HL Deb 19 July 1973 vol 344 cc1363-7
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE

My 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 whether, when reviewing war pensions and allowances this autumn, they will have regard to the new benefits available to ex-Servicemen since April 1, 1973, under the Ministry of Defence Attributable Pension Scheme and the Criminal Injuries to Persons (Compensation) Act (Northern Ireland); and adjust the payments for the veterans and widows of the 1914–18 and 1939–45 Wars, so that all get treated alike.

THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE)

No, my Lords. The war pensions and allowances paid by my Department to or in respect of former members of the Armed Forces for disablement or death due to service are reviewed annually and will be substantially increased from October 3. These pensions are quite separate from those paid under the Armed Forces occupational pension scheme, the improved terms of which will apply to those who give service on or after March 31, 1973. The Criminal Injuries to Persons (Compensation) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 enables any person, civilian or Serviceman, to make a claim in the county courts for damages for criminal injuries due to terrorist activity, and the assessment of compensation is entirely a matter for those courts. The level of war pensions could not be related to such compensation.

LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend, who is himself an ex-Serviceman, and a sympathetic one, as I know, may I ask him to put himself in the position of, for example, the blinded soldier? Here is one blinded in the First World War—there are very few left now. Here is one blinded in the Second World War. And here is one blinded in Northern Ireland now. They get different rates of compensation. It does not interest them where it comes from or what scheme it comes under: it all comes from the taxpayer and from Parliament. May I ask whether Parliaments have not been generous over 50 years (as I think they have been), and whether my noble friend, in spite of the logic of his Answer, will refer this matter to the relevant Ministers in the other place for further consideration?

LORD ABERDARE

My Lords, there are two quite separate schemes. There is the war pensions scheme run by my Department, which provides State compensation for death or disablement on a flat rate basis, and which does not distinguish between any of the war pensioners or their widows wherever the injury or death may have occurred. Then there is the earnings related payment pension made by the Ministry of Defence, which varies, as any other occupational pension scheme varies, according to when the man was serving and his terms of service.

LORD SHINWELL

My Lords, recalling the Question that I ventured to put to the noble Lord yesterday, which was followed up by several of my noble friends and noble Lords opposite, and particularly in view of the submission now made by the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, who has great knowledge of those involved in war pensions and the like, may I ask whether the noble Lord would not reconsider the position and seek to co-ordinate the two forms of pension so that war widows, in particular—although I agree that others are affected—who were bereaved in the First World War and in the Second World War are not placed at a disadvantage as compared with those bereaved in subsequent conflicts?

LORD ABERDARE

My Lords, I readily acknowledge the expert knowledge of my noble friend Lord Fraser and of the noble Lord who has asked this supplementary question, but this is difficult. Our own scheme, the war pensions scheme of the Department of Health and Social Security, is adjusted every year, and big improvements are being made this October which will apply to all Servicemen and their widows. But it is a very different thing to ask us to change an occupational pension scheme, which has been very much improved since March, and to make payment retrospectively to those who were not serving when the new conditions of service were introduced.

LORD HALE

My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that there really is no greater claim upon the gratitude of the nation or the sentiment of the country than that of those who were disabled in the course of the 1914–18 war? Those of them who still survive—and I have a letter in my pocket from one who was disabled in 1924 in slave trading operations—surely have a right to look to an immediate recognition of parity of treatment. While I appreciate what the noble Lord said about the October review, has it not been constantly demonstrated that the existence of these separate compartments provides an enormous amount of expensive work for the Government's legal advisers and legal departments, who will fight over a few shillings and call it an issue of principle, and that if parity in general were recognised as the first principle and gradually applied a great deal of grievance would be removed?

LORD ABERDARE

My Lords, there is complete parity in the war pensions scheme operated by my Department, but I do not see how you can have parity in an occupational pension scheme when new conditions and better conditions are introduced progressively. It would be extraordinarily expensive retrospectively to give those same conditions to Servicemen who had already retired from the Forces.

LORD SHINWELL

My Lords, while I recognise the noble Lord's difficult in this matter, could he not look at this again to see whether it is not possible, without changing any of the schemes—if there is technical difficulty in the way—to bring up the pensions of war widows bereaved in the wars of 1914–18 and 1939–45 to the level of those who are involved in subsequent conflicts?

LORD ABERDARE

My Lords, I will certainly see that my noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence knows what has taken place in this House, both to-day and yesterday.

LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend one further question about this word "retrospection"? Nobody is asking him to pay for 50 years back to the First World War or even seventy years back to the Boer War. These men are still alive: they are disabled in the same way and they have the same cost of living. It is not retrospection; it is something for to-day and to-morrow.

LORD ABERDARE

My Lords, what I meant was that when they were serving there were certain conditions of service (including perhaps the occupational scheme run by the Ministry of Defence), and now there is a new and improved scheme which does give better treatment to those who are serving to-day than to those who served previously.

BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER

My Lords, would the Minister not agree that there is a very strong case for equalising the conditions for all persons who have suffered from military action, whether they be widows or disabled persons? Would he not also agree that there are occasions when the Government are not wholly opposed to legislation with retrospective effect when it works to the disadvantage of people in this country? Would he not further agree that the number of persons who go back to the 1914–18 War who are involved in this differentiation is bound to be small? Hardly any of them can be younger than I am myself, having ben a war widow from the 1914–18 War, though not any longer taking, or having wished for many years to take, a pension. None of them is younger than myself and, in the ordinary course of nature, their number is likely very quickly to decline.

LORD ABERDARE

My Lords, the fact of the matter is that if the new widows' pensions provisions which came into operation on March 31 last were applied to all war widows, the cost might well approach £100 million a year. However that may be, the principle of all occupational schemes is that you only receive the pension for which you qualify after you have joined that particular scheme.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to refresh the memory of your Lordships' House about the case of those who are over 80 and who have made no contribution towards a pension scheme, but in spite of that the present Government felt it right and justifiable to pay them? To that extent the noble Lord has a precedent for the matter of these war widows.

LORD ABERDARE

My Lords, that was a particular priority case, in which we did make an exception—and it was done after the noble Lord's Government had refused to do so.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, the noble Lord may say there was a special priority, but I would hope he might realise that the feeling in this House is that there is a special priority in regard to these war widows.

LORD ABERDARE

My Lords, this case concerned a national scheme. These people over 80 were receiving nothing—I repeat, nothing—and when noble Lords opposite formed part of the Government they refused to give them anything. This is very different from an occupational pension scheme. These Servicemen and their widows are receiving a pension under the war pensions scheme. What we are talking about is an occupational pension scheme.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, just one thing more and then I hope we might leave this. Would the noble Lord recognise that we accept his criticism in respect of the over 80's, but we also recognise that though they themselves may have made no financial contribution, the war widows in fact made a major contribution to the war effort?

BARONESS SUMMERSKILL

My Lords, could the noble Lord say how much it would cost to pay all the blinded ex-Service men the same amount?

LORD ABERDARE

My Lords, I have not got that figure.

Back to