| Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill
|
|
Mr. Caplin: We have had an interesting and lengthy debate on amendments to clause 1. On the hon. Gentleman's rather mischievous last point, it is not for me to defend the Liberal Democrats, but I should say that the hon. Member for Hereford indicated that he would not be here this afternoon. However, he will be joining us on Tuesday 10 February, and I fear that we shall still be considering clause 1. During our two hours of debate on this part of the clause, I was struck by the fact that I do not think any Opposition Member used the word ''choice''. We are bringing in a new scheme for people who enter our armed forces on 6 April 2005 or after, and we are offering current members of our armed forces the choice of joining it. I say that because of some of the accusations—I use that word in the best spirit—that this proposal devalues in some way the Government's view of our armed forces. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are absolutely committed to our armed forces, and we have shown that consistently by the issues that we have taken on board, particularly the pension arrangements and the people issues that we have put forward. The White Paper, which we launched in December, deals for the first time, in separate parts of the attached essays, with people and reserves. I must emphasise to the Committee that this is a new scheme for new entrants. Serving members of our armed forces will have the opportunity of joining or not when the Column Number: 41 scheme is operational in 2005. I am talking here about pensions, and we shall get on to compensation later, though not today.Mr. Brazier: The Minister will confirm that not only in the area of compensation but on the system of accrual for future years' service, existing service personnel who opt to stay in the old scheme will be significantly disadvantaged. Mr. Caplin: The hon. Gentleman is starting to prejudge the issues that are down to individual choice. I shall come on to accrual rates and other matters, but I have promised Labour Members a lengthy speech on superannuation and accrual rates. As hon. Members will see, they are all looking forward to that. Mr. Howarth: So are we. Mr. Caplin: In fact, the hon. Gentleman heard most of that speech when he was at the Select Committee in November. I shall make one more introductory point, and then I want to answer some of the questions and outline the Government's views on the amendments. I should like to put before the Committee the issue of transferable skills. I do not think that there is any disagreement that members of our armed forces have greater transferable skills today when they leave our armed forces than, say, 20 years ago. That is because we have a much better training regime, and we educate people and ensure that they are ready for the transition to civilian life. I am not saying that everything is acceptable—far from it—but I have been consistent during the last six and a half months in making clear my concerns about a smallish group of people whose transition still bothers us. That is why we are doing a lot of work on the issue, which was raised by the hon. Member for Canterbury. I said on Second Reading that, according to the latest research, 90 per cent. find good employment within six months. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland responded by saying that he was surprised that it was not higher. Our challenge is to make that figure higher than 90 per cent. The point is exactly the same as that raised by the hon. Member for Aldershot in relation to housing. He made it on Second Reading, and I have addressed it previously. I said that we have to do better, and that we will change the way in which we operate in the last 12 months of people's service, so that we can deal with housing situations by knowing our people better, not just in that important last 12 months but throughout their careers in our armed forces. Mr. Brazier: The Minister cannot suggest that the Government can address the housing issue in the last 12 months unless they are willing to commit some serious funds and get Treasury agreement for a completely new scheme. All the studies show that the majority of people in the Army who buy a house early in their service leave prematurely. There is no way of addressing the problem unless the Government are willing to fund an American-style scheme. Column Number: 42 Mr. Caplin: I am happy to tell the Committee that one of the areas that we are considering in relation to Army recruitment is how we deal with family housing. It is an issue, because we attract people to the service then, after two years, ask them to go away somewhere and take their family along. I have discussed with the hon. Member for Aldershot the question of how we deal with the situation if the partner or spouse has a job or a career as well. As the Ministry responsible for the British Army—this is an Army issue, not one for the Navy or Air Force—I think that we have to ensure that we have policies and strategies to deal better with the matter. I am actively engaged in consideration of that, as I am pretty sure I told the House on Second Reading. John Robertson: One of the points that I was trying to make was that people suddenly find themselves leaving the Army and having to enter the housing market. The hon. Member for Canterbury is right to say that they should have thought about the matter years before, but they did not. The last thing that we want is soldiers who join up and want to talk about their benefits before they have done anything. Is the Minister going to address the problem of ensuring that such soldiers are not, in effect, given lesser houses than other soldiers? Mr. Caplin: That is one of the issues that we have to consider. We need to have a discussion with the Local Government Association, the Scottish Local Government Association and other organisations that are responsible for housing. There is an ongoing discussion about Army recruitment and our commitment to address the issues. I should like to answer some of the questions that have been asked by hon. Members. They will forgive me if I do not personalise them. The first that I noted was about benefits that are payable when somebody dies, irrespective of service. Under the new scheme, we will pay the new benefits; that is the point. The new scheme has new dependants' benefits, which are paid regardless of whether somebody dies on active service or of natural causes. That would apply equally to accrued pension benefits. The widow's pension, as a number of hon. Members mentioned, is paid at 33 per cent. Following on from that, there is the issue of death due to service, both now and under the new scheme. Since 2000, widows have been able to retain their benefits on remarriage. We are not proposing to change that, so in that respect the new scheme will be consistent with the current rules of the armed forces pension scheme. Mr. Howarth: I am not sure that I got the point right when I referred to the matter earlier. As I understand it, the Minister is right: from December 2000 the Government have provided a concession to all attributable widows, including existing widows, to enable them to retain their pension on remarriage. I understand that the new scheme will not provide the same benefit to existing non-attributable widows. Is that the case? As I understand it, the concession is Column Number: 43 being extended to all widows under the new scheme, but it will not apply to existing widows or to those who will be widowed between now and the date at which the new scheme comes into operation.Mr. Caplin: I am not sure that I have understood the hon. Gentleman's point. We are about to adjourn, so perhaps he and I can have a conversation between now Column Number: 44 and the next sitting to try to understand our positions. We can then respond fully to the Committee on this point.Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Coaker.]
Column Number: 45
O'Brien, Mr. Bill (Chairman) Brazier, Mr. Breed, Mr. Caplin, Mr. Coaker, Vernon Cryer, John Curtis-Thomas, Mrs. Howarth, Mr. Gerald Joyce, Mr. Lammy, Mr. Column Number: 46 McIsaac, Shona Pickthall, Mr. Rapson, Syd Robathan, Mr. Robertson, Hugh Robertson, John Swayne, Mr. Tami, Mark Turner, Dr. Desmond
|
| |
| Prepared 3 February 2004 | |
