§ Mr. SwayneTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many servicemen and women are living with partners to whom they are not married but who are recognised as falling within the scope of benefits payable under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. [12641]
§ Mr. IngramNone. Unmarried partners are not currently recognised as eligible for benefits under the terms of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. We have no reliable data on the numbers affected. All three services are currently involved in work to examine whether or not unmarried people living in partnership should receive benefits similar to those received by married couples. This work is designed to provide more factual and authoritative information than is currently available, including on numbers.
§ Mr. SwayneTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the armed forces occupy married quarters with partners to whom they are not married. [12639]
§ Dr. MoonieEntitlement to Service Families Accommodation (SFA) is based mainly on marital status and includes lone parents with dependent children for whom they have prime responsibility. It is also applied to certain single service personnel when serving in specific appointments. Service personnel are not allowed to occupy SFA to cohabit with a partner who is not their legal spouse. If such cases come to light, they are advised that they are in breach of their licence, and unless they regularise the position, they are issued with a notice to vacate the property.
§ Mr. SwayneTo ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the rules governing death-in-service benefits for the non-married partners of servicemen and women are within the scope of the review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme. [12640]
§ Mr. IngramFollowing a review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, proposals for a new scheme were issued for public consultation in March of this year. These382W proposals did not specifically cover benefits for unmarried partners though the issue had been considered during the initial stage of the review when it was considered that change was not appropriate. The issue was raised in responses to the public consultation and will be given further consideration as we take the review forward.