HC Deb 07 June 1978 vol 951 cc330-40

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

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Andrew Bowden (Brighton, Kemptown)

As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for British limbless ex-Service men, I am pleased to have the opportunity of bringing to the attention of the House some of the problems facing the 2,800 limbless ex-Service men from the First World War. Their numbers on 31st December 1976 were 3,279. They are now down to just over 2,800. The comparable Second World War figures are 9,873 on 31st December 1976 and 9,700 at the present time. The average age of the First World War limbless ex-Service men is between 84 and 85 years. It is inevitable that nearly all of them will be dead in six years.

I do not think that anyone in the House would deny that the First World War was the bloodiest and most appalling war in our history. Conditions in the trenches and the conditions under which our men had to serve are beyond description. We can only read about them. The men about whom I am talking went through that hell.

Of the 2,800 limbless survivors, 44 lost both legs, two lost both arms, three lost an arm and a leg, 900 lost one arm and the rest lost one leg. Nearly all would have borne the burden of amputation, many under hideous medical conditions, and they will have worn artificial equipment for over 60 years.

Earlier this year I had the privilege of attending the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association's annual conference in Bournemouth. Every time I have the chance of going to that annual conference I find it an inspiration and a humbling experience to see the determination and dogged courage of those men who have suffered so much for so long.

I am sure that the majority of hon. Members believe that war pensioners and the war disabled and, indeed, war widows, are a unique and special group and that they must continue to be treated as such. There is some fear among the members of BLESMA that their special position could be undermined. That was expressed at their annual conference at Bournemouth this year when they passed a motion which read: That this Conference expresses regret and concern at the attitude of certain MPs towards the provisions of the war blinded and, by implication, the war disabled in general; requests them, and others in influential places, to cease intermeddling in the hard-won compensation war disability and allowances awarded for sacrifices made in the national interest in two World Wars and other engagements, and resolves that any threat to devalue this compensation will be met with action and a severe rebuff by the limbless ex-Servicemen of this country. I turn to the specific problems facing the First World War limbless group, who are indeed a specifically identifiable group. They fall into two main categories. First, there is compensation for loss of limb. There is a growing feeling among these men that they are not receiving fair treatment in relation to other groups with more recent service.

As the House knows, there are three categories of war disablement pension rates and allowances. First, there are those arising from service prior to 1969. Secondly, there are those who were disabled as a result of service between 1969 and 31st March 1973. Thirdly, there are those who became disabled after 31st March 1973.

Let us see what this means in cash terms. Let us take the example of a Service man who has lost a limb and who is on a 50 per cent. disablement assessment. The figures that I shall give are rough because each individual case varies. The First World War limbless ex-Service man would be receiving £17 per week compensation. The Service man who was disabled between 1969 and 31st March 1973 would be receiving £27 a week. The Serviceman who was dis- abled from April 1973 onwards would be receiving at least £35 a week.

I do not believe that one could say that that is fair and equitable. Indeed, it is intolerable and grossly unfair. This was emphasised in another motion at the BLESMA conference at Bournemouth in April this year. The motion read: This Conference calls upon Her Majesty's Government to accept that compensation for disablement and widowhood resulting from Service in Her Majesty's Forces must be equitable as between one person and another, irrespective of the date upon which the disablement or widowhood was sustained, and that the system of ex gratia balancing payments as currently awarded in respect of service in Northern Ireland prior to 31st March 1973, be extended to include all war disablement pensioners". I turn to the question of mobility. The majority of First World War limbless ex-Service men are unable to take up their entitlement to a Ministry car. I understand that about 200 of them have cars, but the majority are too disabled, too old, cannot drive or cannot obtain the services of a nominated driver. Surely, on the basis of fairness and justice, it can be overwhelmingly argued that such men should be entitled to receive a private car maintenance allowance, which they would receive if they had a car.

What am I asking the Minister to do for this exceptional group who made such sacrifices for their country? First, there should be immediately an additional £10 a week ex gratia payment for life for those 2,800 men. Secondly, there should be a £250 payment in lieu of the private car maintenance allowance. What would that cost? It would cost just over £2 million a year. In the context of Government expenditure of £69,000 million a year I cannot believe that it is impossible to find that sum.

I ask the Minister of State to consult tomorrow morning with his colleague the Minister responsible for the disabled, to seek an appointment with the Secretary of State and to present the case to him. He should ask the Secretary of State to take the case of these men to the Cabinet and to ask for the £2 million. I go further. I would hope that if this money were not forthcoming within one month, both the Minister of State and his ministerial colleague who is responsible for the disabled would make it clear that their resignations would be on the table. If the Minister went as far as that I have no doubt that the £2 million would be made available.

As our country moves into calmer economic waters, those who sacrificed so much in such a bloody ghastly war must not be forgotten.

10.10 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Services (Mr. Roland Moyle)

My hon. Friend the Minister with special responsibilities for war pensions would normally have replied to this debate, but he has asked me to express his regret that he is unfortunately unable to do so. I am sure, however, that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) will appreciate the great personal as well as ministerial interest that my hon. Friend has always shown in the war disabled.

