§ 3.39 pm
§ Mr. Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock)rose—[Interruption.]
§ Madam SpeakerOrder. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman for all the hon. Members chatting around him. He is so popular that I can hardly see him.
§ Mr. MackinlayI beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to report annually on service pensions, war pensions and war widows' pensions.The Bill would require the Government to present an annual report to Parliament on the value of service pensions, war pensions and war widows pensions, and related issues. It would also require the disclosure of details on the number of pensioners and the degree of sufficiency afforded by the various benefits, allowances and pensions, as well as details of the Government's plans to improve such benefits and pensions. The Secretary of State would be obliged to consider representations from both individuals and organisations involved with ex-service people and to consult them before presenting such a report to Parliament.
Such legislation is timely, because there is a growing body of opinion among all our constituents that the voice of those who made considerable sacrifices on behalf of the United Kingdom in the armed forces is not sufficiently reflected in our deliberations. I remind the House that the last time that we had a debate on veterans' issues was on 1 July 1996, when I won the ballot for a Friday morning debate—an opportunity now denied to Back Benchers. It is many years since a Prime Minister met in summit with the representatives of ex-service organisations. In other countries, such a situation would not endure. In the United States of America, all ex-service organisation have regular access to the highest levels of the Administration and to the President himself.
We need to create a culture whereby Government is much more sensitive to the needs of ex-service people. An identical Bill to my measure passed through all its stages after it was introduced in the House of Lords by Lord Morris of Manchester. If this Bill had been on the statute book and placed its duties on Government, the interests of those suffering from what we know as Gulf war syndrome, and related illnesses, might be substantially more advanced than they are. The indefensible anomaly whereby war widows pensions and war disablement pensions have different values in different local authority areas, would probably also have been resolved.
There is also the scandal of the "pensions trough". Often, the recommendations of the armed forces pay review body are implemented in stages and that disadvantages those retiring at certain times of the year, compared to their colleagues with identical service who retire at a different stage of the calendar year. If the Government were forced to make an annual report to the House, followed by a debate, on the state of war pensions, it would force us to address that issue.
I also wish to flag up the continuing disagreement between the ex-service organisations and the Government on the issue of noise-induced hearing loss. I believe that it 397 is proven that many ex-service men and, I suppose, some women have suffered a loss of hearing because of their war service. However, that is not sufficiently recognised by the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Social Security.
Before 1973, war widows campaigned for an improvement in their pensions. They achieved something for their successors in that the spouses of ex-service men and women retiring after 1973 were entitled to receive half the "spouses" pension on being widowed. Those who were widowed before 1973 still receive only one third of their spouses' retirement pension. I remind the House that that group includes the second world war generation and we are the beneficiaries of their sacrifice. Their number is diminishing and they are growing more frail. We have a duty and obligation to discriminate in their favour.
The Royal British Legion, the Officers Pension Society—which, despite its name, represents the interests of all ranks—and all the other ex-service organisations feel strongly that the Bill should be placed on the statute book as a discipline on Governments, of whatever political complexion, so that those issues are automatically addressed every year by the House of Commons. Another illustration of my case is the position of the spouses of ex-service men—and some women—who married their spouses after they had retired from the armed forces. There is appalling discrimination against them. Those who fall into that category, after 1978, may receive a war widows pension, but those who were in that category before 1978 do not. That discriminates badly against the older generation.
I do not want to detain the House, which has much to address itself to this afternoon. However, I did not realise a couple of weeks ago, when I decided to introduce the Bill, that I would do so on such a poignant day. In a few hours, the men and women of our armed forces may be required by Her Majesty's Government to put themselves in peril. Whenever forces are deployed, particularly in a war, accidents happen and there are injuries under enemy fire.
398 We hope and pray that casualties will be kept to a minimum if engagement in Kosovo proves inevitable. Throughout history, the House of Commons has rather glibly expected the men and women of our armed forces to put themselves in danger. We owe them a great debt, and I do not think that we repay it sufficiently. I hope that the men and women who will be deployed today and the men and women who have given service in the past will find favour with the Bill. I ask the House to endorse it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Syd Rapson, Mr. Ronnie Campbell, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. Martin Bell, Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Jim Dobbin, Dr. David Clark, Mr. Rhodri Morgan, Mr. Bob Russell and Mr. David Crausby.