Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 26 February 2004.

Standing Committee B

New clause 14 - Medical records

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

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

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 15—Access to medical records—

'It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that any claimant to compensation arising from injury or illness attributable to military service shall have full and complete access to his medical records.'.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

Good morning, Mr. Griffiths. It is a sunny, wonderful morning with cold, crisp air outside and warm, crisp Members inside. I thank the Minister for responding to our request for a copy of the leaflet that is in circulation to the armed forces. This is the first time I have seen it. I have not had a chance to read it, but we asked him on Tuesday to provide it, he gave an undertaking that he would and he has delivered—for which we are extremely grateful.

Our debates this morning will concentrate on issues of considerable importance. I hope it will be possible to rattle through them fairly swiftly and I shall seek to secure that objective in so far as my own contribution is concerned. The new clauses relate to medical records and they would impose on the Government a requirement both to maintain accurate and complete records and not to dispose of them, and to secure the access of claimants to their medical records.

Under the Data Protection Act 1998, everyone has the right to have a copy of their medical records. Individuals also have a right to view model records if they have been amended in the past 40 days. The records should be presented in a format that the recipient can understand. Service personnel have three types of medical record: personnel medical records that follow them on their tours of duty, the equivalent of a civilian general practitioner's records; hospital records, which all hospitals keep and which remain within the hospital; and operational medical records. They are not stored centrally, and hospital and operation records in particular may not be considered in all circumstances.

The Government's framework document on the new armed forces compensation scheme states:

''Injuries incurred in the above activities will generally be admissible for compensation only if they are reported, recorded and subject to medical examination when incurred. This should generally take place within 24 hours of the event. However, the scheme will have discretion to accept attributability where under the

specific circumstances the reporting timescale is not practicable or where the injury cannot be attributed to a single incident. This will be subject to the existence of reasonable evidence, including within service medical records, to support the case for attributability.''

From the Government's proposals, it is clear that the burden of proof will rest with the individual serviceman whose medical records must support his case, yet he does not hold those records. They are not held by an independent third party, as would be the case with any one of us, whose GP would hold our medical records. The records are held by his employer, against whom he is making a claim. There will therefore need to be in place a system that commands the confidence of claimants, because the availability of the records will prove crucial to future claimants. How does the Minister propose to ensure that servicemen can be confident that, first, their records are maintained and complete and, secondly, they will be given full access to their records with an assurance that vital records will not be withheld?

In cases when records are, for whatever reason, missing or unavailable, who will enjoy the benefit of the doubt? Will claimants be afforded the benefit of the doubt if their records are unavailable as a result of Ministry of Defence failure? If claimants have to prove on the balance of probabilities that their condition is a result of service, access to the records will need to be much better than it has been because, to date, the MOD's record does not inspire confidence. The MOD claims not to destroy the records while personnel are still alive, but I am sure that most Members—including, perhaps, those in Committee—will have come across cases in which the MOD's recall of relevant documentation has been less than exemplary.

The Royal British Legion tells me that service personnel are still reporting gaps in their service medical history, especially when medical events occur when they are away from their parent unit. That is despite claims by Ministers that the maintaining of personnel medical records has been improved in the years since the first Gulf war.

The legion also advises that an individual's ease of access to their medical records is still patchy and reports that it is regularly contacted for advice by service personnel following refusal of access to their medical records, other than if formally requested by a solicitor. Non-commissioned ranks usually experience the most difficulty, and that is the case for the Army more so than the other services. The Royal British Legion also states that, even in cases where service personnel manage to gain access to their records, the process remains slow and cumbersome, and it can be time-consuming and frustrating for the individuals involved. Of course, I hardly need remind the Committee that the Royal British Legion, through charitable donations from members of the public, provides the funds in this respect.

Let me cite the case of one of my constituents, Mr. Wallace. His case hinges on certain documentation not being considered by the Veterans Agency in making its assessment and not being made available to him during his appeal. Although his assessment was eventually uprated from 20 to 60 per cent., certain documents, which could have resulted in his

assessment being uprated much earlier, were unavailable.

In response to representations, I received a wonderfully Alice in Wonderland remark from the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), the Minister's predecessor. In a letter dated 30 September 2002, he wrote:

''The fact that the Ministry of Defence does not hold records of incidents that Mr. Wallace refers to does not mean documents have been destroyed.''

That means that certain records were not available, whether they still existed or not. For whatever reason, the Ministry of Defence could not produce them to enable my constituent to support his claim.

Supporting documents used to assess Mr. Wallace's claim excluded doctor's evidence. At key stages of the assessment and appeals process, certain documentation was unaccounted for and therefore unavailable to Mr. Wallace. What will be done to ensure that all relevant documentation is made available to those claiming under the new scheme, when they will be expected to make their case under the balance of probabilities, which already disadvantages claimants? Under such circumstances, such documentation may prove even more vital than under the existing arrangements.

How do the Government intend to deal with access to records after service has ceased and access to records by interested parties—perhaps the wife or husband—once the individual is dead? How long after the death of service personnel should such records be kept? For example, I understand from Combat Stress that it is required to keep medical records for a further seven years. We say in our proposals that records ought to be maintained until a serviceman's death. I may have got that wrong; I think the period should be seven years, in line with practice at Combat Stress.

If the Ministry of Defence does not destroy records while an individual is alive, what will be done to ensure that records are made more readily available? Even if a record still exists but is unavailable—either to the claimant or the Veterans Agency—it is not much more use in the assessment of a case than a record that has been destroyed.

Let me cite the case of Ritchie Turnbull, an ex-serviceman who, like many others, found himself up against an overly bureaucratic and unhelpful system and was forced to turn to the Royal British Legion before he could get that to which he was entitled. When Mr. Turnbull first took his case to the War Pensions Agency and requested his medical records, quite remarkably he was told that he would be required to pay 10p a sheet for administrative charges, that his file was quite large and that it would cost him. He was effectively encouraged not to seek his file. That obstructionism by Ministry of Defence agencies meant that Mr. Turnbull was deprived of crucial evidence that would ultimately prove vital to his claim.

Originally, Mr. Turnbull's disability was assessed at 15 per cent., but with the assistance of the Royal

British Legion he appealed against the decision of the War Pensions Agency on no less than five occasions. On each of those, his disability was uprated—eventually to 90 per cent. on the most recent appeal. On each of those occasions, the findings of doctors in a prior assessment were found to be wrong. A change in assessment from 15 to 90 per cent. and a charge of 10p a sheet for a file are not acceptable.

If Mr. Turnbull had been given access to his medical records, he might have avoided going through six separate stages before receiving that to which he was entitled. That is a shabby way to treat a person who served his country in the Army when he is seeking compensation for injuries sustained during that service.

Mr. Turnbull told my office that he thought of the Ministry of Defence as

''being like a mean insurance company which will do all it can to get you to take the least possible.''

The MOD was quite prepared to send him away with a 15 per cent. rating, without properly checking his case or giving him free and uncomplicated access to the records that could have helped him to prove it.

Organisations such as the Royal British Legion have dealt with hundreds of these cases, and that was under the old standard of proof involving reasonable doubt. The balance of probabilities test will make the need for adequate access to such records even more acute.

Paragraph 10.6 of the framework document states:

''Service medical evidence is key to the new arrangements and emphasis will be on the importance of detailed, accurate service records fully documenting incidents, events and health information. This will be supported by the work done since the 1991 Gulf crisis to improve the medical records of Service personnel including the introduction of the Operation Medical Record . . . In the longer term it is proposed to link electronic and paper records for both peace-time and operations.''

I see another Government IT system looming. The document goes on:

''The system will be compatible with NHS systems''—

gosh, this is getting even more exciting—

''and in line with the Government information strategy on electronic medical records. The Compensation Scheme will be introduced at a time when there have been significant improvements in the management of medical records. The resultant Service medical records will allow administrative staff broadly to establish the presence and nature of disablement and eligibility. Analysis of inservice data and war pensions claims confirms that the majority of claims will be for musculoskeletal injuries and conditions which are well suited to a tariff approach.''

I think the Committee will accept that, judging by the number of cases that tell similar tales to those that I have drawn on today, a great deal of further improvement will be needed to give confidence in what has been set out in the framework document. I do not disagree with the document itself, and I do not believe that the Minister has anything other than the strongest possible aspiration to meet the objectives set out in it, but I must ask him some questions. What progress has been made on achieving those improvements? How long does he estimate it will be before all those records are stored electronically? What progress has been made in developing and implementing such a system? Will such a system be

up and running for those recruits who join after April 2005? Is it envisaged that this electronic records system will be only for those on the new scheme or is it intended that all service personnel will be included?

If those covered by the new scheme are to have confidence in the system, the Government will need to give some of those assurances. In the past, individuals have often been denied what they are entitled to or made to wait years before they receive it, due to bureaucratic inertia and inadequate record systems.

I received a letter from a constituent. I hope the Minister will forgive me for quoting this, but my constituent wrote:

''The only reason that my accepted conditions were increased to 50 per cent. after two years of rejection is because your office raised my case with the minister. It is as simple as that. The VA''—

the Veterans Agency—

''consistently rejected my claim for two years until you became involved.''

