Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) (Consequential Provisions: Primary Legislation) Order 2013 Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Ministry of Defence

Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) (Consequential Provisions: Primary Legislation) Order 2013

Lord Young of Norwood Green Excerpts
Monday 25th March 2013

(11 years, 8 months ago)

Grand Committee
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Norwood Green Portrait Lord Young of Norwood Green
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I hesitate to come in on this as it is not normally an area in which I would intervene, but I declare a previous interest as an ex-member of the Armed Forces Pay Review Board. I have a couple of questions to ask the Minister. He gave the definition of “seriously injured” and then went on to say, “50% or more”. Did I understand correctly that that is what qualifies someone for this allowance? The thought occurred to me that, inevitably, it is a bit of a cliff-edge assessment. If someone got to 49.9% there could be a problem, although that may not be the case.

The other aspect that I am interested in is the fact that an impact assessment has not been prepared for this instrument. There might be a perfectly rational response to that but, given the complication and the way in which this interacts with other legislation, I should have thought that even if it is not available now, there should be an impact assessment at some time.

Lord Astor of Hever Portrait Lord Astor of Hever
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, this has been an interesting, short debate on a matter of great importance to the Armed Forces. I have tried to keep up with all the questions but if I cannot answer all of them I will write to noble Lords.

First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for the Opposition’s support for the order. The first question was on eligibility. As far as I am aware, the four charities from which we have had responses still differ with each other on eligibility. I have the issues on which they disagree, which are not very serious. Rather than reading them all out, I am happy to share them with the noble Lord afterwards. There is nothing of major importance. One of the main issues was on the definition of “seriously injured” in relation to the disability.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the net additional cost of AFIP. It is £134.40 per week—the same level as the maximum rate available under the personal independence payment. He asked how many people will benefit from the arrangements. Approximately 700 individuals are currently eligible to claim AFIP and we estimate that approximately 100 service and ex-service personnel each year will become eligible for it.

My noble friend Lord Addington asked whether we will feed what we have learnt from this into the issue of general benefits. I do not have an answer but I will write to him on that. The noble Lord, Lord Young, asked why the figure of 50% was chosen. The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme awards a lifelong income stream of 50% or higher of income pension for serious injury.

Putting in place provision to ensure continued support for those seriously injured while in the Armed Forces remains a key component of the military covenant. AFIP is an important change, showing the Government’s commitment to upholding the Armed Forces covenant. It is only right that we provide financial support for those most seriously injured and AFIP will do that.

Lord Young of Norwood Green Portrait Lord Young of Norwood Green
- Hansard - -

I asked why no impact assessment had been done on this instrument.

Lord Astor of Hever Portrait Lord Astor of Hever
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I do not have an immediate answer but I will write to the noble Lord.