We are very grateful to the hon. Member for taking the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the problems of elderly war pensioners and, in particular, of those who lost limbs in the service of their country. He has concentrated on the difficulties which face those First World War pensioners who are limbless ex-Service men—some 2,500 of them—but I must make the point at the outset that altogether there are still some 35,000 disablement pensioners from the First World War, along with some 19,000 of their widows, and that my hon. Friend the Minister with special responsibility for war pensioners also has a concern for the welfare of a further 259,000 disablement pensioners from the Second World War and subsequent hostilities, together with 63,000 war widows. In fact, all told there are still not far short of 400,000 war pensions in payment to disablement pensioners, their widows and other dependants.

It was only just over a month ago that my hon. Friend was present at the annual conference of the British Limbless Ex-servicemen's Association at Bournemouth, when he was able to tell the representatives there about the latest improvements it has been possible to make in provisions for war pensioners—namely, the substantial improvements in the private car maintenance allowances and the extension of automatic entitlement to a war widow's pension to every case where a war pensioner was in receipt of constant attendance allowance at his death, regard- less of the rate at which that allowance was being paid. The general secretary of BLESMA made it clear to him then—and quite rightly so—that whilst the ex-Service organisations were indeed grateful for what the Government were able to do, they were by no means convinced, as the Minister himself is not convinced, that nothing more remained to be done.

However, great improvements have been made over the years. For instance the 100 per cent. disablement pension for a private—the rate which some 3,000 1914 war pensioners are now receiving—will be £31.90 a week from next November. Moreover, every such pensioner will be entitled to age allowance of £6.80, bringing the total up to £38.70. If he has been unable to work and earn himself a retirement pension because of his disablement then he will also be getting unemployability allowance for himself of £20.75 and £11.70 for a wife. And along with that will go comforts allowance of at least £2.70 plus, where constant attendance is needed, a further allowance which ranges from £6.35 for those needing what is known as "half-day" attention, to £25.40 for those needing a great deal of such help.

And the higher rates of constant attendance allowance carry with them exceptionally severe disablement allowance which will be £12.70 a week from next November. Finally, the limbless ex-Service man does, of course, also qualify for clothing allowance of £27 a year, or £43 in the case of a double amputee. All these benefits are tax free.

How does this compare with what the disabled ex-Service man from the First World War received when he came out of the forces? In 1917, the 100 per cent. rate of pension was £1.37½, and in 1919 it rose to £2, and that was that. None of the additional allowances to which I have referred, apart from constant attendance allowance, existed, and if successive Governments had done no more than keep the 100 per cent. rate of pension in line with prices over the years, all the severely disabled men from the First World War would now be receiving a pension of about £12.23, which is a considerable contrast with what is being provided today.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I would certainly like to accede to the pleas made so movingly on behalf of elderly ex-Service men. When the hon. Member says that the Government should provide some additional benefit for these men in the evening of their lives so that they are not at such a disadvantage by comparison with those who have recently been invalided from the Armed Forces with attributable injuries, my natural desire is to say that the Government will do so, if not at once, then as and when the resources become available. But I cannot in all honesty say that to the hon. Member.

It was a bone of contention between the previous Conservative Government and all the ex-Service organisations, as it has been since 1974, that the benefits of the Armed Forces pension scheme which was introduced from 31st March 1973 do not apply to ex-Service men who left the Services before that date. I think that that is the nub of the argument.

The argument which the ex-Service organisations make and which was again effectively deployed by the hon. Member this evening is that of equity. The hon. Member argued that it should be a matter of indifference when a man was injured in the defence of his country, so far as compensation is concerned, and that regardless of that date he should receive the same payment. I know that the emphasis has been laid on First World War pensioners tonight but, as the hon. Member has made clear, I think that he would regard some additional help for them as being merely a first step in the achievement of a goal of equity for all those whose service antedates 1973.

Why cannot we, like the former Conservative Government, accept this particular argument? It is not just a matter of cost. It is also a matter of principle. The purpose of the new Armed Forces pension scheme is to provide for the regular Service man an occupational pension which mirrors the improvements made in the Civil Service, police and other public service schemes in recent years. The extension of the occupational scheme based on length of service and the rate of pay for rank held on retirement brought in the new concept of minimum levels of compensation in those cases in which invalidity or death in service could be attributed to Service factors.

Where applying the standard rules does not provide a pension which reaches the relevant minimum level, provision exists for additional payments to bring the occupational pension scheme up to this required level. As is the case with all occupational pension schemes, there is no retrospection, and the new provisions apply only to Regular forces serving on or after 31st March 1973.

Mr. Bowden

Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why a principle would be broken if an ex gratia payment were to be given to a limbless World War ex-Service man but is not broken when an ex gratia payment is given to a severely disabled man from Northern Ireland?

