§ Mrs. Winifred Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received in 1976 regarding the plight of Armed Forces widows, widowed prior to 1950; and what reply he has sent.
§ Mr. JuddAbout a dozen Members of Parliament have made inquiries on this subject during 1976, and my Department has received representations from several members of the public. In addition, the subject was raised when I met representatives of the Officers Pension Society in January. The replies have explained why these widows are not entitled to a forces family pension, and why no change can be made. For a full statement of the reasons I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) on 27th October last.—[Vol. 898, c.331–2.]
§ Mrs. Winifred Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many pre-1950 Armed Forces widows there are; and what is his estimated cost of paying pensions (a) to the extent of one-third of pension of the deceased husband and (b) to the extent of one-half of pension of the deceased husband.
§ Mr. JuddI would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave to the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) on 27th October—[Vol. 898, c.337]—and to the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles) on 5th November last.—[Vol. 899, c. 181–2.]
§ Mrs. Winifred Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will take steps to equalise the pension rights of all Armed Forces widows; and if not. on what grounds his refusal is based.
§ Mr. JuddForces family pensions are paid under an occupational scheme, and it is not the practice to extend improvements in such schemes with retrospective effect.