§ Lord Morris of Manchesterasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the criticisms made by the President of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal for England and Wales of the way in which examples of alleged abuse of the war pensions scheme were used by the Government during proceedings in the House of Lords on the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill on 2 November 2004. [HL783]
§ Lord BachThere was no intended criticism of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal which is a fully independent part of the decision-making process for the war pensions scheme. Nor were the examples given meant to be seen as cases of abuse of the war pensions scheme. As I made clear to the House, there is no dispute that the claimants were suffering from a medical condition, nor is the department questioning the entitlement which they enjoy under the war pensions scheme. My point was to illustrate the types of cases where the connection between an individual's service and their illness or death might be tenuous but could result in an award under the scheme because of its particular test of proof. I proposed that, for the future, entitlement should not be justifiable in such cases in an up-to-date scheme and that the money available should be more effectively focused on the more severely disabled due to service who are poorly provided for under existing arrangements. I remain of this view which in no way casts doubt on the hard work or the judgment of the President of the Pensions Appeal Tribunal for England and Wales or his tribunal colleagues, who are applying the war pensions scheme.
§ Baroness Park of Monmouthasked Her Majesty's Government:
What contact the Ministry of Defence had with the president of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals or his office about the alleged cases of abuse of the war pensions scheme before they were cited by the Government during the proceedings in the House of Lords on the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill on 2 November 2004. [HL1082]
§ Lord BachThe examples quoted on 2 November 2004 were chosen to show the sort of decisions that could arise under the rules of the war pensions scheme which the Government consider arc not appropriate to a modern compensation scheme. There was no criticism of the appeal decisions taken by the pensions appeal tribunals on the basis of these rules and therefore no reason to contact the presidents of the pensions appeal tribunals or their offices.