I am sure that other Members are in the same boat—they too will have constituents who are grateful for them intervening to secure an improvement in compensation entitlement. That system cannot be allowed to continue, which is why we have tabled the new clauses. Given such experience, it is insufficient to rely on the framework document and we must have those provisions in the Bill.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

I, too, thank the Minister for responding so positively to the request to provide the leaflet, which I have been able to look through briefly. Bearing in mind the importance of the whole scheme, there is not what in financial services would normally be called a health warning on the front—there is no indication of the importance of seeking professional advice before making a decision. The leaflet suggests that more detailed material will be made available to assist with the decision, but, somewhere on the form, the importance of that decision should be made much clearer. I suggest that we should make it clear that people are recommended to take professional advice before making that decision.

On medical records, many of us have had cases in which we were aware of perhaps less than full co-operation in getting the available information. I preface these remarks by saying that I am assuming that medical personnel in the armed forces are subject to the same regulations in respect of the General Medical Council. The GMC, in giving its registration to all qualified medical professionals, has recently laid down not guidelines, but clear requirements.

I do not know whether the Minister or his officials can confirm whether all qualified medical personnel in the armed forces are required to follow the GMC's regulations as part of their registration. If they are, those regulations, which have recently been tightened significantly, would provide even more reinforcement than has been suggested is needed, both on patient access to records and the clarifying—indeed, the ownership—of those records. The regulations go on to such things as the completeness of records and whether they are comprehensible.

I do not know whether many hon. Members have tried to read any medical records other than their own, but they have a language and style all of their own. The GMC has made it clear that that has to stop and that medical records must be comprehensible to patients, who now have access to them. The use of a significant amount of shorthand—a number of initials, which are almost a code—is unacceptable.

I hope that the medical records that are being completed and compiled in the armed forces comply with the GMC's requirements. Legibility is another issue. Doctors and medical people are notorious for having illegible handwriting, but that is now not acceptable. There have already been a number of cases in which doctors have been reprimanded because of the state of the records that were made available to the GMC so that it could reach conclusions.

I am sure that the Minister and other Members will be aware that doctors are in the process of computerising their records generally. I hope that that computerisation takes place in the armed forces, too, and that the system will be compatible with that in the outside world. Notwithstanding those acknowledged members of the armed forces who require those records to take up cases, there is also the matter of all those who will go on to live a life after leaving the services. They will not necessarily be taking up cases, but they will nevertheless require those medical records to be complete and understandable so that they can be passed to their GP after their service. I do not know whether people will be given the records or certified copies, but in any case there needs to be a clear and timely system to ensure a smooth transition of armed forces records to the GP, or indeed any other doctor to whom the person involved might wish to pass them.

This is an important aspect of how medical records are dealt with, not least because they may be required for compensation cases and pensions. If a person comes out of the forces in his 40s, there may be a significant period over which he would want his records to be maintained external to the forces. I hope that the Minister can explain exactly how the scheme works currently and how it will work in future. I hope he can also confirm that the medical personnel in the armed forces will comply with GMC requirements.

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Griffiths, on what I hope will be our last sitting—we can but hope.

First, I thank the hon. Members for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) for their thanks for the leaflet that I provided. I should say to the latter that it was an information leaflet, and so did not come under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000; if it had, it would have required legal writing on it. That Act will apply when we provide more detailed information.

On Tuesday, I described the pack that was sent out, ''Pension Choices for the Civil Service''. Unfortunately, the two packs that I have with me

are owned by the two civil servants present this morning, so I am afraid the Committee will have to rely on a copy. I shall ensure that, before the matter returns to the Floor of the House, members of this Committee and of the Select Committee have copies of the information.

On the question asked by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall, the answer is yes, our Defence Medical Services doctors accord with the regulations of the General Medical Council.

I am surprised to see new clauses on medical records. New clause 15 states:

''It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that any claimant to compensation arising from injury or illness attributable to military service shall have full and complete access to his medical records.''

The hon. Member for Aldershot made it clear in his opening remarks that claimants already have that right. There is no need for the new clause because the Data Protection Act 1998 makes it clear that individual service personnel already have a right of access to their complete medical records. That will remain the case, and is not changed in any way by the pension and compensation arrangements that we propose in the Bill.

I draw hon. Members' attention to paragraph 72 of the Select Committee's report and paragraph 17 of the Government's response in Cm 6109. I made it clear during the oral evidence session that if there was any failure in record keeping the responsibility would lie with the Ministry of Defence. I gave that commitment to the House at the Select Committee session on 5 November, and it still stands.

The hon. Member for Aldershot asked about record keeping. Our record keeping was poor in the early 1990s, but it has been improving ever since. We now have accurate records to deal with the medical issues that are raised, and we will have a new computerised system by the end of 2005. We will update our medical record keeping system over the next 18 months. The new system will undoubtedly help and support claims under the compensation scheme arrangements.

We retain medical records for 100 years. The Cabinet recommendation is 72 years, but the MOD retains them for 100 years where necessary. That recognises the importance of medical records and answers questions about whether they should be retained. Looking around the Room at those who have been in our armed forces, I think that 100 years is more than enough.

I am not sure that new clause 14 would add anything to the Bill. I hope that during this short debate on medical records I have made our commitments clear to hon. Members. I cannot deal with the individual cases that the hon. Member for Aldershot has raised; I did not know that I was coming to a constituency advice surgery this morning. If he wants us to examine those cases, we would be more than happy to do so as part of the usual routine of dealing with Members' correspondence.

I hope that, as we have had this short debate on medical records, and as some of the commitments have been made clear to him, the hon. Gentleman will not insist on the two new clauses, as they are unnecessary.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

The purpose of drawing the Minister's and the Committee's attention to the two cases was not to raise constituency surgery matters. The case of my constituent, Mr. Wallace, has been resolved by my intervention.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Hear, hear.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

Thank you, Mr. Griffiths. I noted your, ''Hear, hear.'' In case the people from Hansard had not observed it, it was most kind of you to pay me that small tribute.

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

I join you, Mr. Griffiths, and congratulate the hon. Member for Aldershot on achieving that notorious success for one of his constituents.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I am covered in embarrassment.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

I can see a headline in the Aldershot News coming up.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I do not so much see a headline in the Aldershot News as a useful quotation in the forthcoming manifesto at the next general election—Minister praises Member of Parliament. However I am not sure that would wholly achieve the desired effect.

The purpose of my contribution was not to argue a constituency case or to prove how successful I am at winning cases for my constituents. It was to make the point that there is a contrast between what the Government have rightly asserted in the framework document—which we would all subscriber to as a noble aspiration—and the practical experience that I have brought, and that hon. Members from all parties could bring, to the Committee. It is the volume of evidence that the practice does not square with the Minister's aspirations that has caused us concern.

The Minister says that the Select Committee raised those concerns and that an assurance was given—and that this was confirmed in his oral evidence and in the Government's response to the report, to which he referred—that where there is

''a demonstrable failure of the Service record-keeping system affecting a claim, account will be taken of the individual's own testimony and any other evidence related to the claim. If it appears likely that the claim is reasonable, then an award will be made.''

Good man though the Minister is—he might be able to use that in his party's manifesto—it is not going to inspire confidence in our armed forces, who might be involved in those claims, that they must simply rely on a Minister's assurance given in Committee. That is why our suggestion ought to be in the Bill.

I note that the 100 years is probably an improvement on the wording that I proposed. However I have always been pragmatic about such matters and have accepted that my draftsmanship, and that of my advisers, might not necessarily have been up to the standard of parliamentary counsel. Nevertheless, the principle applies and I am sure that the Government could amend my proposal in a suitable way.

The issue of access is addressed in new clause 15. The Minister sought to assure us by saying that he would have a new system up and running by the end of 2005. However, on Tuesday he was unwilling—wisely, as I said at the time—to give an assurance that other new systems would be up and running by a certain time; in this case he is offering a hostage to fortune. Again, I am not sure that such an assurance, given the Government's record on IT systems generally, will inspire the confidence that it is our duty to instil in our armed forces.

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

I will be clear—as far as I can see, new clause 15 provides nothing that is not already available to members of our armed forces under the Data Protection Act 1998. That is the most important point in considering the new clause. The information that they want to receive is already available.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I believe that this is a question of belt and braces. That is why I want to insist that the new clause should be included in the Bill. It is one of the core points that I have tried to bring before the Committee.

We should have more in the Bill. The Government have offered nothing concrete in the Bill: it is entirely an enabling piece of legislation. The issue is so critical. Adopting the new clause would send the clearest possible message to the armed forces that Parliament has every intention of ensuring that it understands their desire to have certainty and confidence in the system. I therefore ask Committee members to vote in favour of the motion on both new clauses.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9.

New clause 15 - Access to medical records

New clause 18 - Pensions for life

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

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

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 20—Post-retirement marriage—

'With effect from 6th April 2005 Forces Family Pensions shall be payable to all widows regardless of the date of their marriage.'.

New clause 28—Spouse or nominated persons benefits—

'(1) Any benefits awarded to a member under section 1 shall upon the member's death be payable to—

(a) the member's lawfully married spouse,

(b) any person nominated by the member.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b) above a member must inform the administrators of the Armed Forces Pension scheme of the name of such person or persons the member wishes to receive any benefits payable to the member under the scheme upon the member's death (whether or not in service).

(3) A person nominated under subsection (2) may only be changed once every 10 years.'.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

We are back in the territory that we visited at the outset of the Committee. I apologise to the Minister for that. He may recall that the way in which we initially tabled amendments made it difficult for me to separate out individual issues and address them in detail. There will be a certain amount of repetition and I beg your indulgence, Mr. Griffiths. It is complex territory but I will do my best to master it.

