HC Deb 23 January 1970 vol 794 cc961-72

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hamling.]

Mr. Frank Judd (Portsmouth, West)

It seems appropriate that we are considering this subject this afternoon at the end of a week in which we have been concerned with the future of social security and pensions and have had a far-reaching debate on the motivation for public expenditure in which hon. Members on both sides have expressed their convictions about the importance of public expenditure to the quality of life.

The problem which I am raising is well known to many hon. Members on ail sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy has become well aware of and deeply concerned about this matter in the course of his constituency responsibilities. The hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) had hoped to take part in this debate but for her unfortunate indisposition.

The point with which we are concerned is that before 1950 the widows of retired commissioned officers of the armed forces were granted pensions related to their husbands' retired pay. Widows of pensioners from other ranks were not so entitled. In 1950 widows of some other ranks pensioners became eligible for pensions based on the same conditions as the widows of retired officers. The new regulations, however, applied only to those men who went to pension on or after 1st September, 1950. Widows of men who were pensioned before that date were excluded. Even some who were pensioned after that date were excluded, for several years.

The regulation was made over 19 years ago, and despite many protests it still applies today. The only difference is that in the interval many of these widows have died and relieved the Ministry of Defence of further responsibility. In the course of time the remainder will also die, and unless something is done in the meantime it is true that the problem will by the year 2000 or thereabouts have been finally resolved at no expense to the country at all.

I constantly receive letters on this theme. Some have come in recently from which I should like to quote. One is from North End, Portsmouth, from somebody who writes: My husband served full time in the Navy and was discharged in September 1933, being recalled to service again in 1939, until demobilisation. He was taken ill and died in 1947. I have always thought it very unfair that a wife was not granted even a few shillings of the pension. Another letter, again from somebody in North End, says: I retired from the Royal Marines on 9th October, 1937, on pension and I am 71 years of age. I enjoy fairly good health at present, but one never knows. Naturally my wife gets very concerned about what will happen if anything should happen to me and she is left. Another is from the Landport part of my constituency: My husband was in the Navy from a boy aged 15. During the war he was on convoys, and while on duty had an accident to his eye. He lost the sight of the eye and later it had to be removed. Some said that he had cancer and died from it. He was discharged from the Navy with disability pension and long service pension. They both went when he died. Then from another of my constituents, living in Portsea, My husband was in the Royal Marines for 27 years and was 20 years in the ward room of H.M.S. "Vernon". When he passed away four years ago this May his pensions were handed over, and I get just the widows pension. I applied to Greenwich for a grant and as I was not then 65 I was told to apply for Social Security. The case on which I shall concentrate this afternoon is typical and concerns Mrs. N. who also lives at Portsmouth. Mr. N. served in the Royal Navy for 22 years, and was pensioned as a chief petty officer in 1936 at the age of 42. He then served in a civilian capacity in the dental department of a naval shore establishment for eight years. He subsequently worked as a state registered nurse in a local hospital for 14 years. In all, Mr. N. served 44 years in public service. He died in January, 1966.

Mrs. N.'s income is now £5 a week national retirement pension earned by her own contributions. On 15th August, 1968, Mrs. N. wrote to the Principal Director of Accounts (Naval) asking why she had not been granted a Service widow's pension. She was told, briefly, that since her husband came to pension before 1st September, 1950, she was not entitled but that she could, if she so wished, apply for a charitable award under the Greenwich Hospital Pensions Scheme. That, of course, is a standard letter which is sent to all widows in a similar situation. After her husband had served 44 years in public service, she was told that the only suggestion which the Government could make was that she should ask for charity.

Mrs. N. is now 70. Her expectation of life is somewhat limited. Compare her case with that of a very much younger widow aged 40 whose husband came to pension in 1969 and died shortly afterwards. She would receive a pension, on the latest chief petty officers' scale, of £2 5s. a week, with the expectation of drawing a pension for another 30 years before reaching Mrs. N's present age. Moreover, every time that service pensions were adjusted, hers would be adjusted accordingly without having to wait 20 years for the first increase, as would have been the case with her husband's pension had he survived. Obviously this younger widow should get a pension, and it should be adjusted regularly to allow for the rise in the cost of living. But this only accentuates the injustice to Mrs. N. If the country can afford to pay this much younger widow a pension for nearly half her lifetime, why cannot it afford to pay smaller pensions to Mrs. N and other widows in the same situation for the rest of their limited days? Mrs. N's pension would work out at approximately £1 17s. a week.

After reading that Armed Forces pensions were to be increased, Mrs. N wrote to me last year asking if I could help her and others in the same situation. I passed her letter to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy. The points made in his reply are as follows.

