§ Lord KILMANYMy 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 pensions are being paid to the widows and dependants of the TAVR soldiers who lost their lives in the Trent Weir disaster; whether these pensions 939 are the same as those payable to dependants of Regular Army soldiers killed in similar circumstances; and, if not, by how much do the pensions differ.
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, the widow of a TAVR member whose death is attributable to service receives a war widow's pension from the Department of Health and Social Security. This pension, which is the same for members of the TAVR and Regular Army, is £894.40 a year for the widow of a sapper or private and £348.40 for the elder or eldest child and £296.40 for each other dependant child. In April 1974 the Ministry of Defence introduced new benefits to member of the Reserve Forces who are killed or injured in the course of peace time exercises or training and whose death or injury is attributable to service.
Under this scheme the Ministry of Defence pays to the widow of a TAVR member an additional pension of £481 plus a further £160 a year for each of up to four dependant children. Also under this scheme the Ministry of Defence pays a gratuity to the estate of any unmarried TAVR member killed attributably. This gratuity was increased from £254.67 to £321.14 from 1st December 1975. These payments by the Ministry of Defence are not as high as those awards paid to widows and dependants of Regular Servicemen killed in similar circumstances, and whose awards in the event of death and disability are part of an occupational pension scheme. It would not, therefore, be correct to compare the benefits for members of the TAVR with those for Regular Servicemen.
§ Lord KILMANYMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that, in part, satisfactory reply, may I ask whether he would agree that it is very unfair, in view of the fact that a volunteer on a military exercise is under the same obligation to obey an order as a regular soldier, that when the order leads to disaster—as was unhappily the case on this occasion—the dependants of the volunteer should receive a smaller amount than the dependants of a Regular soldier although both were doing no more and no less than obeying an order?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I think the House will be in sympathy 940 with what the noble Lord has said, but there is a difference between the two situations. A Regular soldier is covered by a system of occupational pensions while the reservist will normally have a civilian occupation which will provide cover against death or injury. The two are not on all fours.
§ Lord PANNELLMy Lords, will the noble Lord reconsider that answer and represent to his right honourable friend the Minister that, in so far as there is a general feeling that a degree of official negligence contributed towards this death, the authorities ought to look again at this matter.
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I will note what my noble friend has said.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, while deploring any suggestion that the Government should spend any more money at the present time, could the noble Lord say what the cost of the concession would be, if it were made, in the light of payments made, for example, in the last three years?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will agree, I shall write to him on this matter. It cannot be a large sum.
§ Lord KILMANYMy Lords, is it possible for other noble Lords to have the benefit of a copy of this letter?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I will see that this is written in the record.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, has my noble friend taken note of the fact that there is another difference between the regular soldier or Serviceman and the TAVR category, inasmuch as the soldier receives a salary while the member of the TAVR has no salary and receives only an annual bounty which is a mere pittance?
§ Earl CATHCARTMy Lords, bearing in mind the role that the TAVR play as a reserve to our Armed Forces in our operational support to NATO, and bearing in mind also the fact that these TAVR soldiers must train, may I ask whether the noble Lord would think again in order to bring into line the pension rights of these two categories of Servicemen who 941 are injured while undergoing training in essential operational training for a possible future role?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I will make a note of what the noble Lord said and include it in my reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDEMy Lords, would the noble Lord like any help with the Treasury? Could the noble Lord answer, please?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I can always count upon the noble Baroness in this matter.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, may I ask what the noble Lord meant by the piece of "officialese" when he used the word "attributable"? Are the deaths of these soldiers attributable or non-attributable? Would the noble Lord bear in mind that the conditions in which these soldiers were serving were on all fours with the conditions of Regular soldiers? What has gone wrong here is that the Ministry of Defence have allowed two separate schemes to be evolved. In fact there should be one scheme covering these men because they are on all fours with the position of a Regular solder ordered to carry out that duty.
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, the word "attributable" which, as the noble Lords says, is jargon, means attributable to service in the military field. The whole House is in sympathy with what the noble Lord has said. There are factors other than simply the death or serious accident taking place during training—the private life and conditions of the individual—which must also be taken into account.
§ Lord WIGGMy Lords, would the noble Lord agree that if this category was embodied—which is the technical term used for the TAVR in these circumstances—if this accident had happened on the day of the embodiment the victims would have been treated as Regular soldiers. Why, therefore, is it not so in this case?
§ Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, that is a big question. It is obviously a matter of concern to this House. Perhaps the noble Lord would agree to put 942 down an Unstarred Question which we can discuss.
§ Lord MAYBRAY-KINGMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are many gross anomalies in the treatment of widows of ex-Servicemen? The time has come to look at these anomalies.
§ The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd)My Lords, I intervene to suggest that we move to the next Question but, recognising the importance which the House attaches to this matter and my own Ministerial responsibilities for pensions within the Civil Service, I will take a personal look at this. Perhaps in a few weeks' time, if a Question were nut down, we should be in a better position to answer it.