§ 2.49 p.m.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations have been made by widows of ex-Servicemen, or on their behalf, for increased pensions; how many have applied for supplementary allowances; the number in receipt of such allowances; and the average amount paid.
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE)A number of representations have been received from both individual war widows and ex-Service organisations by my Department and by the Ministry of Defence. In November, 1972, 11,600 of the 100,000 war widow pensioners were in receipt of supplementary benefit. The average amount in payment was £2.32 a week.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, if it be considered desirable to provide a reasonable pension for those widows who were bereaved as a result of recent conflict, for example, in Ulster, why 1142 should not widows who were bereaved as a result of the Second World War, Aden and other conflicts be assured of a similar pension?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, there are two separate issues involved. One is the ex-Serviceman's pension, which is administered mostly by my Department and which also covers war widows; and the other issue is covered by the schemes run by the Ministry of Defence, one of which is the special scheme which applies to Northern Ireland and which the noble Lord has mentioned.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the fact that this very difficult matter is being administered by two separate Departments calls for immediate co-ordination? A reasonable pension should be given. Can the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, explain why this anomaly should continue?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, it is not an anomaly. This has always been the practice. One scheme is the basic scheme, rather like the National Insurance basic scheme which is run by my Department. Over and above that there are special schemes, for example, the new occupational schemes of the Ministry of Defence, which give additional benefit to people who are now serving on better terms of service than originally applied.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, would the noble Lord say quite categorically that those widows who were bereaved as a result of what happened in the Second World War and in Aden, and so on, are receiving as reasonable and decent a benefit by way of pension as those widows who were bereaved as the result of other conflicts?
§ LORD ABERDARENo, my Lords, they are not, because there are widows whose husbands were killed while serving in the First World War, and those men were serving on different terms of service. The fact is that they are treated considerably better; all Governments have treated them considerably better than they would be treated under the normal National Insurance scheme. They have considerable preferences over the widow in the National Insurance scheme. But there have recently been introduced improved terms of service by which people who are now serving are gaining 1143 the benefit. This is exactly what happens in any other walk of life when a new pension scheme is introduced.
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERMy Lords, when the Minister says that this has been the rule for a very long time, is he implying that if an anomaly goes on long enough it ceases to be anomalous?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, this is not an anomaly.
§ LORD MAYBRAY-KINGMy Lords, is the noble Lord, whose work in this field many of us admire, aware that every ex-Servicemen's association— AJAX, BLESMA, FEPOW, and the great Legion itself places first on its agenda at every annual conference the special claims of, the women who gave their husbands that we might be free?—that we recognise what the Minister has done, but that we hope he will still bear in mind the special claim of the widows of ex-Servicemen?
§ LORD ABERDAREIndeed, I will, my Lords. I thank the noble Lord for the kind references he made to myself and my Department. It is a fact that war widows do receive very special treatment, not only in respect of their basic pension but also in regard to special allowances; and they also benefit from a special disregard in respect to supplementary benefit. All this will continue and is continuing under the new Bill which uprates the various allowances.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, I feel I must pursue the matter a little further. I apologise for doing so, but this is an extremely important matter. In view of what the noble Lord has now stated—that the widows of those bereaved as a result of previous conflicts are not as well off, because of some technical difficulty or financial problem, as those who were bereaved in recent conflicts—may I ask the noble Lord to give an assurance that the Government will reconsider this matter at a later stage—perhaps soon after we resume in October? Would he give me an assurance that he will be able to inform your Lordships' House at that time that the matter has been settled in a more reasonable fashion?
§ LORD ABERDARENo, my Lords; I regret that I cannot give the noble Lord that undertaking. This is a completely new scheme—an occupational pension scheme of the Ministry of Defence—and it applies to those who are currently serving in Her Majesty's Forces. It cannot be retrospective in its application.
§ LORD WIGGMy Lords, is it not a fact that all Governments have treated with generosity the dependants of the soldiers who lost their lives in the First and Second World Wars, whereas the dependants of the ex-Servicemen who receive benefits under the Royal Warrant —and indeed the ex-Servicemen themselves—are heirs to quite a different tradition? In the first case the recipients receive their pensions under statutory authority, while others, like myself, my stepfather and my mother, receive our pensions by grace and favour—and there is pretty little grace and not very much favour.
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, I am afraid that that only underlines what I have been trying to say to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell: that people serve in Her Majesty's Forces under different conditions of service.
§ LORD WIGGBut, my Lords, is it not about time that the Government (I am not saying that the Conservative Government have been more mean than others but they have not been more generous) looked retrospectively, perhaps as far back as the South African War, and to those who enlisted before the First World War, and treated them with the same generosity as those who had the good fortune to be born some years later?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, the normal schemes run by my Department are generous and are uprated at regular intervals.
§ LORD CHALFONTMy Lords, is it not true that in fact the reason why this pension scheme cannot be made, as the noble Lord, said, retrospective—though that is a rather crude way of describing it—is entirely a matter of financial restriction; in other words, of not having enough money? Would it not be wiser for the noble Lord to say so? And would he also say why—and it seems to me extraordinary—he cannot assure my noble 1145 friend that at least the Government will look into this? Because, whatever the noble Lord may say, there seems to be a great anomaly here in that the dependants of those killed in previous wars are treated less generously than those who are serving now. This is an anomaly which should be put right. Would not the noble Lord assure the House that the Government will at least look into this?
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord that this is an anomaly; nor is it only a matter of finance. Certainly there is a very large sum of money involved, but the fact of the matter is that it would set an entire precedent for every other large pension scheme. When you have a pension scheme, it is only those people who are enrolled in that scheme who stand to gain by its benefits. That applies to the schemes of the Civil Service and to various other large schemes, where you could not take into account all those people who have already retired on different conditions of service.
§ LORD WIGGMy Lords, would the noble Lord bear in mind that many Governments—and certainly this applies to the first Labour Government before they assumed Office—gave an undertaking on one simple point: that for those of us who had the good fortune to have had lengthy "other rank" service and were subsequently commissioned, that "other rank" service should count for pension? I must declare an interest. I happen to be one of the victims, as were my forbears; but there are many others who are worse off than I am; and there are many widows who are worse off, for just the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, mentioned, and are treated in this scandalous way.
§ LORD ABERDAREMy Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, would send me details of his case, I will certainly look into it.