Benefit Entitlements: War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Department for Work and Pensions

Benefit Entitlements: War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation

Gideon Amos Excerpts
Wednesday 14th October 2026

(1 day, 18 hours ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Josh Babarinde Portrait Josh Babarinde
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

There are so many who need to act here. It is not just a Department for Work and Pensions issue; it is a local authority issue as well. The Royal British Legion has a very helpful map that Members can access to find their local authority and identify which locally administered benefits are disregarded.

Gideon Amos Portrait Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
- Hansard - -

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for being generous with his time. Will he join me in congratulating the veterans of the Taunton and Wellington branches of the Royal British Legion, who have been campaigning on this issue with me and have secured a commitment from my colleagues on Somerset council to review benefits so that all military service compensation is disregarded as income?

Josh Babarinde Portrait Josh Babarinde
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I absolutely congratulate my hon. Friend’s local veterans and commend them for their service. When I speak at his annual dinner in a couple of weeks’ time, I will pass on the message personally, if any of those veterans are local members.

Of the folks I mentioned earlier, an estimated 146,000 are eligible for pension credit. Only around one in five receive an occupational pension for their time in service, so many of them live on low incomes. The most important number when assessing the viability of the disregard in question, though, is 4,120. That is the number of veterans and bereaved spouses who currently receive military compensation and would be claiming pension credit. These are the people I prioritise in pushing for this reform. If someone is ruled ineligible for pension credit, they do not just lose pension credit; they lose the passported help that comes with it. There is a ripple effect across the forms of support that folks can receive. On average, they can be denied around £5,900 a year in direct and passported support. For our poorest veterans, that is the difference between getting by and going without.

I know the argument that the Department has made before. It is the argument against so-called double tapping—the principle that someone should not receive two separate payments from the state that meet the same need. I do not dispute that principle, which is a very long-held one within the Treasury, but it simply does not apply here. Double tapping assumes that both payments meet the same need; these payments do not. Pension credit exists to provide a minimum income for ordinary living costs; military compensation exists to recognise injury, loss or bereavement caused by service. They are different payments for different purposes meeting different needs, so the double tapping excuse will not fly.

Counting compensation against pension credit simply uses the benefits system to claw back part of an award that was made for an entirely separate purpose, and the Government’s own policy already proves the point. Universal credit fully disregards war pension scheme and armed forces compensation scheme payments. The Government have themselves stated that this is in line with the treatment of civil compensation for personal injury, which does not impact pension credit calculations, so if military compensation is not double funding under universal credit, it cannot be double funding under pension credit. The Department cannot accept the principle for working-age veterans but reject it for older veterans.

There is a further inconsistency within pension credit itself. Only the first £10 a week of military compensation is disregarded. The Minister has told me in correspondence that this partial disregard exists in recognition of veterans’ service. The Government already accept that service deserves to be treated differently, but everything above that £10 is treated as income for everyday living costs. I am yet to hear a clear rationale as to why £10 is the right figure. It seems arbitrary to me. If the Department believes that £10 of compensation serves a separate purpose, why not the rest?

Meanwhile, under pension credit, a civilian with a personal injury compensation award, trust or structured settlement may have that compensation wholly disregarded. Pension credit therefore currently gives greater protection to compensation for an injury suffered at work or on the road than to compensation for an injury suffered in service of our country, one of the most valiant forms of work. The armed forces covenant promises that members of the armed forces community should face no disadvantage as a result of their service.