I thank the Minister for taking time out of a busy schedule to come in to deal with the matter. I propose to share time with my colleague, Deputy Wall.
I am delighted to have an opportunity to contribute on this important matter. During the past year or so, a large number of retired military personnel have contacted me because they feel aggrieved at the anomalous and discriminatory position created by the Departments of Defence and Finance, whereby a decision was made to limit the payment of the additional military service allowance retrospectively from 1 August 1990, clearly discriminating against those military personnel who retired on or before this date.
The military service allowance scheme was intended as compensation for the special conditions associated with military life, for example, long unsocial hours, no provision for the payment of overtime and other unique features of employment. It was first introduced for all enlisted personnel and junior officials, up to and including the rank of captain, effective from 1 May 1979. In 1988, commandants became eligible for payment of MSA and the allowance was extended to senior officials with effect from 1 August 1990.
The nub of the matter is that in 1990 the Gleeson Commission on remuneration and conditions of service in the Defence Forces considered that MSA constituted an integral part of military pay and recommended that the Departments of Defence and Finance should give early and positive consideration to the question of making the allowance fully reckonable for superannuation purposes. It also recommended that the pension scheme be amended to reflect this recommendation. Subsequently, as a result of discussions — which I do not think included any members of the Defence Forces pensioners' association — the military service allowance was introduced as a part of reckonable income for superannuation purposes for personnel retiring on or after 1 August 1990. Surely the Defence Forces pension scheme should be based on the principle of parity, that is, the relationship between the person and the remuneration of his or her successor performing substantially the same duties as those previously discharged by the person in the same employment should be maintained.
In 1995, a total of 5,600 pensioners, which included officers, enlisted personnel and widows of deceased personnel, were estimated by the Minister's Department to have been excluded from the MSA payment. At that time it was estimated it would cost about £4 million per annum to pay this group. However, recent official figures from the Department of Defence have indicated that the total number of pensioners excluded from the MSA additional payment has fallen to 5,060. So, in less than three years about 550 retired pensioners have died and the number will decline steadily over the coming years. Therefore, the annual cost of paying the allowance will diminish significantly and will continue to decrease. I know the Minister has many areas to cover in his Department but he is not being burdened with an ever increasing cost; the opposite is the case.
The decision to limit the payment of the additional military service allowance retrospectively from 1 August 1990 does not stand up when examined on any basis of equity. The principle of accepting MSA as an integral part of salary does not change in practice by choice of dates and those excluded are clearly being unfairly treated. I urge the Minister to change it now. Personnel who retired prior to 1 August deserve no less.