Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Caplin: I start on the basis of consensus in that we do not have strong disagreements, but perhaps I can clarify matters and answer some of the questions that have been raised.

The hon. Gentleman started by referring to statutory instrument 1983/883, which is the Naval, Military and Air Forces Etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, which governs the war pensions scheme. Article 23 was amended on 6 April 1992 to exclude dependants and again on 12 April 1993 to ensure that the allowance could be paid only when earnings were lost as a result of treatment. I hope that that clarifies the current legislative position.

New clause 24 is not needed for the compensation scheme that we are debating. I understand that the intention is to replicate the treatment allowance that was first introduced under the 1917 war pensions scheme, when there was no social security system or national health service to step in when an individual needed medical treatment and, as a result, people lost their earnings. That is not the case now, as people who are off work sick are eligible for statutory sick pay and may receive full pay from their employer. There can be no justification for an extra allowance to compensate for loss of earnings when the benefits provided under the compensation scheme do that already.

Column Number: 253

The type of payments to be made under the compensation proposals are not comparable to those payable under the war pensions scheme. Disablement will not be assessed on a percentage basis and there will be no such thing as a 100 per cent. war disablement pension. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that they are probing new clauses, I hope that he accepts my explanation on new clause 24 for those reasons.

On new clause 25 and the health and veterans issues, and priority treatment in particular, we are in an ongoing discussion with the Department of Health to provide for continuation of the provision that currently applies. At the moment, it applies only to those conditions for which compensation is being paid, and we recognise the importance of ensuring that the national health service honours the priority treatment commitment. I am in discussions with the relevant Ministers at the Department of Health and we have a concordat between the two Departments, signed by my predecessor.

New clause 25 would introduce into the new compensation scheme an equivalent to article 26 of the 1983 order. I think we agree on that. The proposed text is based on the outdated version of the service pensions order. The current version stresses that the expenses must arise from disablement due to service.

As with much of the legislation governing war pensions, which remains largely as it was during the 1940s, article 26 is a product of its time. It predates the universal systems of support provided by the welfare state, including the national health service. Article 26 is therefore a generally outdated provision. Since 1948, Ministers in successive Governments have maintained that the national health service should be the principal route for treatment of accepted disablements. War pensioners receive priority in the national health service for treatment of their disablement caused by service, and we are seeking to secure the same approach from the Department of Health for beneficiaries under the new compensation scheme arrangements.

I recognise that there are issues in relation to ex-service organisations such as Combat Stress. My officials and I are in discussion with that group on such issues and I am due to visit its base shortly. We will continue to work with it and I certainly see a continued role for the ex-service charity in the months and years ahead.

Mr. Howarth: What I am getting at is whether there is statutory underpinning of the financial support that the Government, through the Ministry of Defence, give to organisations such as Combat Stress, or is such action discretionary? Will the new arrangements proposed by the Government under the new scheme require any further authority to ensure that the funding support given by the MOD to those worthwhile organisations can continue?

Mr. Caplin: I understand why the hon. Gentleman wants clarification. Under our new arrangements, there will be no underpinning of charity

Column Number: 254

arrangements, which is why we are in discussions with Combat Stress, through the veterans secretariat, and officials about how to take the work forward. We recognise entirely the importance of its work and it is the main charity to be affected by the situation. I hope that he will accept that that is how we should progress. I am more than happy to share the conclusion of the discussions with him. They are not meant to be a great secret, but a process of negotiation.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to the homelessness and employment of veterans. That is part of our wider-ranging veterans initiative. It is cross-departmental so we will be working with the Department for Work and Pensions on employment and the Department of Health on mental health issues. We shall continue to work with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the veterans and the heroes return initiative and the Department for Education and Skills on skills and employment. The veterans initiative is a cornerstone of our approach to veterans issues when working across the Government. On that basis, and given my explanations, I hope that we do not need to proceed further with new clauses 24 and 25.

Mr. Howarth: I said at the outset that the new clauses were probing. I am grateful to the Minister for his response and for agreeing to keep us posted on his progress on securing agreement with the national health service on the prioritisation of ex-servicemen. It has often been said that the United States Department of Veterans Affairs has a close and comprehensive interest in the well-being of its veterans and that we do not have a similar organisation because we have a national health service, which the United States does not have. However, I think that the Minister has recognised the concerns and I will be grateful if keeps us posted of progress.

I am also grateful to the Minister for keeping me informed about Combat Stress. I have a particularly strong affinity with that organisation; it does such fantastic work. I want to know that its funding from the Ministry of Defence is assured. As for the detail and the extent to which statutory instrument 1983/883 applies, to avoid detaining the Committee I propose to consult further in the light of what the Minister said. We shall have a look through it at leisure and if questions arise from the Royal British Legion or other groups, we can ask them on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

11 am

New clause 27

Extension of benefits to members of

the reserve forces

'Within one year of the coming into force of this Act, the Secretary of State shall by regulations extend the benefits of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme to members of the reserve forces.'.—[Mr. Swayne.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Swayne: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Column Number: 255

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 29—Compensation arrangements for reservists—

'Where a reservist is in receipt of benefits from elsewhere, such as a personal pension or an occupational pension, benefits under the new Compensation scheme shall not be abated.'.

Mr. Swayne: New clause 27 would place a duty on the Minister to extend the benefits of the scheme to reserve forces within one year. As a member of the reserve forces, I clearly have an interest to declare, although I must say that I had never given a second thought to the matter, probably because I was a contributor to the teachers' pension scheme, and then to the Royal Bank scheme. Then, I found our own scheme so attractive that I paid the amounts accrued to those schemes into ours when I came to the House. I have been able to tidy away my pension arrangements, paying almost 10 per cent. of my income into it. However, we have to be careful about the requirements and needs of those people who are not so generously provided for.

I intervened during the Secretary of State's speech on Second Reading on the question of pension entitlement for reservists. I was going to leave it at that, but I received representations of such force that I tabled the new clause. Many people feel very strongly about the issue. Reservists' pay is abated in the same way as that of the regular forces, but they do not have the benefit that arises from that abatement. It is true that when a reservist is mobilised, the Ministry of Defence makes the payments to their own contributory pension scheme. I do not see that as an issue at all. My concern is for those people who do not have pension schemes to contribute to, and those who are unemployed, who typically tend to serve a larger number of days as a result.

Typically, in my career as a member of the Territorial Army I have served between 30 and 35 to 40 days—that is, about a month—a year. However, paragraph 3.3 in essay No. 3, supporting the recent White Paper, which is on developing the reserves, says:

''This policy sees the Reserves providing an integrated, ready and capable component of Defence, capable of being mobilised for any type and scale of operation.''

Low-intensity peace support operations might imply a much more frequent use of reservists. That provides an opportunity for the Ministry to introduce the means by which those who do not have pension arrangements can be included in the armed forces pension scheme arrangements. It is only equitable that that should be so.

In his response to my intervention, the Secretary of State said, ''Well, yes, we've looked at this, and the amounts involved are just so small as not to make it worth while.'' I wonder whether the Minister can give the Committee some illustrative figures—or write to us if he is not able to do so today—showing what that would imply. Although my service has typically been some 35 to 40 days a year, there will be many members of the reserve forces who will typically have served between 60 and 100 days a year, which is rather more substantial. It would be interesting to hear what that would imply.

Column Number: 256

There is a minority of serial mobilisers who want to go on operations whenever they get the opportunity, and those people are now likely to serve a much larger number of days. It would be wrong not to examine thoroughly what that implies. An illustrative figure would be very helpful for the Committee, perhaps as a tool for Report.

 

---

Prepared 26 February 2004