First, the problem has been considered several times, in particular prior to the passage of the 1965 and 1969 Pensions Increases Acts. On both occasions, the Government decided that the limited financial resources available for improvements in existing pensions were adequate to allow only the pensions to existing pensioners to be increased, and could not be stretched to cover as well the widows of those who retired from the services without the expectation of a pension for their wives should they pre-decease them.

Secondly, there are widows of other public service pensioners in a similar position, and in no case was there any general retrospective application of the scheme to include widows of existing pensioners. Thirdly, Mrs. N could be assured that the matter would be kept under constant review.

It is worth noting that in November of last year the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) was approached on behalf of widows in similar terms to those used to me. In his reply, he said that the policy group set up by the Conservative Party three years ago had considered every possible aspect of public service and Armed Forces pensions. His view was that the cut-off date must remain and that he could not see how the conditions of service men who had retired over 20 years ago could now be rewritten. Presumably, that is also the view of the policy group which he quoted.

In saying that he did not see how the conditions of service men who had retired over 20 years ago could now be rewritten, the right hon. Member should have noticed that some Army pensioners' widows were granted pensions up to nine years after 1950 although until then they had not been entitled. That was done to bring the widows of all three Services into line. If the regulations can be amended once to bring in widows who previously were not entitled, they can be amended again.

Reflecting on their plight, the widows might be forgiven for thinking that because their husbands have died and their pensions have died with them, the country is being saved that expenditure and that, even if they were granted pensions equal to one-third of their husbands' pensions, the remaining two-thirds would still be saved.

When the Minister talks of increases in existing pensions swallowing up all the available money and leaving none for Mrs. N. and her like, he should be reminded of an observation made in this House on 12th July, 1968, by the then Minister of Social Security. Referring to the so-called increases in supplementary benefits, she said: In terms of public expenditure, this up-rating in supplementary benefit does not involve an increase in public expenditure as it is measured because of the constant price element which is involved in public expenditure. The supplementary benefit uprating next autumn is being made solely to compensate for rising prices. Therefore, although in money terms the cost is about £44 million, since all this sum is to enable the rates to keep in line with prices none of it counts as an increase in public expenditure at constant prices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th July, 1968; Vol. 768, c. 928] As to entitlement, the Minister is saying that the pre-1950 widows have no entitlement simply because 19 years ago a regulation was made. But regulations can be amended or cancelled if they are found to be no longer desirable or necessary.

The Minister, in his reply to me, described these widows as the widows of those men who had retired from the services without the expectation of a pension for their wives should they predecease them. If this kind of argument is to be used at all, it would be far more relevant to consider what the conditions of service were at the time when the husbands signed a contract to complete time for pension rather than the conditions after they have been pensioned. This was a contract, signed 10 years before their retirement date, from which, having once signed, they could not escape. The contract did not specifically state that their wives would not be entitled to widows' pensions. This was a condition imposed on them after they had retired.

The contracts of men going to pension after 31st August, 1950, and up to 31st August, 1960, did not contain any agreement to pay their widows pensions. Nor was any such condition implied until 1st September, 1950. Yet their widows will receive pensions.

There is another matter which I must mention briefly. It concerns the widows and, of course, the prospective widows of men who were promoted to temporary commissioned rank during the last war and were allowed to retain those ranks on final retirement. These officers were pensioned on their original other ranks pensions modified for war service. Because of this, the regulations governing other ranks' widows pensions are applied to them as though they had never held commissioned rank, although many of them held such rank for many years. Notwithstanding that, should they not have given service after 1st September, 1950, their widows would not be entitled to any service pension at all.

I would refer to the case of a major living in Portsmouth. He was discharged from the Army as a warrant officer, second class, in 1937 after 21 years' service. He joined the Army Reserve, Section E, as a W.O.2, and was recalled to active service in August, 1939. He was commissioned as a lieutenant in 1941, awarded the M.B.E., promoted to major, and finally retired after the war. Not a bad record, as anyone in the House will agree.

However, as his service since 1939 was counted for pension only as an extension of his previous other rank's service, his 1937 pension was adjusted for the additional service, and the basic condition of that pension means that his widow will not be entitled to a Service widow's pension, despite his years as a commissioned officer.

It is sometimes suggested that there was not an outcry about these regulations when they were introduced. The reason is very understandable. The real human aspect of the story, the real deprivation to be suffered by widows, has not become clear until much later. It is really no argument to say that because the people to be affected had not foreseen the situation at the time of the new regulations their case should not be advanced as forcefully as possible at this stage.

