---

Revised Funding Code prepared by the Legal Services Commission

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I spoke to this Motion in the previous debate. I beg to move.

Moved, That the revised funding code laid before the House on 9 March be approved.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House adjourned at twelve minutes before eleven o'clock.

 
22 Mar 2005 : Column 67
 

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

Pensions Appeal Tribunals (Armed Forces and Reserve Forces Compensation Scheme) (Rights of Appeal) Regulations 2005

Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 (Amendment) Order 2005

Extradition Act 2003 (Part 3 Designation) (Amendment) Order 2005

Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) (Amendment) Order 2005

Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum-Seekers) Regulations 2005

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice) Order 2005

World Conference on Women

Tuesday, 22 March 2005.

The Committee met at half past three of the clock.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood) in the Chair.]

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Lockwood): Before the Minister moves the first order to be considered, it may be helpful if I say a word about the procedure for today's Grand Committee. Our proceedings are essentially the same as those in the House: noble Lords speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be reported in Hansard.

As there is more than one item of business today, each item will be called on by the Clerk unless it has already been considered with an earlier item. So far as the orders and regulations which are to be debated today are concerned, I should perhaps make it clear to noble Lords that this Committee is charged only to consider these items, not to approve or not approve them. The Motions to approve will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way.

I should remind the Committee that a time limit of one and a half hours applies to Unstarred Questions taken in Grand Committee. If there is a Division in the Chamber
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column GC68
 
while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn at the earliest convenient moment after the Division Bell is rung and resume after 10 minutes.

Pensions Appeal Tribunals (Armed Forces and Reserve Forces Compensation Scheme) (Rights of Appeal) Regulations 2005

3.32 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach) rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Pensions Appeal Tribunals (Armed Forces and Reserve Forces Compensation Scheme) (Rights of Appeal) Regulations 2005. [6th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may start by saying a few words about the late Lady Strange, who sadly died last week. Cherry Strange was a devoted supporter of the War Widows Association and served the association with great distinction as its president. She championed with outstanding success a number of issues on its behalf, most recently during the passage of the Bill that is now an Act for the new pension and compensation schemes. She persuaded the Government that widows of pre-1973 servicemen should retain their pensions on remarriage. She would no doubt have been pleased to hear the additional good news that, I think, was referred to publicly last week. She will, I am sure, be remembered above all by all noble Lords for her personal commitment to and involvement with the many wonderful ladies who make up the community of war widows. With her personal charm and genuine concern for the ordinary problems and concerns of those around her—whether war widows or other Members of this House—she became something of a legend in this House and in the country. She will be sadly missed.

The draft regulations that we are discussing today were laid before Parliament under Section 11A(5) of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943. This statutory instrument is subject to approval by resolution of both Houses and was considered in another place on 10 February. Members of the Committee will recall the passage of the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill through Parliament last year.

The Bill received Royal Assent on 18 November last year. It provided enabling powers to allow the Secretary of State to establish a new compensation scheme. Such a scheme—the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme—was made on 8 March and laid on 14 March. It is due to come into effect on 6 April 2005.

An important feature of earlier debates during the passage of the Act was the high regard in which our Armed Forces are held in all parts of your Lordships' House. Comments rightly paid tribute to their professionalism, courage and skill. The Ministry of Defence, as a good employer, is clear that we should make available high-quality conditions of service for all our service personnel.
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column GC69
 

Pensions and compensation arrangements are a key part of this, which is why we are due to introduce new schemes next month, which we believe are modern and fair and meet the needs of the Armed Forces in the 21st century. The new compensation scheme will replace the war pensions scheme for death or injury which is caused or worsened by service on or after 6 April 2005. It focuses better on the more severely injured and makes lump sum payments for pain and suffering. These new arrangements are strongly welcomed by the chiefs of staff, who see them as an important part of the package which offers a high level of assurance for service personnel and their families.

The purpose of this statutory instrument is to bring certain decisions made under the new scheme within the scope of the existing appeal framework that applies to decisions under the current war pensions scheme. The statutory instrument provides appeal rights where claimants are unhappy with the decision on their claim. As for the war pensions scheme, an appeal will lie in the first instance to a pensions appeal tribunal, which is recognised as being independent and fair.

It may be helpful if I briefly explain the statutory framework. The Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943 currently provides for a right of appeal against certain decisions under the war pensions scheme, including some which are referred to in the legislation as "specified decisions". That Act provides that the Secretary of State may, by statutory instrument made under the affirmative procedure, prescribe kinds of decisions under the war pension schemes as "specified decisions". The Act then provides a right of appeal against such decisions.

The 1943 Act has been amended by the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004 to provide a power to prescribe decisions made under the new compensation scheme as "specified decisions". The regulations now before the Committee specify the types of decisions under the compensation scheme which will be specified and so carry a right of appeal. It is proposed that decisions which determine whether an award should be payable or determine the amount which is to be payable will be defined as "specified decisions".

The Government have also concluded that it would be appropriate to have exceptions to the appeal rights and that these should be explicitly identified as shown in Regulation 3(2) of the statutory instrument. These exceptions would be where a decision either makes an interim award or suspends payment of benefit.

First, I shall clarify our position with regard to decisions on interim awards. These allow for a temporary payment of benefit where the prognosis for an injury is uncertain and the department is unable to take a final decision on the appropriate level of benefit to award. Decisions on awards will be made by the Veterans Agency. An interim award is designed to be only a temporary arrangement lasting no more than two years, by which time the Veterans Agency must make a final decision. It would not be sensible to have appeal rights which, given the changing nature of the condition, may in many cases be overtaken by events.
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column GC70
 

I am satisfied that by not allowing a right of appeal in respect of interim awards we will not breach an individual's human rights. On final assessment, the individual will always be paid arrears if a higher amount has been agreed. I can assure your Lordships that no amount will be recoverable from the individual if it transpires that the amount of the final award is lower than the interim award. I would also like to stress that the final award will, of course, be appealable.

Secondly, we intend not to have a right of appeal where a decision is made for payment of a benefit to be suspended. This would apply in cases where a decision made by the Pensions Appeal Tribunal or, perhaps, at the next level, by the social security commissioners, was challenged by the department. Until the appeal is determined, it would seem reasonable to withhold payment, especially as there may be a potentially significant impact on public funds. In doing so, the Government are not proposing anything which could be considered less generous to claimants in comparison to their current appeal rights.

The draft appeal regulations have been discussed with officials from the Department for Constitutional Affairs with regard to identifying good practice on appeals matters. A copy of the appeal regulations has been seen by the presidents of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals and the major ex-service organisations. I should add that there has been no adverse reaction to our proposals.

The Government have put together a good package of pensions and compensation benefits for our Armed Forces. Part of this, the new compensation scheme, represents a good deal for service personnel under proper, modern employment terms. Clearly, one aspect of this is for service personnel to be given a right of appeal against a decision on their claim which they think to be wrong. I believe that the proposed appeal regulations are generous in this respect and fully meet that need. The regulations cover the important areas where there is likely to be disagreement over someone's claim, namely whether compensation is awarded or the amount of benefit paid.

This brings me to one last observation about the statutory instrument. The Government have given an undertaking that Ministers moving statutory instruments which are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure will inform the House whether they are satisfied that the statutory instruments are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I can assure the Committee that, in my opinion, these regulations are compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend them to the Committee.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Pensions Appeal Tribunals (Armed Forces and Reserve Forces Compensation Scheme) (Rights of Appeal) Regulations 2005 [6th report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bach.)

---