New clause 20 concerns post-retirement marriages. The widow of such a marriage currently receives either no pension if her late husband retired before 1978, or a part-pension based on her late husband's post-1978 service. In the latter case, that widow would lose even that part-pension if she were to remarry or cohabit. That is a double whammy. New clause 18 seeks to correct that inequity, but not for those who have already married as they are no longer widows.

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

So that I am absolutely clear about the purpose behind the clause, will the hon. Gentleman clarify the matter? Is he suggesting that if people move to the new scheme they should then get the benefit, or that if they are under the old scheme they should get the benefit of the new scheme?

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I am talking about those who are currently widowed, for whom adequate provision has not been made in all cases. I will take the Minister through the details. I make no bones about it, the

matter is complex; it deals with the details of attributable and non-attributable part-pensions and full pensions.

I will deal with the first issue that is raised by new clause 18. Under the new scheme, all future widows will retain their widow's pension if they remarry or cohabit; but existing non-attributable widows—and those who are widowed between now and the time when the arrangements come into force—will continue to be excluded from the benefits available under the new arrangements. The purpose of the new clause is to correct that anomaly.

In December 2000, the Government introduced a concession that enabled attributable widows—sometimes known as war widows—to retain their pensions on remarriage or cohabitation. That included those currently in receipt of attributable forces family pensions—that is existing widows—but did not include those who had already remarried and who were, by definition, no longer widows. It was not retrospective. In the new scheme, that concession will be extended in future to all future widows from the date of entry into the new scheme, but it will exclude existing non-attributable widows.

The MOD estimates that there are only about 130 new non-attributable widows each year of whom about half might be expected to remarry, so the numbers of people affected by this exclusion are very small. The MOD has conceded the principle that surrendering a widow's pension on remarriage is outdated: it has included all existing and future attributable widows, and it now intends to include all future non-attributable widows. It would be a small, magnanimous and entirely appropriate step, in line with the Government's equality agenda, to include existing non-attributable widows. That would prevent the wilful and unnecessary creation of another disadvantaged small group of widows who deserve better.

There is another class of widow whose predicament would be addressed by this new clause—war widows whose husbands died before 1973 and who, upon remarriage or cohabitation, surrender their pension entitlement. Many of these ladies are now very elderly. The president of the RAF Widows Association, Jenny Green, told me that many of them have the opportunity to share their old age with a companion but are terrified of sharing their home in case they lose their pension. She said that the result is that they choose to live alone, sacrificing the joy of companionship. They see the Government dispensing the entire range of benefits to cohabiting couples now serving, while they—some of whom will be the widows of those who fought for Britain in world war two—continue to be discriminated against.

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is proposing. He is making an important statement on public pension policy from the Conservative Front Bench. I would like him to state that he has the full support of the leader of his party and the shadow Cabinet in making this retrospective pension announcement today.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I am advancing the case that has been put to me. I think that it is a good case, and the Government should respond to it.

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

The hon. Gentleman does not have the authority.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I have not discussed this matter with the leader of my party, but these issues need to be addressed and this Committee is the place to address them. Not one of the Minister's Back Benchers has tabled a single amendment. The Minister will not raise this matter so we are raising it, and we are perfectly entitled to do so without the Minister asking whether I am announcing a new policy that my party would introduce.

I am sure that the Minister wants to remind me that when the Conservative party was in Government for 18 glorious years we did not address this issue. As time passes, the group of people whom we are addressing becomes increasingly small. The Minister is a bit younger than me so he may not be able to cast his mind back to the days when Mr. Anthony Barber was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He provided special pensions for widows over the age of 80. There are other groups in that diminishing category of people.

If the Minister were to say how much this would cost, I would be happy to put the matter to my colleagues to ascertain whether we could achieve some cross-party support on it, but for him simply to challenge me in the way that he did is not entirely fair.

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

My point is that what we are discussing is not just about this scheme. The hon. Gentleman is talking about public pension policy in a way that appears very different from a position in government where we look at all the public sector schemes. That is what we are talking about if we start to go down the route of retrospection, as this proposal does.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has spoken to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) or any other members of the small shadow Cabinet, and I do not think that he has wider support. That is all that I am trying to establish.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

As I have said, my intention is to probe the Government.

I must challenge the Minister on his point that proposals have to fit in with wider Government policy. No other scheme provides early departure payment for those who are required to end their service at the time of Her Majesty's Government's choosing. I know that our argument has an echo on the other side of the Committee; I am not trying to monopolise for my party concern for the well-being of our armed forces. There is genuine cross-party support for them. In addressing the Government's desire to take a clean piece of paper and start again, the Committee wants to make sure that we find the best possible solution.

I am referring to one of the legacy issues, as they are called. If the Minister says that such a proposal will cost £350 million and asks me whether I am willing to stump up that amount from the shadow Chancellor next year, fair enough. I shall happily have a word with my right hon. Friend. In the meantime, will the

hon. Gentleman cost such action and come back to me about it?

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

I am listening with intense interest to my hon. Friend. It is extraordinary that anyone should say that we should not discuss such matters. I am personally involved in such a case to which I shall refer later. It is also a matter of a small number of people to whom we owe a debt and for whom everyone in the Room and outside it has enormous sympathy. Such matters must be examined whether or not the new clause is accepted.

Mr. Caplin rose—

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I give way to the Minister.

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

At the outset of the Committee, we said that we would not misquote each other. I cannot let the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) get away with it. I have not said that we should not discuss the matter. I am trying merely to establish parameters within which the hon. Member for Aldershot and his hon. Friends wish to discuss these matters in the context of public pension policy.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I repeat my point that, had we not tabled the new clause, there would have been no discussion about the matter. It would be disingenuous of the Minister—and he is not a disingenuous person—to say that he was about to raise the issue rather than inform the Committee why it would not be part of the new arrangements. Wisely, he has not sought to make that claim. Therefore, it is down to the Opposition to do so. With due deference to the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall, whom I much respect, almost all the amendments have been tabled by Conservative Members. I do not want to prolong the discussion because we have much business to get through today. I do not want to detain the Committee longer than is necessary. Having resolved that matter, I hope to the Minister's satisfaction—well, certainly to that of the Government Whip—I shall resume my place.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

It is important that such an issue has been raised. Those of us who tried to grapple with it before we came to Committee recognised that some small groups were disadvantaged under the system, and the new clause provided an opportunity to address that problem. The financial implications are not of any magnitude and they will not have huge implications for the whole of the public society pension scheme. Several provisions in the proposals do not apply elsewhere because of professional circumstances.

The Government have rightly tried to create fairness in some aspects, not least for unmarried partners. Long-standing inequity has been exposed. It could be dealt with now, and it is a shame that the Government did not take the opportunity of the Bill to deal with such a small group of people—which is becoming smaller—who have been disadvantaged for a while. The new clause is entirely sensible.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support and I agree with what he said.

The purpose of the new clause is to ensure that from the introduction of the new scheme, widows and future widows—when I use the word ''widow'' I refer also to

widowers—who were previously denied a pension, or a proportion of a pension because their marriage took place after their spouse left the service, will receive a full pension. Pensions for widows and widowers of post-retirement marriages were introduced on 6 April 1978 to comply with the Social Security Pensions Act 1975, but the change benefited only those serving at that date, and only service from that date qualified.

The new scheme announced on 15 September 2003 introduced full dependant's benefits for unmarried partners with effect from 6 April 2005. Those who retired before 6 April 1978 and married for the first or subsequent time post-retirement have no widow's benefit at all. Those who retired after 6 April 1978 have widows' benefits based on only post-1978 service. For example, a serviceman who served a full career with half his service pre-1978 and half post-1978 would leave his post-retirement marriage widow on a pension of 12.13 per cent. of his final salary as opposed to 24.25 per cent. for a pre-retirement marriage widow.

New cases will continue to arise on a diminishing scale until 2015, by which time all service will be post-1978. Some of those who bought into the half-rate widows' pensions in 1973 lose that money if they contract a post-retirement marriage.

Unmarried partners, who are effectively cohabiting, will in future attract full dependants' benefits, while those who elected to marry their partners in the past will not.

I hope that it will help the Minister to address our concerns, and find an echo with Labour Members, if I state the special factors that apply to service personnel that are not applicable to any other group of employees. These are: first, the pattern of service life mitigated against early marriage; servicemen were stationed abroad for long periods with limited opportunities to meet suitable potential future spouses and they therefore tended to marry later, in many cases after having completed their military careers. Secondly, early marriage was formally discouraged for officers right up until 1973 by the denial of allowances and quarters—an officer who wanted to marry before the age of 25 was severely frowned upon. Thirdly, the strains on marriages resulting from enforced separation and exposure to danger led to the incidence of divorce being higher in the armed forces than elsewhere. Fourthly, the services' normal retirement age of 55 is well below the norm of 60 or 65 elsewhere, and furthermore the vast majority of service people are forced to retire at or below age 40 because of service manpower policy.

The consequence of those factors is that the probability of service people marrying for the first or subsequent time after they have left the armed forces was, and remains, higher than elsewhere. The post-retirement marriage pension rules bear heavily and unfairly on the armed forces, whose unique conditions of service make them a special case. I emphasise that they have already contributed; through the abatement they have paid for the range of benefits available to members of the armed forces, but they are not entitled to the one that we are discussing.