Pensioners of the Armed Forces who retired from active service before 1st September, 1950, and whose pensions will die with them unless this discriminatory regulation is abolished, endured the hardest conditions of service, on the lowest rates of pay, with minimal comforts and maximum separation from their wives and families. They all served in at least one world war—many in both. They were pensioned on the lowest pension rates, with no gratuities, and had to wait up to 20 years for so-called increases on these miserably poor pensions, and they now live with the knowledge that their widows will get no Service widow's pension at all.

Can we accept such ingratitude to the men who gave the best part of their working lives to the service of their country? I believe that, in view of the smaller scale of the problem now, there is, if anything, less excuse for failure to act decisively by the Government. I hope that we shall receive some assurances from the Minister.

4.25 p.m.

The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. Roy Hattersley)

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) has drawn attention to what he described as "the plight of those widows of Service pensioners who do not qualify for a widow's pension from defence funds". This is a subject about which the Ministry receives very considerable correspondence, and it is a subject which has a direct constituency interest for my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State of Defence for the Royal Navy.

It is because of the general interest in the subject, as much as because of the terms in which my hon. Friend put his case, for he put it with a great deal of precision, that it is important that, on behalf of the Government, I should begin my reply by redefining the category of widow about whom my hon. Friend has spoken. My hon. Friend did it in part, and I hope that he will forgive me if, in part, I repeat his definition, and if, in part I extend it.

The pension with which the title of the debate is explicitly concerned is awarded in respect of a husband's service. It is not a pension payable to the dependants of Servicemen who have died on, or as a result of, service. My hon. Friend will forgive me for saying that one of the examples which he gave perhaps comes in that category, rather than in the general category. It is the pension payable as a result of death on or as a result of service. This pension, the "attributable" or war widow's pension, has been the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Security and its predecessors since the beginning of the last war. There is no complaint in this field. All widows, regardless of when, or for how long, their husbands served receive pensions if the death of their husbands was the result of their service.

The position of a Service pensioner's widow is, however, a great deal more difficult quickly to define. Widows of officers and warrant officers class I have been entitled to pensions for more than 100 years. Widows of other ranks were not entitled until the Forces Family Pension Scheme was introduced in 1952.

The House will recall that during the five or six years which followed the Second World War there was a great extension of pension schemes, widows' benefit, and other forms of health or sickness assurance, both public and private. Amongst them were a number of new or improved occupational schemes, some of which included provisions for widows. The Civil Service scheme was introduced in 1949. Within a few years came the local government scheme, the National Health Service scheme, and the teachers' scheme.

None of those schemes provided cover for widows of any employees who had left employment before the scheme came into being. I say that not to pretend that because the rule is of universal application it is any the less harsh. I say it simply to put the matter into perspective, and the perspective is that there are a large number of Crown employees who, like other ranks in the Armed Forces, possess no entitlement to a pension for their widows beyond what they have arranged privately.

The revised benefit for widowhood under the National Insurance Acts came into force on 5th July, 1948. Under these Acts large groups who had not been contributors to the previous scheme were excluded from cover and, indeed, from the possibility of contributing to the scheme if, at that time, they were 65 or over. Others who rated for benefit under the original scheme did not necessarily gain an entitlement in the new one. That is the result of the fact, the hard fact, that new pension schemes almost invariably do not, and usually cannot, provide benefits for members whose acquisition of entitlement somehow depends on the notion of service before the date of the scheme's inception.

Side by side with the many other improvements in widows' benefits brought about in the early 1950s came the new Services scheme in 1952. It covered all ranks and superseded the scheme for officers and warrant officers class I, which was restricted by provisions thought, and rightly so, generally to be inappropriate in the middle of the 20th century. The new scheme took effect from 1st December, 1952. It was non-contributory.

In addition to the widows who would have been entitled under the old scheme, it provided entitlement to pension for widows of other ranks provided their husbands had completed a minimum period of reckonable service. For warrant officers class II and staff sergeants it was 22 years—the normal length of service which qualified them for an ordinary service pension. For sergeants it was 27 years and for corporals and below 32 years.

In 1958, the scheme was changed again and provided a new entitlement to pension for a widow whose husband died on or after 4th November of that year. The only proviso was that the man qualified for pension, or would have so qualified had he been invalided out of the forces on the date of his death. As a result of that scheme, Service pensions were for the first time calculated on the same basis for all ranks. Initially, the pension was at a flat rate varying according to rank, but taking no account of length of service. Since 1963, however, all Service widows' pensions have been calculated either on the basis of one-third of the husband's Service pension or, if it is more favourable, a minimum flat rate varying with rank.