Mr. Moyle

I do not think that "exgratia payments" is the appropriate term. There are proper schemes for dealing with people who are injured in Northern Ireland and proper provision is made for them.

I shall go on to explain the differences between the pre-1973 situation and the post-1973 situation. The difference between the war pension scheme administered by the Department of Health and Social Security and the Armed Forces pension scheme of the Ministry of Defence is that one is a flat-rate scheme based on loss of faculty, whilst the other, the Armed Forces pension scheme, is an occupational pension scheme providing benefits for Regular Service men ivalided out of the Service before they can complete their careers and for the widows of those killed in service before their careers are completed.

The Ministry of Defence scheme is career-oriented. Probably that is best illustrated by the example of the Regular Service man who has only a short period of service and whose injury is directly attributable to service. He receives a substantial payment as compensation for the loss of his career prospects. But the man who has almost completed the full term of his Service career and is, therefore, entitled to the normal way to a full career pension gets no advantage from an invaliding pension because his Service career and prospects have not been reduced by the invaliding disability.

I must emphasise again that these Armed Forces pension scheme pensions are occupational in the full sense of the term. Consequently the attributable supplement does not cover the Service man who was invalided but not from attributable causes. He gets the normal invaliding pension if any; and there is no attributable element where a Service man completes his engagement in the normal way and after leaving the Service claims and gets a war pension, for his Service career has been in no way hindered.

I entirely accept that it is no solace to a pensioner from the First or for that matter the Second World War or later service who sees that the Service man injured, for instance in Northern Ireland, receives not only a war pension at the same rate as he does but very often a substantial occupational pension as well. But I cannot accept that, because the Ministry of Defence has modernised and vastly improved the provision it makes for serving soldiers nowadays, the war pensions scheme can, or indeed should, attempt to provide the equivalent benefits.

We are not in that case running an occupational pensions scheme. We are running a loss of faculty scheme. We pay the same benefit regardless of whether a man was injured in the First War, the Second War, Aden, Cyprus, Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the service of his country. It has been the concern of my hon. Friend—as it has been that of his predecessors of whatever party, for happily party politics have never entered into the war pensions arena—to ensure, as I have shown earlier, that the benefits provided under this loss of faculty scheme are fully maintained and when possible improved in their real value.

The hon. Member also argued the case for providing some form of mobility allowance for the use of First World War veterans—or, if not a mobility allowance, some other benefit which would give them some extra mobility income. I am sure the hon. Member would agree that it would hardly be possible to confine such help to limbless pensioners. The man immobilised by disease contracted during service must be equally deserving and since the group's average age is now about 84, frankly it has to be expected that the ageing process alone will have rendered many of them virtually unable to walk regardless of their pensioned disability. So, while I fully appreciate the difficulties of the war pensioner, I do not honestly see how it would be possible to introduce a mobility allowance for this group who already, as I have explained, have the tax-free age allowance.

What the hon. Member is asking for is an entirely new and special war pensioners' mobility allowance for those who have never been covered by the war pensioners' vehicle service and who are beyond the normal age limits for mobility allowance. Frankly, I cannot envisage the situation in which any Government would consider it acceptable to introduce a new benefit at this stage in the life of the war pensions scheme.

It is one thing to maintain the existing preferences. This, as the hon. Member knows, is something which my hon. Friend has been much concerned to do and indeed to ease the rules for these existing benefits wherever it has proved possible. But as for a new benefit, I do not think I can do better than use a phrase which will immediately be familiar to the hon. Member as one which is frequently employed by the general secretary of BLESMA himself—"It's just not on, you know".

Finally, I would like to say just a word about the work of our welfare service. Throughout the country there are 79 welfare officers of the war pensioners welfare service, who are supported by members of the war pensions committees, voluntary workers attached to those committees and of course the welfare officers of the ex-Service organisations such as the Royal British Legion and the ex-Service men's associations.

During 1977 my Department's welfare officers carried out 86,000 interviews, of which 16,800 were with disablement pensioners from the First World War and all First World War pensioners in receipt of unemployability supplement or constant attendance allowance or have a pension of 50 per cent. or more are on the regular visiting list. Their concern is to help with a wide variety of welfare problems such as housing, homes, nursing care, treatment, various aides and the general problems of old age.

In my own visits to pensioners in their homes in various parts of the country over the past 18 months, I have seen something of the value of those services and I wish to take this opportunity publicly, on behalf of the whole House, of thanking the welfare officers very sincerely for all they are doing to improve the quality of life for the seriously disabled war pensioner.

I am sorry that I have had to give the hon. Gentleman a reply which is by no means as helpful as he would hope. The objectives which he has advanced are not those to which I can lend the Government's support. But, as he is well aware, this does not mean that we do not share his concern that war pensioners should continue to get a fair deal and that the special position which they hold in the community should be preserved. My ministerial colleague who has responsibility for war pensioners, the other Ministers concerned and myself have made it our concern that this should be the case. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Ten o'clock.