Since its introduction, the parliamentary pension scheme has provided pensions for the legal widow of an MP regardless of the date of marriage. The Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pensions Act 1965, which introduced the scheme, did not distinguish between those Members who married during their time in the House of Commons from those who married after ceasing to be a Member. There is thus a precedent close at hand. The change that we propose would not breach Government policy on retrospection. The proposed new clause may be technically deficient, but since the Government do not propose to write any details in the Bill, the Minister needs only to accept the principle and incorporate the appropriate language in the measure that sets out details of the scheme.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

I shall address my remarks primarily to new clause 28, but first, I declare an interest in respect of new clauses 18 and 20. New clause 18 raises an extremely important issue that should be aired. My mother is one of the people who would be affected because she was widowed as a result of the battle of Arnhem, in which her first husband was killed. She subsequently married my father and therefore lost her widow's pension. She is now a widow again and has my father's pension, but not the war pension that she would have had.

I am not arguing one way or the other, but there are a small number of people—my mother is now 84—who are suffering hardship and who, perhaps without primary legislation, require special dispensation and care from the Government because of what they have suffered due to their spouses serving in the second world war and possibly subsequently.

Another side to the matter was raised by my constituent, Joan, who was married to a bomber pilot who was killed over Germany during the second world war. She had just one child, I think. She has said to me that she would be very upset if it transpired that she could have retained her widow's pension and remarried. She said that she did not remarry because she had a widow's pension and she wanted to bring up her child. She worked as a teacher throughout her career and is now in her 80s. She feels that she stuck with it because she could not keep her widow's pension and also remarry. I do not necessarily use that case to argue one way or the other, but we need to acknowledge that the issue is complex. I shall say no more about new clause 18.

I have a particular interest in new clause 20. If pressed to a Division, I could not vote for it. I am in receipt of a military pension and am therefore such a person as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot described. I spent a lot of my service abroad and never met a suitable young lady. I came back from the first Gulf war, and the weekend I left the Army I met my wife. We are still married. She does not therefore qualify for my pension, although I am indebted to my hon. Friend because I had thought that she did not qualify for any pension at all. I now understand that

she qualifies for a pension based on my post-1978 service.

New clause 28 is important. There is so little that is concrete in the Bill, and we need to have clarity on what should be in it. We should know what is intended and have that in the Bill so that there can be no doubt about what it means. We hear a great deal from the Government about how they are extending pensions and benefits to unmarried and same-sex partners. Personally, as Committee members probably know by now, I would restrict benefits to married spouses. However, that is not what the new clause is about; it is about clarity.

We hear a lot about nomination—about registered partnerships—and I believe that a civil partnerships Bill may come forward. Let us put what we mean about nomination in the Bill. I have the Defence Council instruction from the Select Committee report, which discusses partnership nomination schemes. In paragraph 12, it says:

''Nominating a partner for the payment of pensions benefits will not be compulsory''.

That is quite wrong; it should be compulsory. Let me give an example. Galloping majors from the cavalry are much in the news at the moment. Suppose that there were a notable philanderer.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

I hope that my hon. Friend is not referring to me.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

Certainly not. Suppose that there were a notable and quite well-off philanderer, to whom I shall refer as Major X, who never married and got killed in Iraq. He had had an affair with a Miss Y for a year—quite a substantial period. He had told her that he loved her and that he wanted to live with her for ever. He had put her in a flat that he owned, bought her a car and paid her an allowance. [Interruption.] He could indeed be a viscount, but he is a mythical figure, so we do not need to dwell on that.

Miss Y already has a child—not by Major X, but by someone else. Over the last year, Major X has treated the child as his own, buying him expensive presents and talking about adopting him. Sadly, Major X has for the past five years shared another flat that he owns with Miss Z.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Typical Tory!

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

I hear cries of ''typical Tory'', but Major X is well known as the radical in the officers' mess and he makes a point of voting Labour. [Laughter.] Notwithstanding the cheap laughs from the cheap seats, I am making a rather important point. Although Miss Z knows of Miss Y, she believes that Major X really loves her and her two children, both from an earlier relationship. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but these are the problems that I promise will arise. Major X has nominated his next of kin, as he has to, and that is his mother. He has also made a will, as he is encouraged to, and it leaves everything to his mother.

The major has never indicated that he wanted Miss Y or Miss Z to have any money from him, but when he dies, both of them, under the criteria put forward by the Government, will have a claim on his estate and his

pension benefits. That is the point. They will both apply, which will be a legal nightmare. That is why I say to the Minister that if we are to have such provisions, let us have nomination, as is suggested in the Defence Council instruction. However, it must be compulsory. If people do not believe in marriage that is fine, but I am sure that everyone believes in clarity.

The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) is not here, which is a pity, because in an earlier sitting he mentioned the very sad case of Bombardier Brad Tinnion, who was killed in Sierra Leone in a regiment of which I am a former member. No one knows what that sad, dead young man wanted for the future. It is important to know that he had a child. The child requires looking after from his estate—that is absolutely certain—but no one knew what Bombardier Tinnion wanted. I understand that there have been many ructions over that.

I do not want to make any political points about an emotional and sad case, and I do not think that anyone else should either, but if there is no clarity such details will arise when people are killed. There should be clarity in the nomination. If someone wants to nominate some other person that is fine, but they must nominate that person.

The new clause also says that there should be only one change every 10 years. Government Members may find it amusing, but I know from personal experience—I can see on the Labour Benches at least one other person with recent military experience who will also know—that, funnily enough, young men and women in the armed forces are fairly free with their favours from time to time. They do not show the fidelity that po-faced legislators might wish them to. That is a fact of life, not a moral judgment. If the provisions are not clear, there will be so much trouble from mothers, fathers, girlfriends and wives as well as so many legal fees.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

When I was a member of the Royal Bank of Scotland's scheme, I was required to make such a nomination, and I naturally nominated my wife. The trustees of the scheme made it absolutely clear that although they would respect that advice, they would treat my nomination as only advisory, because if I had other legitimate claimants—other children by another marriage, or whatever—they would take that into account. I think that is quite proper.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

My hon. Friend makes an important point—that is why it is important to have clarity in the Bill. There are often children who have a claim on maintenance from an estate, but only one widow or unmarried partner can receive a pension.

We have a duty to put clarity in the Bill. We already know—the Select Committee has told us—that there are a few winners from the provisions, but many losers. Let us try to ensure that things are as clear as possible, and that the wishes of dead servicemen are requested before their death and respected after it.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

I shall restrict my remarks to new clauses 18 and 19. I see them as of a piece. A shocking case was brought to my attention, although I doubt that it is the only one of its kind. A lady, who was

married to a serviceman throughout his career, became a widow and subsequently remarried. She therefore lost the pension to which she had been entitled. She married another former serviceman, but after his retirement. He too died, but she had no entitlement to his pension, having married him after he retired. As a result, she had no pension at all, which strikes me as a shocking injustice.

There is undoubtedly a legacy of such injustices, which is appreciated by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. The key issue is the extent to which we say that it is right to breach the principle of retrospection, and say that we should spend money, and how much that ought to be, on putting right former injustices. My hon. Friends have said that the numbers of people experiencing injustices are diminishing. However, I still find it shocking the number of cases that come to light in my postbag. About four or five people a year write to me who suddenly discover that they are in a situation that they were not anticipating.

On 22 January 2002, I put a question to the Secretary of State asking him

''if he will estimate the cost to the Armed Forces Pension Scheme of providing widowed spouses of post-retirement marriages with a pension based on all the pensionable service of the service men and women.''—[Official Report, 22 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 726W.]

The right hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram) was the Minister who replied. He said that it would be one-off cost, based on an actuarial estimate, of £50 million. Is that ballpark figure still broadly correct?

The Minister went on to say that the cost implications for all public service pensions would be about £500 million. The Minister in Committee has already said in interventions that we cannot talk exclusively about the armed forces pension scheme; we must talk in terms of public sector pensions in their entirety. I do not see that as a necessary corollary. We are entitled to say that the armed forces are special. If we decide that there are a few cases in which retrospection should apply, we should be entitled to ring-fence them and say that that applies only to the armed forces because of the special way in which we want to treat them.

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

I am grateful to hon. Members for this rather strange debate. We have heard a series of announcements about pension policy, which do not seem to have wider support. I shall be interested in whether we have a Division on new clause 18, which refers to a significant amount of public spending.

The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) cannot have it all ways. He cannot say that he wants to do something, but also wants to ring-fence a small group of people. Successive Governments of both colours have made it clear that retrospection is a matter of public pension policy. He cannot come into a Committee to propose a single item, and then say that he believes in it. I am happy to tell Committee members that the cost of what the hon. Member for Aldershot proposes in new clause 18 would be £500 million. That is a significant public spending pledge,

and I fail to see how it accords with the various announcements that we have heard—

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

May I challenge the Minister?

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

Just a second. Over the past few days, we have heard various announcements from members of the Opposition Front Bench. I am more than happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman, but he must confirm whether his proposal is Conservative Party policy.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

No. The Minister needs to confirm whether the £500 million relates simply to ex-service personnel or the whole public sector.

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

I have made it clear that I am reflecting public pension policy for Her Majesty's Government. Is the idea that one can somehow pick off part of it and say, ''Oh no, that doesn't matter because it is the armed forces''?

Mr. Swayne rose—

Mr. Robathan rose—

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

Are Conservative Members saying, ''That is a policeman, that is a firefighter, that is a doctor.''? It does not make sense. The hon. Member for Aldershot loyally supported the Conservative Government for 18 years. They had plenty of opportunity to do that, or to propose doing that. I cannot recall whether any proposals were put forward to that end but, if there were, I am sure that they were responded to in a negative way by the Conservative Government over those 18 years.