In assessing the husband's pension when he dies before reaching the age of 60, the additions to which he would have been entitled under various pension increases on his 60th birthday are counted, and the new scheme also incorporated a provision by which widows of men whose death was attributable to service might also receive the modified widows' pension if they qualified for it.

When the original scheme for other ranks' widows' pensions was introduced in 1952, it specified that its conditions applied to and its benefits were limited to widows whose husbands gave service on or after 1st September, 1950. The qualifying date is the nub of this debate. For the widow of the man discharged before 1st September, 1950, remains ineligible for a pension regardless of her husband's length of service or the date on which he died. Of course, the date chosen, as my hon. Friend rightly said, appeared to be an arbitrary choice, as any date would have done. But a choice there had to be and 1st September, 1950, was chosen for good reasons. That date marked the introduction of a new code of ordinary Service pensions for the Armed Forces drawn up as a result of the post-war pay and pensions review. This review introduced many other improvements in conditions of Service. They included increases in pay, revised rates of marriage allowance, and cash inducements for re-enlistment and extended engagement.

The new pension rates which were part of this package applied to men who had given service beyond 1st September, 1950. With this new pension code a new feature was introduced—a lump sum terminal grant to help with resettlement. All these measures constituted a new deal for the Armed Forces and it was reasonable that the date of the new deal and the widows' pension provisions should coincide as part of the general scheme.

There have been many representations—and I take my hon. Friend's point about the absence of representations at the beginning of the scheme, which is not the point at which one would expect them—that the provisions of this scheme should be extended to cover widows of men who were discharged and pensioned before 1st September, 1950. These amount to a plea for the retrospective application of the scheme.

Retrospection in this field cannot be considered independently of retrospection in other areas of public service pensions or, indeed, in isolation from the general provisions of the National Insurance Acts. For reasons of cost alone, and, indeed, I would add, for reasons of equity, it is impossible in our provisions to cover beneficiaries whose benefit depends on back-dating beyond the date of the scheme's creation.

The Government's policy in this field—and this applies equally to the widows referred to in the title of the debate as to others—is to rely on supplementary benefits as a safety net which catches those in need. In a debate on a Private Member's Bill in the House on 7th February last year, the Secretary of State for Social Services dealt at length both with the principle on which such schemes must be based and on the success the supplementary benefit scheme has had in assisting those people who fall outside the principles of the scheme.

Mr. Judd

rose—

Mr. Hattersley

I have only a minute and a half left, so I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way. I think that he will want to hear the rest of what I have to say.

For our part, we cannot make an estimate of how many widows of Service pensioners would be affected were we to decide retrospectively to extend the provisions. I think that my hon. Friend is wrong to assume that there has been a reduction over the years. Certainly, the widows of some pensioners have died but equally other pensioners have died themselves, and our estimate, although it is only rough, is that the number is now about 30,000 and is probably greater than it was 10 years ago.

The title of the debate, as on the Order Paper, describes the predicament of the widows, but there is no reason to assume that all the 30,000 will suffer from the absence of the widow's pension. Some will have been widowed when young and will have married again. The husbands of others will have died only recently having enjoyed a successful second career. At the other extreme there are, of course, extreme cases, but we believe these to number only a few who have been widowed a number of years and may even not enjoy the benefits of the National Insurance retirement pension and depend entirely on supplementary benefit.

To them, as my right hon. Friend's speech made clear, supplementary benefit offers real assistance. But others may well regard the widows' pension to which they might be entitled, the one for which my hon. Friend argues, as almost irrelevant to their needs. For almost certainly the pre-1950 widows would receive a pension at a minimum rate, which, at best, would be little more than £1 a week and would make virtually no difference to their income. Some of the widows within the total would already be receiving war widows' pensions either from my Ministry, if the husband's service was pre-war, or from the Department of Health and Social Security. To them, pensions under the Forces Family Pension Scheme would be at modified rates and produce very little benefit.

I know that the argument my hon. Friend advances is as much concerned with principle as it is with the hardship of potential recipients, but, as he knows, my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and the whole Ministry have the greatest sympathy for the recipients, however small their number, for whom real hardship appertains. But there are two justifications which I can only repeat. A hardship should at least be mitigated by supplementary benefits, by rate rebates and by the other provisions administered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Social Services. As to the principle, any pension scheme has to be constructed on precise lines.

To alter its coverage and extend its entitlement to people who were not considered eligible when it was created, begins a process from which virtually no pension schemes could emerge solvent.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes to Five o'clock.