HC Deb 18 January 2002 vol 378 cc499-500W
Mr. Swayne

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the cost to the armed forces pension scheme of providing pensions, at a rate of one half the serving members' pension, to widows and widowers of personnel who retired before 1 April 1973. [27193]

Mr. Ingram

The Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS) increased the rate of widows' and widowers' pension from one third of the members pension to one half, from 31 March 1973. Individuals serving on or after this date were provided with the opportunity to make additional contributions so as to qualify former service for the half rate of widows' pension. On this basis, it would be difficult, in equity, to extend the half rate pension to widows whose husbands had left the service before that date and who had not, as a result, contributed financially towards the improvement. It has also been the long-standing policy of successive Governments that discretionary changes to improve the benefits offered by public service pension schemes should be implemented for future service only.

We do not know exactly how many people would be affected by such a change, but we estimate the cost for the Armed Forces Pension Scheme to be £25–30 million per year. The cost would be substantially higher if the improvement were extended to other public service pension schemes.

Mr. Swayne

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the cost to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme of entitling servicemen and women who retired before 31 March 1973 to buy-in to the scheme's improved benefits in respect of providing widows and widowers a full half pension. [27194]

Mr. Ingram

As such a change would be on a "buy-in" basis, we would expect the cost of extending the half rate pensions to pre-1973 widows and widowers to be covered by contributions. The Ministry of Defence would incur administration costs but these would be relatively small. However, such changes have been ruled out by the long-standing policy of successive Governments that scheme improvements should not be retrospective.