Mr. Swayne rose—

Mr. Robathan rose—

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

I am spoilt for choice, but I will go with the hon. Member for Blaby, who has tabled a new clause.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

As I do not speak for the Opposition Front Bench, I can say what I like. I would like the Minister to clarify two points. He says that the cost across the public sector would be £500 million—a huge cost—so can he illustrate that with other examples? I do not know of any other profession in which people put their lives on the line in quite the same way, with the same number of repercussions. Of course, police officers get killed in service, but I do not think that as many police have been killed in service as, for instance, the number of armed forces personnel who were killed during the second world war. I am unsure where the Minister extrapolates the new clause—to which I am ambivalent, to a certain extent—to other parts of the public sector.

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

The £500 million that I have been talking about is only part of what the cost would be. I can only cost the armed forces part of the proposal. We think that that amounts to about £500 million. The impact on the wider pension policy will be billions of pounds.

I accept that the hon. Member for Blaby, as he is on the Opposition Back Benches, can say what he likes, as do many of my hon. Friends, at times.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

They do not say a lot.

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

They have said quite a lot in various debates over the past few months. That is perfectly legitimate. However, on the Government Front Bench, we have to be clear whether the £500 million has the support—just for the armed forces—of the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex or the shadow Chancellor, who seems to be delving into spending issues on behalf of the Conservative party. I do not believe that there is that level of support. In that case, the Opposition should withdraw new clause 18 and not force it to a Division. However, I would be more than happy to go to a Division on new clause 18, believe me.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

The parliamentary answer to which I referred the Minister stated that the cost of the armed forces pension scheme would be £50 million, but the implications for public policy, in terms of extending that to the public sector, would be about £500 million. I am thoroughly confused by the figures that the Minister is bandying about.

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

The hon. Gentleman does not have to be confused. We estimate that the cost for the armed forces' element of retrospection is £500 million.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

It cannot be.

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

Yes. Non-attributable armed forces dependants' benefits would amount to £500 million if we were to accept retrospection. The £50 million that was mentioned is for post-retirement marriages, referred to earlier by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that that is clear.

I do not want to spend a long time on these amendments. We have already discussed most of these issues in Committee. However, I had to make clear the Government's position. We cannot accept retrospection in public pension policy. That is financially unacceptable as it is unacceptable in pension policy. People accept that their pensions are dealt with at the time that they enter into the pension scheme. That is the Government's position. We have no plans to change it. That also covers new clause 20.

New clause 28 was tabled by the hon. Member for Blaby. He has raised an interesting point about compulsion in the context of nomination. In preparation for this debate, I read the information on the new civil service pension scheme, which we will send to Members later. That scheme does not require nomination to give entitlement to the partners, so we have decided to be consistent with the new civil service scheme.

If there is no nomination, there will be a ''judgment made'' on those who are seeking a claim. We have had to do that already, because we have used the rules on six occasions on Defence Council instruction—I referred to that in the House of Commons on 22 January. I know that in at least one case we had to make an ultimate judgment on the benefits. I hope that that clarifies the point. I do not think that we need to go into further detail.

I am always happy to debate with the hon. Gentleman extending benefits to unmarried partners, but we have already had a long and detailed debate on that issue. Suffice it to say that the hon. Gentleman

was unable to force a Division on that issue, much to my regret. We would have been more than happy to have one. However, we have clarified in the Defence Council instruction, which I attached as a memorandum to the Select Committee on Defence in December, how we will deal with unmarried partners, whether they are same-sex or heterosexual.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

Has the instruction been published? It does not have a number in the document.

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

I assume that it has been published because I gave it to the Defence Committee in December.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

It does not have a number.

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

That is possibly because it was attached as a memorandum, but I am sure that it has been through the normal process for a Defence Council instruction.

This has been an interesting debate, but one that we have had before. Given my points about public pension policy and various other schemes, including the new civil service scheme, new clauses 18, 20 and 28 are unnecessary. I am more than happy that there should be a Division, but I have a sneaky feeling that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the motion on the new clause.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

The Minister said that I supported a Conservative Government for 18 years. I was a Member of the House of Commons for nine of those years, and I certainly supported the Conservative Government previously, although I would have had some difficulty in the 1992 Parliament. It was probably to the advantage of the then Government Whips that my constituents in Cannock and Burntwood thought that it would do me an enormous favour to have a break. It also released me for deployment to Aldershot, which is the finest constituency in the country and suits my interests.

The Minister is trying to pin a cost on our new clause. That is fair game, and I do not criticise him for doing so. Indeed, as Lord Bach said last week at a Defence Procurement Agency conference, tough choices have to be made, and we know that they are being made in the Ministry of Defence. The idea that we are looking at prudent spending decisions in isolation is bizarre given that the MOD is in complete panic about budget overruns, freezes on recruitment and project movements. The Government face many problems with the MOD's budget, and we know about the work strands.

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I will in a moment.

The Minister is trying to say that to make any of these changes would cost X, and of course there is a price to pay. What has this exercise been about over the past six years, if not establishing and rearranging priorities? This is not a new pension scheme that has been designed simply to provide the best for the armed forces. The scheme certainly had that objective, but that has been subordinated to the greater objective of cost neutrality.

The Minister is saying that all the priorities that he has established are the right priorities, that those who are paying the price are right to do so, and that the Government are right to give the benefits to those who they have chosen. However, it is no good saying that any change that we propose will have repercussions throughout the public sector, whereas changes that he proposes will not. The hon. Gentleman is trying to advance an inconsistent argument. When we discussed these matters earlier, regarding attributable widows, the Minister said that I

''will be aware that in October 2000 the attributable widows were allowed to keep their pensions for life on remarriage or cohabitation. That group was seen as being exceptional because of the nature of their spouses' deaths.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 10 February 2004; c. 54.]

So that group was exceptional. He was not telling the Committee then that the Government acted knowing that that would apply right the way across the public service, because it did not.

This is a stand-alone scheme. Everything about it is specific to the armed forces. Parallels have been made, and favourable examples have been drawn, with firemen and policemen, and unfavourable comparisons have been made with other schemes. If the Minister said ''Yes, we recognise that there is a case to be made there, but we have decided it is not a priority case for us; much as we would like to do so, we cannot afford it, and we have chosen other priorities'', that would be fine. However, for him to argue in defence of his position that any change that he has not proposed will have consequences throughout the whole of the public sector is simply disingenuous and, frankly, does him a disservice.

The Government have decided to extend benefits to unmarried partners, which will bear a cost, and some other groups say ''Well, they have decided to make their judgment at our expense.'' The legacy cases amply illustrated by my hon. Friends deserve consideration, and that is what we are drawing to the attention of the Committee and proposing for wider public debate.

In December 2000, the Minister's predecessor considered the attributable cases as being warranted. We feel that the scheme should have paid attention to the unattributable cases as well, and to the issue of post-marriage retirement. That is the basis upon which we have proposed the new clauses.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby made an extremely good point concerning new clause 28, and gave an extremely colourful explanation of the difficulties into which the Minister's Department might find themselves getting at some point. That was reflected in the fact that the Minister acknowledged that there was a case for compulsory nomination. I am glad that we have had that debate. It does not matter that the civil service does not have it because, as my hon. Friend vividly set out, different conditions apply. The Minister ought to consider compulsory nomination, not least because it would be to his advantage, and to the advantage of the Ministry of Defence. It would probably eliminate a lot of hassle. I leave it on the table for the Minister to consider, but I suspect that he is already favourably disposed to the

idea. He may be prepared to give it due consideration on Report or on Third Reading.

I do not propose to press new clauses 18 and 20 to Divisions, not because of the Minister's comments but because I would like to hold back for consideration on Report to see how the Minister will respond to the arguments that have been advanced, and to see whether there is any scope to include exceptional cases, as his predecessor regarded the attributable widows' case to be in December 2000. It is simply grown-up politics to acknowledge that we in the public arena all face difficulties in matching our constituents' desires for spending money and taxes. That is a normal position: it is known as having one's cake and eating it. That is what every member of the public wants, and what we all want, individually. As politicians, we have to exercise judgment, but that is not easy.

We do not believe that the Government have been entirely straightforward about the figures, although I do not say that they have been dishonest. Perhaps, therefore, we could explore the precise costing of these issues on Report, and see whether there might be scope, even within the Government's cost-neutrality constraints, to go at least some way towards meeting the concerns and complaints of the two legacy groups.

Andrew Robathan (Conservative, Blaby)

First, although I understand the Government's desire to make public pension policies standard, I do not think that the fact that all civil servants have that type of pension is a good justification to impose it on the armed forces. Members of the armed forces have a disproportionately high chance of suffering an untimely and violent death. I do not say that to knock any other public servants, but it is the case. If—God forbid—we were to go to war, we would remember that. Perhaps we do not remember it otherwise. Iraq is a good example of that.

Secondly, because of the chances of untimely and violent death, if there is no clear nominee when servicemen and women die, there will be unhappiness, bitterness, rancour, argument and legal division. I regret that such situations will be chaotic and will not reflect well on the armed forces or the Ministry of Defence. Clarity would be to the advantage of all members of the armed forces who put their lives at risk.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 19 - Full career pension

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

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

We discussed full career pensions at length during our first sitting, and I do not intend to repeat too much of what I said then. The argument was advanced forcefully.

