§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now raise the pensions of war widows so that none has to claim supplementary benefits; and whether they will set up an inquiry into the further steps that can be taken to remove the wide disparities in these pensions.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, the number of war widows receiving supplementary benefit decreased from 9,000 in 1973 to about 5,000 at the end of 1974. This is due in part to the increase of 28 per cent. in the level of war widows' pensions in July 1974. The recent increase, in April 1975, should have the effect of continuing this trend. I assume that the noble Lord is referring in the second part of the Question to the level of pension payable under the War Pension Scheme compared with the Armed Forces Pensions Scheme. The latter, as the noble Lord will know, is an occupational scheme administered by the Ministry of Defence. The two schemes are quite separate and do not lend themselves to assimilation.
Lord CHELWOODMy Lords, none the less, is it not rather shaming that as many as 5,000 war widows should have such miserable pensions that they have to be means-tested and given supplementary benefits in order to be able to exist? Despite the great need for economic stringency, which I think nobody denies, is it not high time that all war widows had as of right a pension on which they can live?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, the noble Lord is not right about this. There are about 92,000 war widows and the number on supplementary benefit represents, if my calculations are correct, less than 5 per cent. There is no stigma attached to supplementary benefit. It is designed to help those who need a particular standard of living. The vast majority of war widows are not receiving supplementary benefit and I do not accept what the noble Lord says.
§ Lord MAYBRAY-KINGMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those of use who are in constant touch with the ex-Servicemen's associations know that they appreciate the tremendous increase in benefits which have been given to war widows? However, is he aware that there are disparities between war widows according to which war their husbands fell in and that the second part of the Question, calling for an inquiry into disparities in these pensions, is something that the ex-Servicemen's associations would welcome?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I accept that, but I did say that the two schemes were entirely different. To bring the two schemes together and give the war widows the same provision as is given to those under the Armed Forces Pensions Scheme would cost about another £250 million a year.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTONMy Lords, is the Minister aware that the 5,000 who remain tend to be very old ladies whose pensions were assessed long before the pound depreciated to the point it has now; that this 5,000 would not cost £250 million or anything like it to put right and that this group is comprised of a small number of people who are suffering a real grievance? Will the Minister look into the problem to see whether it can be rectified?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I suggest that a much more satisfactory way of dealing with this is by supplementary benefits which, as noble Lords know, this Government are committed to raising to meet either the increase in wages or prices, whichever is the more advantageous.
§ Several Noble Lords: No!
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDEI apologise, my Lords, I should have said "the noble Lord". May I ask the Minister whether this matter has been put to the Treasury? Will he tell us whether this has the priority within the appropriate Government Department which it should have or whether the Treasury is turning it down? Being a "Geordie", may I, with very great respect, say—
§ Several Noble Lords: No.
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I will give the noble Baroness a direct answer. I do not know whether it has been put to the Treasury but I will find out and let her know.
Lord INGLEWOODMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this reference to pensions being paid by different Government Departments is really quite irrelevant and that the level of pensions ought to depend on the merits and not according to which Department is responsible? This was a difficulty before the last war and from what the noble Lord has said it would seem to be a continuing difficulty. Will he look into the matter to see whether or not we can get over this quite unnecessary obstruction?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I will take note of what the noble Lord has said, but your Lordships must bear in mind that the views of ex-Servicemen's organisations are taken quite regularly and that the Department receives a number of deputations. So we are in touch with the thinking of people in the ex-Servicemen's organisations.
§ Lord SHACKLETONMy Lords, while accepting that the noble Lord speaks for a number of Government Departments which have greatly improved pensions, may I ask whether he would not agree that he has misunderstood the point made by my noble friend Lord Maybray-King by comparing Service pensions with war pensions? Also, will he not recognise that there is a very small num- 488 ber of such pensions deriving particularly from the First World War, and that it is that rather limited proposition, and not a wider question raising issues of party—which on the whole the ex-Service organisations have now abandoned—which is in question?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I have said that the matter has been looked into and, rightly or wrongly, the Government feel that it is much more advantageous to deal with this kind of situation by way of supplementary benefit. But I will certainly pass on what has been said to my right honourable friend.
§ Lord DERWENTAdvantageous to whom, my Lords—the Civil Service?
Baroness VICKERSMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he knows that a number of war widows do not receive a war widow's pension at all? Could he let me know how many such war widows there are and will he look into their case, because they never have received anything?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLIn reply to the noble Baroness, I will look into the matter and let her know. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, I meant advantageous to the person who receives the pension because, if prices or wages rise, supplementary benefit takes the inflation into account.
§ The Earl of ONSLOWMy Lords, of those 5,000 war widows, how many are applicable to the Kaiser's war and how many to Hitler's war?
§ Lord WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, I do not know, but if the noble Earl really wants to know I will write to him.
Lord CHELWOODMy Lords, would the noble Lord be willing to look again into this whole matter of the war widows' pensions in view of the very great anomalies—some of which have been explained in replies to questions which I asked recently—which have arisen particularly since March 1973? Equivalent widows are receiving pensions three or four times as great as those of others whose need is every bit as great. Is there not a clear case for a widespread 489 Government inquiry, even if, in the immediate future, there is no possibility of narrowing this gap?
§ Lords WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, as I said, I will undertake to see that my right honourable friend is informed of the feelings of the noble Lord and others in your Lordships' House.
§ The Earl of ONSLOWMy Lords, I am interested in the answer to my question and I suspect that certain other Members of your Lordships' House may be interested in it, too.