Benefit Entitlements: War Pension and Armed Forces Compensation

Lee Pitcher Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Josh Babarinde]

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.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

The hon. Member has mentioned inconsistency quite a bit, and I hope he will not mind me echoing what other Members have already said tonight. Alongside the issue he has raised is the related issue of how local authorities treat compensation. The Royal British Legion’s “Credit their Service” campaign highlights significant inconsistencies with local authorities’ policies in determining how military compensation is treated under different circumstances. Does he agree that there should not be a postcode lottery? It should not be about where someone lives; everybody should be treated fairly and equitably across the country.

[Josh Babarinde]

The Royal British Legion’s “Credit their Service” campaign is one reason I am here. I pay particular tribute to Elliot, Jo, Claire, Hannah and Hermine, who were in Parliament today running an event to help promote the campaign. While I am here, I pay tribute not only to Sam McManus from my team, but to Euan Morrison. He started out as a case worker, picked up Pauline’s case and fought and fought.

Through the Armed Forces Act, the covenant of duty is being extended to central Government, to welfare benefits and to service-related compensation. When it comes into force early next year, the Department for Work and Pensions will be legally required to pay due regard to those principles. Treating military compensation as income for pension credit fails both tests, in my view. It disadvantages veterans as compared with civilians who receive compensation.

I am ultimately asking the Government to act with a few key asks. First, will the Minister commit to amending the pension credit regulations so that military compensation is fully disregarded, bringing it into line with pension credit? Secondly, if he is not ready to go that far tonight, will he at least set out a commitment to review how much that would cost? Currently, the DWP has said that it has not done that piece of work. Thirdly, will he meet me, the Royal British Legion and the veterans affected so that we can find a way forward?

Members across this House—from the Labour party, the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats, the Green party, Alliance, the Ulster Unionist party, the Democratic Unionist party and more—have signed my amendment on this issue in the past and have signed my cross-party letter. We are determined for change, because people like Pauline deserved better, our veterans deserve better and this House must do better.