HC Deb 27 October 1975 vol 898 cc331-2W
Mr. Viggers

asked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the subject of payment of pensions to widows whose husbands retired from the Armed Forces before 1st September 1950.

Mr. Judd

The widow of a Service man below the rank of warrant officer class I in the Army, or the equivalent ranks in the Royal Navy or Royal Air Force, is not entitled to a proportion of her late husband's pension if he left the Service before 1st September 1950. With effect from that date, such an entitlement was introduced, subject to length of service and other conditions. Because of the widely accepted principle that improvements in occupational pension schemes are not retrospectively applied, the revised scheme was not extended to widows of those who had already retired.

As the hon. Member is aware, I have for a long time been deeply concerned about this situation and I directed that a careful and detailed study should be made to see whether, without creating new problems, something could be done to amend this disparity in treatment between the widows of one group of Service personnel and another.

This study has now been completed and it has been regretfully concluded that it is not possible to change the present arrangements. To award a pension, however modestly scaled, to the widows of Service men who do not at present qualify for one could lead to a widespread sense of unfairness among similarly placed widows of other public servants and indeed among a much broader range of pensioners who believe that pension improvements should be retrospectively applied to existing pensioners as well as to those who have yet to retire. Particularly in the grave economic situation now facing the country it has been sadly concluded that action on this wide basis is just not possible.

I recognise that this outcome to the review will be deeply disappointing to the many people who were hoping for some change in the existing arrangements. I greatly regret that, after the most careful examination, this has not proved possible.

Back to