§ Mr. Churchillasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many disabled ex-Service men were deliberately misled by the improper withholding of their pensions; whether full arrears have now been paid to them, their widows or their legatees; in addition, what compensation and allowance for legal fees is to be made; what disciplinary or other action is intended to be taken against 204W those officials responsible; and what steps he is taking to ensure that this does not happen again.
§ Mr. Ennals, pursuant to his reply [Official Report, 18th April 1978], gave the following information:
I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration which was the subject of my replies to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) on 3rd April—[Vol. 947, c. 25–6]—and to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin) on 7th April—[Vol. 947, c. 241–2.] This report related to a group of disabled ex-Regular officers who were deprived not of their pensions but of the rank additions to those pensions. Twenty-six cases have now been identified where these additions should have been paid. Full arrears have been paid in 23 of these cases. In one of the remaining cases, payment is in hand to the widow of an officer who recently died. In total, these payments amount to over £16,000 by way of arrears and nearly £13,000 by way of compensation for delay. The other two cases relate to pensioners resident overseas where arrangements are being made with the Department's paying agents to work out the precise amounts due. No question of legal fees has arisen.
I have strongly condemned the actions of the officials concerned, and I am ensuring that the lessons to be learned are brought forcefully to the attention of all officials engaged on social security administration as well as those specifically concerned with war pensions. The staff are being reminded that, if in any doubt about the way in which legal advice affecting benefits should be implemented, senior management and, if necessary, Ministers must be consulted.
Subsequent to my answers of 3rd and 7th April, I have made further inquiries and, in the light of these, have concluded that it would be right to investigate further whether there is any possibility that a legal offence might have been committed. I have therefore decided to refer the relevant papers to the Director of Public Prosecutions so that he may consider the issues and whether any further action is appropriate.