HL Deb 01 July 1987 vol 488 cc244-7

2.53 p.m.

Lord Chelwood

My Lords, I had almost forgotten that this was Question Time. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will carry out and publish a thorough review of the system of pensions for retired servicemen and their widows to enable any disparities and anomalies that are found to he eliminated.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne)

My Lords, while the Government have no plans for a formal review, my noble friend may be assured that Ministers keep these matters under regular study, not least in response to approaches from the representative bodies concerned.

Lord Chelwood

My Lords, is it not a serious anomaly that the longest retired, who are often the most needy, have the smallest pensions, or, for example, that all our major NATO allies treat their Armed Forces' widows more generously than we do, with pensions unrestricted either by the date of marriage or the date of their husband's retirement? Are not these powerful arguments for a full review. Will the Government consider such a review?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I cannot deny that there are some anomalies in the pension scheme to which my noble friend refers. The fact remains, however, that the cost of correcting all those anomalies—and such correction could not be confined to the Armed Forces' pension scheme—would be very considerable. If it were necessary to make such correction retrospective, as I believe my noble friend has in mind, I do not believe that we would ever make any improvements at all to those schemes.

Lord Strabolgi

My Lords, in view of what is a very considerable need can the noble Lord give the House some figures?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, it depends to which anomalies the noble Lord is referring, but if we were to take all the ones currently under discussion the cost would be several hundred million pounds.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, the Minister said that there were representations from associations. Can he tell the House whether that includes the Royal British Legion? When did he last receive representations on this vital issue from the British Legion? Would he be prepared to see a delegation at national level of the British Legion?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, the Officers Pension Society is the principal body which makes representations on these matters. The society was quite recently received by my honourable friend the Under-Secretary for the Armed Forces. I know that he is in constant touch with the Royal British Legion on this and other matters, but I am certain that he would be willing to receive a further delegation if it wished to bring one.

The Earl of Onslow

My Lords, is it not an unfortunate admission to make that the anomalies are costing several hundred million pounds? That surely means that there is several hundred million pounds worth of injustice going around?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, there is no injustice, because everyone under the scheme receives what they are entitled to receive. The difficulty is that if when we make improvements, as we do from time to time, we are to make them retrospective then naturally we should have to take the cost of doing that into account in reaching our decision. The result would be that some of the desirable improvements could not then be made, even for the future.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that one of the aggravations stems from the 1973 review? Does he agree with me that it is anomalous that a widow of a man who was killed in the Second World War is worse off than the widow of a man who was killed in the Falklands war? I take the Minister's point about the cost of retrospection, but if the House and the country agree that it is unfair, surely the cost, while not secondary, needs to be taken into account? Would the Minister care to tell the House how many people are at a disadvantage, and will he be more precise than saying several hundred million pounds? Surely he has a better figure than that to give to the House.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, there are a number of anomalies, as they are called, which are drawn to our attention from time to time, no doubt from a real sense of concern about those matters. Different people of course raise different difficulties. If we were to take all of the difficulties into account,—and some of them are not as serious as others—and put right the apparent grievance retrospectively, the cost would be huge. We could not confine the correction of the anomalies just to the Armed Forces' pension scheme. Clearly similar aspects would have to he corrected, if they existed, in the pension schemes, for example, of the civil servants. Thus the cost would be astronomic—several hundred million pounds. That would be money that we would not in future be able to provide for other most well deserved improvements, and that is why we cannot proceed as the noble Lord would wish.

Baroness Seear

My Lords, will the Minister agree on reflection that he told his noble friend Lord Onslow that he was perfectly correct in saying that it would not be illegal, for example, but that does not mean that the system is not unjust, which was the point made by the noble Earl? It can still be very unjust.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, many people draw attention to what they see as the injustice in their particular case. Other people sometimes take a view different from that which one might take about one's own circumstances. We do our best to maintain the position as far as the future is concerned, but to correct some of the anomalies—and they undoubtedly exist—in a retrospective way, which is what we are being asked to do, confronts us with the difficulties to which I have referred.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, will the Minister agree that any fair-minded person would think that it is wrong that the longer ago one retired the worse off one is? If the Minister is saying that the Government or the country cannot afford the up-rating of pensions so as to make them more equal irrespective of the date of retirement, can he not at least do something for the people—who must now be getting extremely old—whose service dates from the First World War? That must be a very small group of people, and up-rating them would cost a comparatively small amount of money.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I am not certain to which group of people the noble Lord refers. As I have explained, the cost of retrospection is very considerable. The fact remains that everybody is getting the pension to which he was entitled in accordance with the rules applying on the date of retirement.

Lord Morris

My Lords, in the context of this Question, would it not be worth recalling the parable of the vineyard?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I do my best to keep all such parables in mind.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, blessed are the meek! Will the Minister attempt not to use one reason for inaction as a general reason for inaction? The Minister seized upon the cost of retrospection. Retrospection is not the only anomaly. If the House agrees with the Minister that there are other anomalies, then the Question simply asks for a review to examine and iron out, where possible, anomalies that have been revealed. We understand the matter of a limited budget. However, injustice exists and I can assure the House that the British Legion feels very passionately about the anomaly which it drew to my attention—that the widow of a man killed in the Second World War is at a disadvantage compared with the widow of a man killed in the Falklands War.

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, if I may say so, that is a question of retrospection. What is being asked, in the context of the particular point raised, is that we should apply the improvements which were allowed just prior to the Falklands campaign to those people who were affected by the Second World War. That means retrospection, and that is the difficulty to which I have referred.

Lord Chelwood

My Lords, are the Government willing to look at the worst of these anomalies, and thus make a start in the right direction?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, as I said earlier, the Officers Pension Society saw my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces recently, and I understand that he plans to receive it again in the near future.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, does the Minister agree that many of the associations do not regard the matter as a question of retrospection but rather as a question of up-dating?

Lord Trefgarne

My Lords, I dare say there are a variety of ways in which the matter can be described. However, the difficulty is the one to which I have referred.