I am grateful to have this opportunity to raise the issue of armed forces pensions in this debate. It follows the launch of my early-day motion 67, which has now been signed by well over 100 hon. Members.

I have been contacted by constituents who served in the armed forces before April 1975. They feel aggrieved at being denied a service pension, even though they had as many as 21 years' service in the forces. The rules have since been changed to allow servicemen and women with fewer than 22 years' service who retired after April 1975 to obtain a pension.

Many of the former members of the armed forces who have contacted me are now at retirement age and feel bitter that they have got nothing to show for their often dangerous occupation. I have a letter from my constituent, Mr. Hutchinson of Morley, who wrote to me and said:

"I joined the Royal Navy as a boy second class in December 1927 and served until after the end of the 2nd World War, being released on December 1st 1945 as a Chief Yeoman of Signals. The reasons for my not continuing to serve for the full man's time of 22 years were the protracted periods away from home and the fact that I did not see my baby daughter until the war was over and she was then 17 months old."

Another constituent, Mr. Sid West, told me of his 17 years in the army. If he had retired with 22 years' service he would have left in 1978. It is strange indeed that had he been prescient or lucky enough to remain for even 20 years, he would have received a service pension. There are thousands in that position.

I should declare a minor interest, as if the rules were changed again even my three years' service in the RAF until 1974 might qualify me for a penny or two. However, if my right hon. Friend the Minister of State responds positively to all my requests this evening, I shall gladly donate to charity whatever comes my way.

From the response to a parliamentary question in March 2002, I understand that it has not been the policy of successive Governments to make retrospective changes to pension provision. The reason given is usually the enormous cost. However, there is no hard and fast rule that the policy should remain. What is the Government's estimate of the cost? Would not agreeing to a change build on the work of a previous Labour Government?

In the difficult economic times of the mid-1970s the Labour Government made the first progressive rule change to lower the qualifying period. We had inherited a crumbling economy from Ted Heath, with balance of payments deficits, sky-high inflation and public spending that caused concern—at least to the International Monetary Fund. However, let us look at the economy now; we may still have balance of payments deficits, but that is about the only comparison with 30 years ago, and we no longer seem to think that they are a problem. We are the fifth richest country in the world.

We must find out what it would cost us to do better for veterans who retired before 1975 with fewer than 22 years' service. Previous answers to my parliamentary questions have shown that we keep detailed records about those who served and their length of service, although pay records are destroyed after seven years so it would be difficult to ascertain some of the facts, but we should try to address the issue.

It is true that veterans with nine or more years' service were paid a gratuity in lieu of further entitlements, which would naturally have to be factored into the calculation and would reduce the amount of pension paid. However, to be candid, at a time when we seem determined to build a replacement for the Trident system, with an estimated cost of anything between £16 billion and £70 billion, we should recast our priorities.

It is often said that the mark of a civilised society is how it treats its elderly. I have never heard it said that the mark of a civilised society is that it should spend huge sums of money on weapons of mass destruction. In the 1970s when the Government spent billions on the Chevaline nuclear upgrade system, many people probably thought that with the cold war in full swing it was money well spent, but now we are faced with a more complex world, and we should behave differently in response to it. The morale of our forces would be boosted tremendously by the knowledge that we were prepared to look favourably on their forebears' claims. Many servicemen and women have older relatives who could benefit from a service pension; it would be phase 2 of a Labour Government delivering for our armed forces.

I acknowledge that there are arguments that might deflect attention away from the demands of this campaign. Perhaps the most significant is that this Labour Government introduced the pension credit, which has lifted many poor pensioners out of poverty. I bet that many of those to whom the pension credit has been paid are veterans, who because of the parsimony of earlier Governments may have worked for a generation in the forces with nothing to show for it in their later years. If the campaign succeeded, there is no doubt that the structure of the pension credit would mean that veterans who received a service pension on the one hand would lose pension credit on the other. However, I know which I would prefer—not a means-tested benefit that required much form filling, information gathering and perhaps even a loss of pride, but an as-of-right pension in recognition of service rendered.

The argument has also been made that to accede to the demand would be to acknowledge the demands of others in the public sector in similar situations—a costly precedent indeed. However, it was only a few weeks ago that I first heard of the so-called covenant between members of the armed forces, society and the Government. From my time in the forces I do not recollect ever seeing, being told of or signing such a covenant, which apparently defines the relationship between those who pledge to die for their country, if need be, and their country.

I remember walking into the RAF recruitment office in Hull in 1971. I signed a form and swore an oath in front of an officer that I would be willing to make the ultimate sacrifice. I have to admit that I never anticipated that that eventuality would come to pass. But when we are told that members of the armed forces are just like any other public sector work force, I seriously question that. Were all public sector workers asked to take an oath to say that they would lay down their lives in the course of duty? No, they were not. The armed forces were treated differently then and they should be treated differently now.

Another excuse that has been thrown back in the faces of veterans in the course of the campaign is that they should have known all along that their terms and conditions did not allow for a pension when their service was less than 22 years. Indeed they did not. However, the terms and conditions were changed beneficially for many of those people by a Labour Government in 1975. Of course, when changes are introduced there is always a publicity campaign, but I suspect that one could easily wonder how effective the campaign was in the forces at that time. It has been alleged to me that many of the veterans who make up the group of people who were coming close to 22 years' service in 1974-75 were shunted out of the forces on all sorts of pretexts so that they would not qualify. They were encouraged to leave, while dissemination of information on personnel issues was not always efficient or accurate.

I wonder how many men and women walked away with exemplary certificates of discharge, where the reason for discharge was "premature voluntary release" —after being pressurised to go. Those people may have been led to believe that their service would contribute towards a pension. I have in my possession a copy of a Royal Marines certificate of discharge, dated 6 June 1972, which tells the recipient that he has accumulated

"five years and 218 days towards pension."

That was on the piece of paper that the discharged serviceman left with. It is misleading and inaccurate, as far as it goes. He may not have thought any more of it until he came to collect his pension and found that there was nothing there to collect.

I do not blame the Labour Government for the way in which they handled the matter in 1975. They acted in the better interests of working people, in the way they thought that they could afford to at the time. However, what I am saying now is that we have to revisit the issue, otherwise it will go away only when all the veterans that we are talking about are dead—and many have died already. Let us remember that we are still talking about veterans of the second world war, Korea, Suez, Palestine and many other conflicts around the world.

What am I asking the Government to do? Revisiting the issue means that the Secretary of State for Defence should meet a representative delegation of those affected. It means the Government should say what they think some kind of recompense would cost. It means acknowledging that these veterans do have a grievance and it means that they will no longer, as they see it themselves, be forgotten heroes. At every Remembrance Sunday service we say,

"They shall not grow old as we grow old" and, "We will remember them," and we do. Now, in the democracy—the wealthy democracy—that those people died for, let us also remember those who have grown old.

I will conclude with the words of my constituent, Mr. Hutchinson:

"It does seem somewhat unfair that servicemen such as myself do not receive any recognition of the years spent in defence of our country. Reading the Royal Navy's publication 'Navy News' I am given to understand that it is possible for a naval rating to receive a pension after serving as little as 18 months. This does appear a little unjust".

I have to say that Mr. Hutchinson is a master of understatement. He says that it is somewhat unfair and a little unjust. It is that humble, almost apologetic, entreaty that underscores the strength of his case. I urge my right hon. Friend to heed this campaign and respond accordingly.