The new clause would increase the full career pension to the public sector benchmark of 662/3 per cent., which is the maximum permitted by the Inland Revenue. The new armed forces pension scheme is the only public sector final salary scheme that will prevent its members from earning a full two-thirds of final salary pension, even if they serve the usual full career of 35 years. That is structurally unsound, and fails to recognise the servicemen's unique commitment. The employer imposes a 35-year maximum on a career because they require a younger-than-usual work force. It is an employer benefit, not a perk of the job. The effect is that after 35 years of service, the 50 per cent. pension with the lump sum added in cannot be higher than 621/2 per cent., compared with the 662/3 per cent. that is the norm in all other pension schemes in the public and private sectors. The Minister wants to make an exception the other way. All other public policy is to have a final salary of 662/3 per cent. In this case, however, it will be 621/2 per cent. So this has no ramifications, we have to understand, for the wider public sector.

Colin Breed (Liberal Democrat, South East Cornwall)

Surely if it did, there would be significant savings in the other public pension schemes, which could perhaps be used more beneficially elsewhere?

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. It will be interesting to see whether the Minister proposes that. I suspect that he will not.

The employee is compensated in other schemes with the same constraints. For example, the parliamentary scheme has a very fast accrual rate throughout to deal with this issue. The police scheme has an accelerated accrual rate in the last 10 years of service. The proposed police scheme has an exceptional lump sum of four times the pension. Other schemes grant additional years at the end of service. The employer, in this case the Government, restricts their employees' pension earning capability.

At 55, the employee has very limited prospects for continuing to earn a second pension of comparable value. Obviously some people will qualify, but many will not. The employer, again the Government, has a duty of care, which they should recognise. By selling our servicemen short, the Minister has abrogated this responsibility. The number of servicemen who continue to serve until they are 55 is very small and amounts to fewer than 5 per cent. of the total. These are people who have committed almost all their working life to their country. This is one of the greatest flaws of the new scheme, and it does not stand easily with the Government's sentiment that we have the best armed forces in the world when we withhold

from them an entitlement to earn a full career salary by a significant margin. Despite what the Minister said on the first day of our proceedings, I hope that he will reconsider the issue.

Eric Joyce (Labour, Falkirk West)

I want to make a brief point about the nature of accrual rates. It is a complex business and I want at least to simplify the matter for myself, let alone for the rest of the Committee.

The accrual rate in the Army is quite fast in the early years and slower in later years—a convex shape followed by a concave. As people come to the end of their service, they are discouraged not only by the problem explained by the hon. Gentleman, but also from making additional voluntary contributions because they receive a relatively low rate of return in later years. I have not done the calculations, but I suspect that it makes as much sense in the very late years to put money into other investments as it does to buy additional voluntary contributions. That is a pity because people will not only leave, albeit early, with a somewhat smaller proportion of their final earnings, but they will be inhibited from buying the last few years, as they can under the current system of AVCs.

Unlike the Opposition, I do not propose to ladle lots of extra costs on to the Government, and I wholly recognise the requirement for the changes to be cost-neutral. However, it would be worth while the Government considering how to make the scheme more attractive, whether under the current system or some other system, for people to contribute in the late years given that the accrual rates are much lower.

I would be reluctant to make a significant change to the shape of accrual, although that would seem the logical thing to do. The shape may need to be more complex, but I would want to maintain the benefit that accrues to people who leave early. The logical thing to do is to shift the shape of the accrual curve so that it would become more like the curve that applies to the police scheme. They have a higher accrual rate in later years, which encourages people to stay on. In effect, the accrual rate in the Army is intended to encourage people to leave—it is rather like a manning control point. I do not want to impose extra costs on the Government. I simply want them to reflect on how to encourage people to make AVCs towards the end of their careers.

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

I addressed the main purpose of new clause 19 at columns 54 and 55 of the Committee's second sitting, on 10 February. However, let me repeat my four main points, just for clarification. First, the Inland Revenue limit of 66.7 per cent. of salary is a maximum, not a target. Secondly, the limit is likely to disappear from April 2005. Thirdly, few people in the armed forces scheme are affected—the figure is about 10 per cent. of officers and 2 per cent. of other ranks. Fourthly, everyone can make additional voluntary contributions under the new scheme to increase the value of their benefits up to the equivalent of 40 years' service. I shall return to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Joyce) in a moment.

In addition, armed forces personnel can earn pension benefits from the first day of service under the new scheme, as I said on Tuesday. Under the current scheme, the starting age for benefits is 21 for officers and 18 for other ranks. I hope that I am being helpful when I say that the hon. Member for Aldershot is slightly missing the point. Under the new pensions scheme, people will be able buy added years through AVCs to bring the value of their pension up to 66.7 per cent. of their final earnings, which my hon. Friend mentioned, and there is certainly every expectation that they would do that.

I have two final points. I think that the hon. Member for Aldershot suggested that other public service pension schemes had accrual rates of 66.7 per cent. at full career, but I am pretty sure that that is not the case. If my memory serves me correctly, the current civil service scheme—not the new one—does not have a full accrual rate of 66.7 per cent. Perhaps I can check the figures and circulate a list.

Although the current career structures and fitness requirements make it difficult to employ personnel for longer in our armed forces, we have designed the new pension scheme arrangements in recognition of the fact that that may change. Meanwhile, pensions that accrue a lower percentage of final salary than other schemes—the point my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West made so well—are paid at an exceptionally early age. The reality is that most personnel who leave with a full pension at age 55 will be able to take further employment and to build up significant additional benefits. That returns us to our debate on the skills and abilities of members of our armed forces and the transferability—if I can call it that—of those skills to new careers. There is no question that that is a considerable benefit. I hope, therefore, that we will not need to proceed further with new clause 19.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

First, I am grateful to the Minister for letting us see other schemes and the way in which they operate. I noted that he said the existing civil service scheme does not provide for 662/3 per cent. Does he mean the new scheme—the one now in operation—or the previous scheme?

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

Sorry, I thought I made myself clear. There is a current, or old, scheme and a new scheme, which is the subject of the documentation. The old scheme does not provide 662/3 per cent. I think the new scheme does, but I will have to check as I am not an expert on the civil service scheme.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I am sure that the Minister's officials will be delighted that he is going to check on their scheme. I am sure that will endear him to them.

If what the Minister thinks to be the case is the case, then he makes the point for us. If the existing civil service scheme provides for less than 662/3 per cent. and the new one provides 662/3 per cent., then there should be parity for the armed forces. However, I am grateful for his offer, which is helpful.

The Minister said that the starting age for qualification for pension entitlement will be 18. We accept that, but it does not obviate the fact that few people will be able to qualify for the full 662/3 per cent.

He defends that on the grounds that today's armed forces acquire skills that have a transferability value into other employment. I am sure that he is right. Our servicemen and women have always acquired skills over the years that in most cases make them attractive to future employers. However, that arrangement was patchy in the past and will continue to be so. There will be some who do frightfully well and some who do not. It is rather like ex-Members of this place. As a former Labour Member of Parliament said to me, ''There is nothing as ex as an ex-MP.'' Some do very well and command huge fees for after-dinner speeches; others do not do so well. The question is where to strike the balance.

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

Just to clarify matters, the first day of enlistment could be before someone is 18 and benefits would start to accrue from then. That is what I said on Tuesday.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

That is entirely fair and I accept that. It still means that few will qualify for the full 662/3 per cent., but the case has been made.

The hon. Member for Falkirk, West made an extremely useful contribution by making it clear that because of the need to maintain the youthfulness of the armed forces—particularly the Army, which is the biggest employer—the accrual rate operates more swiftly in the early years than later on. He made the point that the AVCs that the Minister said would be available for people to buy were not as worth while as perhaps they might be.

It is still an unsatisfactory state of affairs, but there is not much point in pressing the new clause to a Division because I would not win the vote. We argued the case forcefully both on day one and today. The Minister will not fully convince us, or the beneficiaries of the scheme, that his proposal is the best way to deal with the problem. However, I recognise that the cost-neutrality corset into which all the aspects of the new scheme have to be fitted means that Ministers have to make difficult decisions. This is one of them. I suggest that we think again and perhaps consider whether the parliamentary scheme or one of the other schemes that I mentioned might provide a solution. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 24 - Aftercare

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

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

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 25—Medical expenses—

'Any necessary expenses in respect of the medical, surgical or rehabilitative treatment of a member of the Armed Forces and of appropriate aids and adaptations for disabled living may, in so far as not provided under legislation of the United Kingdom, be defrayed by the Secretary of State for Defence under such conditions and up to such amounts as he may determine.'.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

The new clauses are probing. They seek to ensure that the provisions of existing statutory instruments are replicated. The Minister may say that such provisions are in place and that there is no need for what I propose. However, I shall take the Committee through my argument.

New clause 24 deals with aftercare. The NHS has a system under which war pensioners are given priority, but it is largely ignored by practitioners. As a result of the closure of military hospitals, the arrangement no longer works, but there is no alternative, which I shall develop in a moment. The Bill contains no provision for treatment allowances as provided under current arrangements. The new clause seeks to replicate the provisions of article 23 of the Naval, Military and Air Forces Etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, S.I. No. 1983/883.

New clause 25 deals with medical expenses. I am indebted to the Royal British Legion for both ideas. Although verbal promises have been made to continue the provisions of article 26 of that order, the Bill makes no mention of it. Those promises need to be substantiated because only then can charities such as Combat Stress, the ex-services mental welfare society, provide care.

It is common ground that the MOD has a clear duty of care for those who have served in the armed forces once their service is completed, particularly for those who have been disabled as a result of that service. It has been said before that the way in which we treat our servicemen and women once they have completed their service is at least as important as how they are treated during that service.

