§ 7. Mr. Willisasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware that pension increases, in certain cases, are not being dated back to 19th December, 1945; and if he will take steps to ensure that the general provisions affecting these increases, as set out in the statement made on 15th April, 1946, are observed.
Mr. DugdaleIncreases of pensions under the scheme for re-assessment for war service are in all cases paid retrospectively to 19th December, 1945, where men are so entitled. Men who were not released by that date have, their pensions re-assessed as from the date of release, all their service up to the date of release being taken into account. They are not entitled to restrospective payment to a date earlier than their release
§ Mr. WillisWill my hon. Friend give me an assurance that, where this has not been carried out, he will look into it and take steps to see that the increases are made retrospective to that date, because the Admiralty are at present treating these men in a rather niggardly fashion?
§ Mr. W. J. BrownCan the Minister tell us what proportion of the total number of increased pensions given under the 1945 arrangement have, in fact, been paid out?
§ 8. Mr. Willisasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, if he is aware that one condition of receipt of a reassessed pension is that it shall be drawn in weekly payments; and whether he will make arrangements for offering pensioners the option of receiving their pensions in quarterly payments.
Mr. DugdaleIt is appreciated that some pensioners who were entitled to draw their pensions quarterly under the old code would prefer to continue to do so. It was, however, a necessary condition of the new code that all such pensions should be paid on the weekly system. I might add, 1292 however, that weekly paid pensions need not be drawn each week; they may be left to accumulate for any period not exceeding 13 weeks.
§ Mr. WillisWill my hon. Friend consider carrying out the existing arrangement in view of the fact that it would save a considerable amount of work, and. I imagine, manpower as well?
Mr. DugdaleI think they have got the option. If they like, they can leave it for 13 weeks, which is, in fact, a quarter.
§ 9. Mr. Willisasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, if he is aware that, when calculating reckonable years for purposes of re-assessing pensions, periods over six months and less than one year are being ignored; that this is contrary to the statement made on 15th April, 1946; and if he will take steps to ensure that such periods are counted as a full year.
Mr. DugdaleIn the statement referred to by my hon. Friend, the concession whereby an officer was allowed to count six months or over as one year was for a particular purpose only. This was in fixing the proportion of the difference between the old and new code pensions to which an officer would be entitled. This is being done in re-assessing pensions for retired officers.
§ Mr. WillisIf I send my hon. Friend particulars of cases where that is not being done, and where periods of over 10 months are being ignored, will he look into the matter?