HL Deb 27 January 2005 vol 668 cc179-80WA
Lord Astor of Hever

asked Her Majesty's Government:

In light of the undertaking given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Defence, Mr Ivor Caplin, on 15 November 2004 (HC Deb, col. 1052) that he was prepared to meet Lord Freyberg and the Forces Pension Society once the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill had received Royal Assent, what meetings have taken place or are now scheduled. [HL746]

Lord Bach

My honourable friend has written to Lord Freyberg to explain the work that has been taken forward in the Ministry of Defence on the possibility of a further measure to help particularly vulnerable groups of Armed Forces widows. I understand that a meeting has now been arranged between Lord Freyberg and the Veterans Minister.

I am aware of the wider interest in this issue and will ensure a more general announcement is made in due course.

Lord Morris of Manchester

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether the statement made by a Government Minister to Lord Freyberg and the Assistant General Secretary of the Forces Pension Society on 14 October 2004, that if Lord Freyberg were to win a vote on his amendment to the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill relating to post retirement marriages, the Minister would withdraw the Bill, was in keeping with their policy on the Bill. [HL784]

Lord Bach

During the passage of the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill, my honourable friend the Minister for Veterans and I made clear that the new Armed Forces pensions and compensation schemes constituted a balanced package of benefits which would be neither coherent nor affordable if amended as proposed. Specifically, we indicated that we could not accept changes designed to include favourable elements of current arrangements alongside the improvements in the new schemes or which sought to tie the new schemes to unaffordable pensions legacy issues. It was our clearly stated policy to introduce improved schemes for the Armed Forces as set out in our proposals. We had, therefore, to conclude that the Bill would not be viable if the amendments were passed and that, were noble Lords to press their amendments, the Bill must therefore fall.