Our servicemen and women need to know that if something should happen to them, they will be properly taken care of and not made to fight the MOD for that to which they are entitled. Simon Weston has done much to highlight the problem. He spread the message that veterans do not want special treatment or to be made to beg for more: they just want what they believe to be their entitlement. The Committee will probably agree that they should not be forced to go cap in hand; on the contrary, we should set down now what they are entitled to, and we must ensure that it reflects the sacrifice that they have made.

Organisations such as Combat Stress and the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association, which rely on Government funding for individual patients as well as charitable donations, do a tremendous job in providing much of that care. I know that the Minister will join me in commending the work of such organisations. He has visited the Combat Stress treatment centre at Tyrwhitt House in Surrey, as have I, and he knows that they play a great role in caring for sections of our ex-service community.

Will the Minister assure the Committee that the Government will continue to support and provide assistance to those thoroughly worthwhile organizations? What plans do the Government have to increase their support to those kinds of organisations properly to reflect the essential role that they play? The NHS is already overburdened with civilian patients, so voluntary charitable organisations such as Combat Stress or St. Dunstan's will be the only ones providing that type of care. Without them there would be no specialist service-orientated provision. I emphasise service-orientated because one of the issues that I have with the Minister on the outsourcing of the mental treatment of service personnel to the Priory group is that it is not service-orientated and takes service personnel out of the service environment.

Like the rest of us, the veterans look primarily to the NHS for health care. However, the MOD has a significant role to play, first, in the assessment of certain conditions, as that will determine what the veterans are entitled to, and, secondly, in ensuring that they receive any specialist treatment and equipment that they might need. The Government's framework document states:

''As with the present provisions, the assumption is that in-service care will be provided by the Defence Medical Service, while post-service responsibility for service related disablements will fall to the NHS. We will be consulting with the Department of Health about the continuance of current arrangements for priority NHS medical treatment for compensated conditions.''

Will the Minister report on the progress that he is making on those consultations with the Department of Health? The closure of the single-service hospitals makes it increasingly the case—notwithstanding the specialist military district hospital units, such as my local one, Frimley Park—that service personnel required in the front line have to take their place in the NHS queue. So I am interested to hear how confident the Minister is that the arrangements for prioritising service personnel will remain.

We are hopeful that most of the arrangements will stay as they are, but one of the most important parts of the aftercare process that concerns us—it has a direct bearing on the Committee—is the reassessment of care. Many ailments involve progressive deterioration and the care that is provided will need to be readjusted to meet those changed circumstances. A system sensitive to that, and which is flexible to the ever changing needs of individuals, is required.

After speaking to representatives of Combat Stress, I am aware of the need for flexibility when dealing with mental illnesses and psychological conditions. Such illnesses are difficult to diagnose at the outset, and assessing degeneration and how the condition will affect individuals in future years is something that scientists are only beginning to come to terms with. Cases involving mental illness must have that reassessment provision, which allows ex-servicemen to have their entitlements uprated. Even if the initial assessment were correct, it would not be correct subsequently as the condition worsens. I know the Minister shares that concern. Much of the effort and

expense is committed to mending broken bodies—limbs and all the rest. The rehabilitation scheme under way in the services is enormous, but we need to do more to address the problem of broken minds. I think that the Minister is at one with me on that.

Those people face other difficulties, such as unemployment and homelessness, which should not be ignored. Providing help and a safety net is as important in the aftercare process as the treatment. The Department for Work and Pensions document ''Pathways to Work'' says:

''Possible MOD involvement in DWP pilots/projects is also being discussed.''

We welcome such moves, but will the Minister clarify what kind of role the MOD is playing in the process? What is it doing, other than providing medical assistance, to help ex-service personnel who have been forced to leave the service through disability? Does the Minister accept that the MOD has at least some responsibility in facilitating employment for those who have served in the forces, especially those who have had their careers ended through disability? Certain ex-service organisations have suggested to us—I think I mentioned this—that there could be a role for blind and limbless ex-service personnel in other parts of the MOD. Looking favourably on job applications from such people would be a small part in its duty of care when an individual's service has ended for whatever reason.

If the Government stick to their commitments in the framework document to maintain arrangements for aftercare, we will wholeheartedly support them. There is not much in their proposals with which we disagree, but we wanted to use this opportunity to set on record some of the improvements that could easily be made.

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

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.

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.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

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?

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

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

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.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

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.

New clause 27 - Extension of benefits to members of

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

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

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

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.'.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

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.

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.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I offer a quick echo of my hon. Friend's eloquent words. Such a scheme exists for the American national guard, and now that the Government are moving in the direction of the national guard in so many other areas—in mobilisation policy and so on—I counsel the Minister, who I know is well disposed towards reserve forces, and takes considerable personal interest in them, to look at what the national guard does. It has an inexpensive scheme because it has one absolute rule, which is, from memory, that nobody gets a penny if they serve for less than 20 years.

The vast majority of people who go through the national guard get no benefit from it. However, it provides a degree of benefit for the small proportion of people who are the absolute heart of any reservist unit and who serve for long periods. It is calculated on the basis of their total number of serving days during their total accrued service. It involves some detailed record keeping, but in the era of the computer that should not be a huge problem.

It is not expensive and it is for that small proportion of people who really make the reserve forces tick. They are not so much the serial mobilisers, who get pension rights when they are mobilised, but the people who go all the way up through the ranks. One friend of mine who served for 30 years ended up as a company commander, having started as a private. Another example would be the man who commands his regiment having started as a young officer and gone up through the officer ranks. Those people who may be mobilised only once or even not at all in their long service benefit, and it is a relatively inexpensive scheme.

I want now to focus on new clause 29. I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I tell two brief stories from my reserve service. Approximately 25 years ago, on a road in Norfolk, an 18-year-old soldier who was serving under me was struck on a night patrol by an extremely drunk driver, who was subsequently successfully prosecuted by the police. The soldier's left leg was fractured in a large number of places and he was off work for a long time while he made his recovery. The first thing that happened was that we had a charming phone call from his employer. He wanted to be sure that he was looked after in the best possible way and said that on top of whatever the Army gave him he would make him a generous payment.

When we looked into the rules, we discovered that under the system that the Ministry was then operating everything that his employer gave him would be deducted, pound for pound, from the Territorial Army pay to which he was entitled while he was serving. In other words, the employer either carried the whole burden or paid nothing at all. That young man's military equivalent rank payment was roughly what

his employer would have paid him, so his employer reluctantly backed off and left it to the Army. That was not good for relations with employers.

The much more serious case happened by sheer chance when I was serving with the home service force when we were just about to make our first deployment for a generation of substantial numbers of Territorials in the first Gulf war in 1990. This was a much more typical situation. It involved a reservist who was much older than his regular counterparts and was therefore on a much higher civilian salary than they were. He was nearly 50 and a deputy factory manager serving as a lance corporal. He fell off an assault course and broke his arm. He was off work for three or four months.

His employers tried to do exactly what the other employer tried to do. They said that they could not pay him the full rate but would give him his basic salary without the overtime to which he would normally be entitled and the Army could make up the difference. Not a bit of it: under the abatement rules, the MOD paid him nothing. He did not get a penny. A few months later, with the assistance of the now Secretary of State for Health, who was then shadow Secretary of State for Defence, we held an Adjournment debate, which was the last debate before the Christmas recess. Together with three or four colleagues, we stayed behind to press the Conservative Government on this matter. We got the rule changed.

The TA regulations currently state:

''With effect from 1 July 1991,''—

it took a few months to get this through—

''all payments from public bodies and corporations (including DSS Disability Allowance or War Disability Pension received in respect of the same injury or illness) will be deducted from Reserve Forces Disability Allowance, but not payments funded by private employers.''

We all accept that someone in the reserve forces who is already a Government employee—for example, a civil servant or a state school teacher—can receive only the higher of the two rates and not both. However, the Government's proposal is that we return to the abatement of the pre-July 1991 arrangements.

I do not wish to insult my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West, but as a major of 47 he is older than the average major in the Regular Army. Most Territorials and other reservists who are mobilised are older than their civilian counterparts, so they are often on a higher rate of entitlement. It is not even a question of the individual receiving both rates: the civilian employer cannot even top it up to the civilian rate because that extra will be deducted pound for pound in abatement from the military rate. We return to the same problem: either the employer or the individual's pension fund carries the whole burden and the Ministry pays nothing, or the employee receives the lower rate.

I know that the Minister is well disposed towards reserve forces and takes considerable interest in them. The issue cannot be about funding, because we are

dealing with a tiny number of cases. I cannot believe that employers will welcome the measure, in fact I am certain that most, if not all, know nothing about it. It is grossly unfair on reservists. Given that reservists get no benefit, as my hon. Friend said, from the abatement that they are paying, to deny them even this entitlement is extraordinary. A small group of us worked hard with the co-operation of the now Health Secretary to change that 13 years ago, and I urge the Minister not to change it back.

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

First, on reserve matters, I am sure that the Committee will want to welcome the appointment of the new Assistant Chief of Defence Staff (Reserves and Cadets), the Duke of Westminster. That appointment is more than deserved; he and I were at Chilwell last week, and I was pleased to make that announcement.

The hon. Gentleman has been most kind in his comments on my support for reservists.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

Will the Minister give way?

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

I have said very little, but of course I will give way.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I was waiting to see the appointment announced in the London Gazette but was told that it was still under wraps. I congratulate the Minister not only on choosing an excellent individual but on making an appointment for which many members of the reserve forces have been calling for years. It was outrageous that we were the only major English-speaking country without such an appointment, and I congratulate him on grasping the nettle.

