personnel. They show phenomenal intelligence, great bravery and stamina and, added to that, huge versatility and flexibility. One minute they are engaged in all-out combat, the next they are in another mode for humanitarian and internal security operations. All those matter require great versatility and flexibility. Paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory notes relates to interim awards, a matter which was picked up by the hon. Member for Aldershot. Do I take it that if an interim award is made and is quantified and payable, it must be either quantified and payable in two years or dismissed in two years, and thereafter there will be an appeal? Will the Minister let us know? I have one other small, but important point. There is a helpful provision stating:
Do those arrears carry interest? If so, at what rate? The suspension of payments is referred to in paragraph 7.3 of the explanatory notes. Will the Minister confirm whether an award will be suspended only if the alleged facts leading to the suspension are capable of appeal? Finally, I have two general points. First, I hope that the appeal forms and procedures are simple and straightforward and that the process will not be hugely bureaucratic. We await reassurance from the Minister on that point, which goes back to the tribute that I and others paid to members of the armed forces. With that tribute comes a responsibility to treat them well. They might ultimately give everything for their countrythey certainly put their lives on the line for itand we owe them no less than full co-operation and assistance if we are to recognise what they put themselves through out our behalf. Column Number: 14 Secondly, are there any time limits on appeals? If so, what limits are envisaged? Will there be flexibility? As some of us know, injuries such as hearing loss, arthritis and other conditions sometimes take time to manifest themselves. In the case of certain wounds from gunfire or from artillery and mortar shells, bits of shrapnel and so forth can get embedded in someones body and it takes time for problems such as paralysis and who knows what else to manifest themselves. I hope that that the Ministry of Defence will always give time to our servicemen and recognise that they are often the last people to seek compensation. I have raised the few points that I wanted to make and I look forward to hearing from the Minister. 3.28 pmMr. Caplin: Let me begin by saying that I did not realise that, as a former Royal Marine, the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon was a veteran himself. Looking down the list of organisations, I note the absence of Royal Navy and Royal Marine organisations and of the Army Benevolent Fund, which may have had a case for inclusion. The problem will be corrected in future consultations. Mr. Burnett: Thank you very much. Mr. Caplin: Our motto is, Always here to help. There has been a lot of discussion about whether this is a draft or the final process. It is draft because we are considering it, and it would be wrong to assume that something will go through Parliament. The hon. Member for Aldershot and I have had this debate previously. This is called a draft statutory instrument; it is part of the parliamentary process. I want to pick up on a number of points and I shall try to answer all the questions that were put to me, although in no particular order. The hon. Member for Canterbury asked about reserve forces and S.I. No. 309, which specifically mentions reserve forces in its title. He also asked about updating of allowances. He will have noted the new defence intent, which I published on Monday, the same day as the Prime Minister hosted a successful reception for employers at 10 Downing street. In relation to those going on Operation Telic 6, so far, through the intelligent mobilisation process, we have used voluntary, not compulsory mobilisation. The dates on which we can introduce the new arrangements are in no way dependent on mobilisation. We are working to put the new arrangements in place as quickly as we cansubject, of course, to the necessary parliamentary approvals. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that work is proceeding at speed. Mr. Brazier: The Minister goes to a lot of trouble to give specific and frank answers. Can he say whether the new arrangement will apply to those who have already been mobilised? A week or two either way will not make any difference, unless the arrangement is triggered by the date on which the servicemen are mobilised, as opposed to whether they are mobilised when it comes into effect. Column Number: 15 Mr. Caplin: I shall have to get back to the hon. Gentleman on that. The hon. Gentleman has consistently raised the subject of reservist pensions in Committee and on the Floor of the House. The issue is not strictly within the remit of the draft regulations, so I should be grateful for a little leeway to discuss it, Mrs. Anderson. We have considered the position on reservist pensions in case of injury or death. We plan to publish new rules affecting that, using the same end date as for the wider compensation scheme, which is the end of March. I think that that also covers the point that the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon made. All the scheme rules will be published by the end of the March. That will address the issue of reservists who are high earners, which also relates to the point that I made about the arrangements that will follow the new defence intent. Generally, we have concluded that there should be no change to the broad approach to the abatement of reserve forces pensions. However, as soon as the new scheme rules are finalised, I shall write to the hon. Member for Canterbury, so that he can see them. