War Widows' Pensions (Tina Thompson)

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 12:09 am on 25 March 2008.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Derek Twigg Derek Twigg Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Ministry of Defence) (Veterans) 12:09, 25 March 2008

I congratulate my hon. Friend Lynda Waltho on securing the time for this important debate and wish to place on record my appreciation for the support she gives to service personnel, and veterans and the interest that she takes generally in these issues. I know that she has a good relationship with her local veterans' organisations. I know that that is part of her general approach to supporting service personal.

The pensions and compensation awarded to sailors, soldiers and airmen and women who are injured in the service of their country, and to the families of those who sadly lose their lives, are an important topic. I am sure that the House will pay tribute to the sterling work of the armed forces and their courage, sacrifice and professionalism. Families, of course, play a vital role in supporting them, particularly through some difficult times.

The Government are fully committed to meeting their duty of care to serving personnel, veterans and families. That is recognised by many, including the Royal British Legion, which has acknowledged the number of improvements that we have made over recent years. We have, for example, seen a number of improvements in the programmes governing service pay, accommodation, health and welfare provisions, force protection and personal equipment. We recognise, however, that there is still scope for improvement and we continue to work on that, which is why we have announced a cross-Government personnel Command Paper, which is due to report this spring.

On 8 November 2007, the Government announced work to develop the first ever cross-Government strategy for supporting our service personnel, their families and veterans. The Command Paper will outline steps taken so far and future initiatives to enhance the Government's support. Work on the paper is being led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces and will fully involve the service chiefs. We will also involve service and ex-service organisations. The intention is to ensure we have in place a framework of policies and practical services to meet the needs of our service personnel, veterans and their families.

I accept that things could be improved and that they have gone wrong in the past. We are working continually to improve the overall support that we give our service personnel, their families and veterans, because providing the correct level of support to bereaved families is a crucial part of supporting our armed forces. I was sorry to hear the issues raised by my hon. Friend this evening, and I assure her that I will get back to her on them and will find out what happened in this case.

The Ministry of Defence assists in a number of ways, including through the work of trained in-service visiting officers who are appointed to act as a liaison between the bereaved family and the services for as long as the family require it. Again, I am disappointed to hear that Mrs. Thompson has not heard anything since 2005.

Of course, the MOD has made a number of improvements to the support that it gives to bereaved families. The number of family members who receive travel and accommodation expenses to attend repatriation ceremonies has been increased from five to seven. Two family members are able to reclaim the costs of their attendance at pre-inquest hearings and funding is already provided for two family members who wish to attend the full inquest. A tax-free funeral grant is offered to families. If the family wishes to hold a service funeral, arrangements and funding are provided by the MOD. A further tax-free grant of £500 will be introduced for the next of kin to meet any personal costs that they might occur as a result of their bereavement.

My hon. Friend raised specifically the case of Mrs. Tina Thompson, to whom I offer my condolences, and I am sure that the rest of the House will join me in that. I cannot imagine what a traumatic and difficult time it has been for Mrs. Thompson since the loss of her husband due to his death in a motor accident in Cyprus in 2005. I pay tribute to him for his service in a number of military theatres and operations with the armed forces.

As my hon. Friend said, Mrs. Thompson has sought permission to appeal her case to the Court of Appeal. I ask my hon. Friend to understand that my remarks will therefore focus on the general provisions of the armed forces compensation scheme and pensions scheme, rather than on the particulars of Mrs. Thompson's case. It is important to put what the schemes provide on the record.

I want to draw the attention of the House to the decision of the independent pensions appeal commissioner, and his findings that

"service was not the predominant cause of"

Sergeant Thompson's death, that

"at the time of his death, he was not on duty" and that

"at that time, he was not responding to an emergency."

Annotations

Fred Boland
Posted on 26 Mar 2008 8:12 pm (Report this annotation)

It is evident that Mr Twigg has never been in the military otherwise he would know that a Soldier is ON DUTY 24hrs a day and gets a pittance in pay for being so.
Mr Twigg, it is not only Lapel Badges that make a Veteran, but also the care he and his family gets after his duty comes to an end.
Phredd

Daniel Watkins
Posted on 27 Mar 2008 11:16 am (Report this annotation)

Fred,
I believe you will find that it is the 'independent pensions appeal commissioner' who 'has never been in the military', by which I presume Mr Twigg is referring to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal[0]. As the PAT has been set up in their present form since 1943, I find it hard to believe that they don't understand the unique conditions that service in the military poses.


Dan

[Footnote 0: http://www.pensionsappealtribunals.gov.uk/]

David Dilley
Posted on 27 Mar 2008 6:11 pm (Report this annotation)

The Prime Minister and Ministers must inform their advisers that they do not wish to know why something cannot be achived, which seems all too often to be the case, but require of them to show how something can be achieved. If "its Departmental Policy Minister" rules don't allow for a particular way of resolving a problem; change the rules. This applies to pensions, compensation, medals (PJM)or anything else where change is seen as necessary or where common sense should prevail.