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

I am grateful for that endorsement, although I am aware that it has nothing to do with new clauses 27 or 29. It is an important appointment for our reserve forces. The appointment is public knowledge and is effective from 1 April. I know from responses from reservists that they value the appointment.

I strongly welcome the role of our reserve forces. The hon. Member for New Forest, West raised the issue of the essay, and this is the first time that we have had a singular essay on the reserve forces in a White Paper and have made clear the role that they will play. They are more deployable now than they were 10 years ago. They are a skilled outfit and we must ensure that we continue supporting them.

On new clause 27, volunteer reserve service is shorter than the hon. Member for New Forest, West suggested: according to our figures, the average is 29 days a year. That would produce a small pension under any occupational pension scheme such as the armed forces pension scheme. When volunteers are called up, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, to meet any mobilisation, they are entitled to have the employer cost element of their occupational or personal pension met by the Ministry of Defence.

The hon. Gentleman was concerned about what will happen if the volunteers do not have any form of pension. We must, and do, encourage people to have their own personal pension if they do not have an occupational pension. If they have a personal pension,

the same criteria for payment of that provision during their mobilisation will apply.

Members of the Volunteer Reserve are eligible for compensation by the Ministry of Defence for injuries caused or aggravated by, or deaths caused by, armed forces service, whether during call-out or while undertaking voluntary training duties. That system guarantees minimum compensation equivalent to that available to a regular of the same rank, and works by topping up any provision from other personal or occupational schemes. Members on full or part-time reserve commitments are pensionable under the current pension scheme, and it is intended that their future pension provisions will be similar to the new armed forces pension scheme that we are discussing.

The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) raised the matter of the US regular guard. If my memory serves me right, I believe that the scheme for the regular guard in the US is separate from the main pension scheme for the US armed forces, so the situation is slightly different.

With regard to new clause 29, the compensation scheme as it applies to regular service personnel will abate any guaranteed income stream by the income paid under the pension or early departure scheme. That is because it is a loss-of-earnings payment, and without abatement would mean double compensation, which no one has ever supported. The current Reserve Forces (Attributable Benefits Etc.) Regulations 2001 provide attributable benefits as a minimum income guarantee to the level of attributable benefits paid to regulars. That approach will be adopted in the new compensation scheme.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I have just read out—I think that the Minister was talking to one of his colleagues when I read it—the passage from the reserve forces regulations. In July 1991, we changed that so that it was not abated. The Minister said that it would be a minimum amount equivalent to the regular level. However, the point is that the abatement means that a person cannot receive more than the regular level unless the employer carries the whole balance. Given that most reservists are older than their military counterparts, and are therefore likely to be on a higher salary level, that means that the employer is either faced with picking up the whole bill or seeing the person go through at a lower level. I gave an example of a deputy warehouse manager, who was on two and a half times his lance-corporal salary. In that, case the employer picked up the whole bill and the Ministry paid nothing.

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

I shall clarify that matter. Under the new scheme, the income stream would be abated, but the lump sum would not, which has considerable value to some individuals. My understanding is that if the new clause were adopted, reservists who were injured would receive a greater overall compensation package than regulars, because the package would be made up of compensation scheme benefits and other occupational benefits. That would be unacceptable.

Mr. Brazier rose—

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

I must get on, because time is pressing and we have already had a reasonable debate on the matter.

The scheme will ensure that if a reservist has no cover from his civilian life, payments will be made in full without abatement, but if other benefits are paid for the same condition from arrangements such as occupational or personal pensions, it is reasonable that the award from the armed forces compensation scheme guaranteed income stream should be abated.

I recognise that, since 1991, war pensions paid to reservists have not been abated—the hon. Gentleman rightly made that point. Under the new scheme, in the case of injury, there will similarly be no abatement of the lump sum award and the pain and suffering awards because of personal or occupational scheme provisions. Those awards are particularly valuable in cases of serious disablement. That may not take into account all the criteria that he mentioned, but our compensation arrangements are fair and ensure that those who are most disabled receive the support and benefit that they want.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

The Minister has still not responded to my central point: that most reservists are older than their military counterparts. He said that it is unacceptable for reservists to get a higher rate than their military counterparts, but we want people in their late 40s and early 50s, as many reservists are, to come back and do jobs that are done by people in the Regular Army who are in their 30s. Of course many reservists are on higher civilian rates, but they get the higher rate now only if the employer pays the whole lot and the Ministry of Defence makes no contribution. To whom is it unacceptable that they should get the higher rate?

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

The hon. Gentleman is picking up an individual case, which is regrettable. The 1991 provision applies only to war pension scheme pensions, not to occupational pensions paid under the armed forces pension scheme that we are debating. The proposed pension and compensation scheme arrangements would not be enhanced by new clauses 27 and 29, which I hope would not find favour with my hon. Friends.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

The Minister has come up with an interesting idea with respect to personal pension plans, which merits further consideration, possibly on Report.

Julian Brazier (Conservative, Canterbury)

I am disappointed by the Minister's response and I urge him to think further about the matter. I know that he is well disposed towards reserve forces, but I do not think he has been fully briefed. I hope we will return to the issue on Report, or in another place.

Desmond Swayne (Conservative, New Forest West)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

I must tell the Committee that there are three minutes of the proceedings left. As Chair, I can invoke Standing Order No. 88(2)(i) to allow the debate to continue for 15 minutes, provided that we

can complete all the business. I will use the high-risk strategy of invoking that measure.

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. I thank you for agreeing to extend the sitting by 15 minutes, which will be to the benefit of all members of the Committee if it enables us to conclude our proceedings this morning. I am happy to concur with your decision. In the circumstances, I did not move new clause 30, which I hope I may return to on Report.

Ivor Caplin (Labour, Hove)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Griffiths. I do not need to respond in detail and I shall save my remarks on new clause 30 for another day. As our proceedings are drawing to a conclusion, I pay tribute to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee for the way in which they have dealt with the rigours of our debates in the past few weeks. In particular, I thank you, Mr. Griffiths, and your fellow Chairman, Mr. O'Brien, for keeping us in order. I look forward to discussing the Bill on Report.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Griffiths. I thank you for having chaired the Committee so well. Through you, may I extend the thanks of the entire Committee to Mr. O'Brien for sharing the work as Chairman? This is a job share, which is not a Labour Government scheme, but it has enabled you both to share the pleasure of listening to our discussions on important matters relating to the armed forces. I thank all members of the Committee who have contributed. My hon. Friends have been particularly helpful in making valuable contributions, but I also thank Government Members, who made some helpful—albeit infrequent—contributions that informed our debate. Whether they helped to fashion a better Bill is another question. I fear that they were not able to do so, any more than the Opposition were.

Although we extensively debated a number of critical issues that will affect the choice made by our armed forces about whether to stay within the existing scheme or move to the new scheme, it is an enabling Bill and we were unable to add anything to it. It still suffers from the overall deficiency to which the Defence Committee drew attention and about which it was very angry: there is a lack of detail in the Bill, and when the Government place before the House the orders implementing the schemes, they will be debated for a maximum of one and a half hours. Given the extensive issues that all of us accept are implicit in the arrangements, that remains a disappointment.

It also remains the case that the Bill is not an altruistic measure designed to produce the very best for our armed forces. Of course, it is designed to produce the best, but within the constraints of cost-neutrality. The result is that although there are some welcome improvements to the current schemes, they will nevertheless be paid for by a reduction in benefits elsewhere. That will be felt most notably by those who

leave early, by electing or being required to leave the armed forces at the early departure point. They will be far less well-off than under the current immediate pension scheme. An early test of how successful the Government are will be how many people decide to opt for the improved death-in-service benefits available under the new scheme with the substantially reduced benefits of early departure. The full effect of replacing the immediate pension with the early departure payment scheme will not be felt for many years to come, so we cannot foresee what effect the principal change brought about by the change will have on retention of and manning in our armed forces.

On compensation, substantial disagreements remain about changing the burden of proof and the limitation of time. Those issues have not gone away. The Minister did not allay during our proceedings concerns expressed by others outside, such as the Royal British Legion, but we shall reflect over the next few days or weeks before the Bill is considered on Report on the Floor of the House. When—

Win Griffiths (Labour, Bridgend)

Order. The purpose of final proceedings is not to go over points of outstanding concern. They can be briefly alluded to, but not in the extended way in which we are debating now. I ask the hon. Gentleman to wind up his remarks.

Gerald Howarth (Conservative, Aldershot)

I am grateful to you, Mr. Griffiths, and I was proposing to do precisely that. I merely wanted to encompass what has happened in the past few weeks, and to report on what we on the Conservative Benches feel about the progress made. I should also like to thank Government Members for their contributions. I should like, finally, to say to the Minister and the rest of the Committee, that there is still huge doubt—it was expressed by hon. Members of all parties—about transitional arrangements. The Minister has a huge amount of work to do on that.

If you will allow me, Mr. Griffiths, I should like to quote from an email that I received from somebody in the Royal Navy who read the report of our proceedings on 22 January. He said that

''the Hansard report . . . fills me with even more horror. Apart from the fact that it confirms my worst fears I am finding it impossible to get a satisfactory explanation (at the moment) from any corner of the Navy.''

The Minister gave us today that helpful document, and we look forward to reading and judging it in due course.

These have been useful proceedings, and I hope that they will spark a wider public debate, will draw attention to the changes made by the Government, and will be noted by the other place when the Bill proceeds there. Thank you, Mr. Griffiths, for chairing our proceedings so well.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at twenty-nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.