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon asked about cases in which payment of benefit was suspended. As I said in my opening remarks, the provision would apply only where a decision made by a pensions appeal tribunal or, perhaps at the next level up, by the social security commissioner was being challenged by the Ministry of Defence. I hope that that is specific. Until the appeal is determined one way or the other it seems reasonable to withhold payment, because of the potential impact on public funds. Mr. Burnett: I have a quick question. If payment is restored and the suspension is lifted at the end of the appeal process, arrears will be paid. Can the Minister say something about the interest payments due on those and on the interim awards? Mr. Caplin: The simple, straightforward answer is that we do not pay interest. Committees do not often get such straightforward answers, but that is the position. I turn to the wider two-year issue that the hon. Members for Torridge and West Devon and for Aldershot raised, perfectly legitimately. Where an interim award is made, we expect and hope that a final decision will be taken within two years. That final assessment will of course be appealable, which is the difference made by the draft regulations. In the event of an award being allowed, it would be backdatedalthough, as I just said, interest would not be paid. I should also say that that is the same arrangement as under the war pensions scheme, so the change is not a major one. Mr. Howarth: Does that mean that, in the event of the two years being up and no final award having been made, the applicant can go for a continuation of the interim award? I understand that the Royal British Legion wants finality, but if that cannot be achieved, can the applicant carry on with an interim award? Column Number: 16 Mr. Caplin: I think that the applicant would have to go through the process again; I do not think that there would be an automatic right to carry on with the interim assessment. Two years is a reasonable time scale for the interim assessment, and I hope that that would be the case, given varying prognoses and the points that I raised in my opening remarks. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon asked about pensions appeal tribunals: they consist of three people, one of whom has military experience. The Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), as opposed to Defence Ministers, took those parts of the 2004 Act through the Committee. We started this afternoon talking about consultation. Notwithstanding what I said about organisations, I want to deal with the key issue raised and try to put some time scales on the process, so that everyone understands what will happen. I have placed on record the letter of 13 January, and am more than happy to publish it and place it in the Library of the House if the Committee thinks that appropriate. As far as scheme rules are concerned Mr. Howarth: Before the Minister leaves that point Mr. Caplin: I am not leaving it, I assure the hon. Gentleman. I am starting with scheme rules and will come back to consultation. The Royal British Legion has had a draft of the new scheme rules. We have received its comments and have discussed the matter with its representatives at official level. We are finalising what will ultimately be a statutory instrument containing the scheme rules, which will bring the new arrangements into force. As I said, we expect to publish that information next month. Of course, we will copy that information to the Royal British Legion and other veterans organisations. The allegation made this afternoon was that the Royal British Legion was not consulted on this statutory instrument. I believe that I have shown that that is not the case, and I hope that the Committee accepts that. The original letter was sent on 19 November, after which the Royal British Legion attended two meetingsin late December and early Januaryto discuss points in the letter and to get further briefing on the statutory instrument. I do not know who attended those meetings, but they were at official level. I cannot do more than that. We then sent out the letter of 13 January, which I placed on the record today. It is very clear, giving 22 days for any form of response. Most people would acceptcertainly the House and the Committee should acceptthat that is a reasonable period. It is not for me to judge where within the British Legion that letter went. It was sent and clearly constitutes part of a consultation process. We are committed to consultation with veterans organisations. The Committee should accept that following our debates on the 2004 Act, and the negotiations with different organisations that I have undertaken at different times. Column Number: 17 Mr. Howarth: The Minister has not answered my point about the explanatory memorandum. I do not want to be dancing on a pinhead, but it is important to avoid misrepresentation and I think that there might be a misunderstanding. The Royal British Legion received the letterI have no reason to doubt thatand there was then a meeting on 24 January. I understand that the Royal British Legion expected something further. I imagine that there were no more meetings between 24 January and the publication of the draft regulations. My question is whether it received the explanatory memorandum. Mr. Caplin: No, it did not, but if the meeting took place on 24 January, it is clear that the Royal British Legion received the letter of 13 January that the hon. Gentleman has said that it did not receive. There was not a breakdown of communications. The explanatory memorandum was not sent; it was the statutory instrument that the Committee has considered today that was enclosed with the letter on 13 January. For completeness, I will send a copy of the letter to all Committee members tomorrow, so that everyone has one. We will also place a copy in the Library. Column Number: 18 Mr. Burnett: I raised three points. First, will the Minister confirm that it is open to everyone to assist in representing a veteran? Secondly, where does the appeal lie from the pensions appeal tribunal? Finally, if an award is made and the condition deteriorates, I hope that there is always an opportunity to go back for a further award. Mr. Caplin: Representation at pension appeal tribunals is a matter for the Department for Constitutional Affairs, not the Ministry of Defence, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands. However, a veteran can take whomever they like to represent them. I will have to get back to him in writing with more detail on the other two questions. We have had a useful debate this afternoon, and I am grateful to the Committee for its time. In particular, I want to thank you for chairing this afternoons proceedings, Mrs. Anderson. I commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Resolved,
Committee rose at nineteen minutes to Four oclock. |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 11 February 2005 |