HC Deb 13 May 1994 vol 243 cc287-8W
Sir Teddy Taylor

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what estimate he has made of the costs of compensation to Army officers and other Army ranks who have lost employment and possible promotion by becoming pregnant following the decision of the tribunal in Glasgow on the application of European guidance; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hanley

[holding answer 12 May 1994]: The High Court ruled in December 1991 that the policy of discharging service women compulsorily if they became pregnant was in breach of the European equal treatment directive which had taken effect in August 1978. Service women who were discharged on the grounds of pregnancy between August 1978 and August 1990, when the policy was discontinued, are therefore eligible for compensation for any losses sustained as a result of their unlawful discharge.

As at 4 May 1994, 1,288 valid claims for compensation had been received from former Army officers and other ranks in response to which my Department has made offers of compensation totalling about £7 million. So far, 758 of these claims have been settled at a cost of about £4.6 million, mostly as a result of claimants accepting MOD offers. It is not possible to say how many of the remainder will do so or will choose instead to pursue their cases to industrial tribunals. Nor can my Department predict how much the tribunals will choose to award.

The upper limit of £11,000 on the amount that tribunals could award in sex discrimination cases has been removed following a decision of the European Court of Justice. My Department will, however, continue to press for awards to be based on realistic career prospects, taking account of the fact that only a small proportion of service women or, indeed, service personnel generally, choose to complete their term of engagement. Cases such as that in Glasgow, where the tribunal decided that the claimant would have remained in the Army until the age of 55 and would have reached the rank of colonel, are not necessarily typical, and we shall continue to appeal against individual awards whenever there are good grounds for doing so.

Forward to