House of Commons Hansard Debates for 4 Jul 1995

Column 246

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),

That, at this day's sitting, the Pensions Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.-- [Mr. Kirkhope.] Question agreed to.

Column 247

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you are aware, as is the House, of the rather sorry background to the case of BMARC and arms to Iran. In particular, I refer to the fact that, in both written and oral parliamentary statements during that time, Ministers, as they have acknowledged, misled the House--inadvertently, no doubt--because of the non -availability of papers that were held by Government Departments. We are also aware that those papers have now surfaced, and there is no longer any doubt about their importance. We understand that some examination, several years belatedly, is being made of them. I am sure that you would agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that, if information were to come out of those papers that had further implications for oral and written statements made to the House by Ministers, the House must be the first to know the contents of those papers.

In particular, if any information which comes out of the BMARC papers has any implications for the position of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury or any other Minister, the House must be the first to know about it. I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to safeguard the House's interests in that respect.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The hon. Gentleman and the House will understand that that is not a matter over which the Chair has any jurisdiction. The hon. Gentleman must find other ways of pursuing the issue.

New clause 21

Extension of Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943

`(1) The Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act 1943 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 1 (appeals against rejection of war pension claims made in respect of members of armed forces)--

(a) in subsection (1), after "administered by the Minister" there is inserted "or under a scheme made under section 1 of the Polish Resettlement Act 1947", and

(b) in subsections (3) and (3A), for "or Order of His Majesty" there is substituted ", Order of Her Majesty or scheme".

(3) In section 7 (application of Act to past decisions and assessments)--

(a) in subsection (2), at the beginning there is inserted "Subject to subsection (2A) of this section,", and

(b) after that subsection, there is inserted--

"(2A) Subsection (2) of this section shall not apply in relation to any decision given by the Minister before the passing of this Act which corresponds, apart from any difference of the kind referred to in that subsection, with such a decision as is referred to in section 1 of this Act in respect of claims made under the scheme referred to in that section."

(4) In section 10 (power to modify sections 1 to 4 by Order in Council), in subsections (1) and (2), for "or Order of His Majesty" there is substituted ", Order of Her Majesty or scheme".

(5) In section 12 (interpretation), in the definition of "relevant service" --

(a) for "or Order of His Majesty" there is substituted ", Order of Her Majesty or scheme", and

(b) for "or Order" there is substituted ", Order or scheme". (6) In the Schedule (constitution, jurisdiction and procedure of Pensions Appeal Tribunals), in paragraph 3(2), after paragraph (b) there is inserted--

"(ba) if the claim was made under the scheme referred to in section 1 of this Act in respect of a person who is treated under the scheme as an officer, shall be a retired or demobilised officer of Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces;

Column 248

(bb) if the claim was made under the aforesaid scheme in respect of a person who is treated under the scheme as a soldier, shall be a discharged or demobilised member of any of the said forces who was not at the time of his discharge or demobilisation an officer;".'.-- [Sir Jim Spicer.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.15 pm

Sir Jim Spicer (Dorset, West): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

I count it as a privilege to move this new clause. I remember so well going across to Belgium in November 1944 with members of the 1st Polish armoured division just after four members of the provisional Polish Government, who were based in London, had flown to Lublin to have discussions with the new Government set up by the Soviet Union. Those four members disappeared and were never seen again. Those people, who served so gallantly in the Polish armed forces alongside us in the battle of Britain, in Italy and north-west Europe, deserve our gratitude for all they did to support us.

This is a simple matter, which the House should pass on sidethe nod. The new clause introduces an extension of the war pension appeal provisions, and gives Polish service men who served under British command in world war two a statutory right of appeal to a war pensions appeal tribunal against a decision on a claim to a war pension or a war widow's pension. I need say no more. This is a simple issue, and something should have been done about it years ago.

I am grateful that, in the year of the 50th anniversary of VE day, we are able to say to those who fought alongside us in the war that this is the very least we can do to recognise all they did for us so many years ago.

Mr. Hague: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Sir. J. Spicer) on proposing the new clause in such an eloquent manner. Polish service men dissatisfied with a decision on a war pension claim are able to seek a review of that decision from the War Pensions Committee. But I understand their view that, as a matter of principle, they should have a statutory right of appeal on the same basis as British service men. I entirely agree that it is most fitting that this change should be introduced during this year of world war two anniversaries. The Government are happy to accept the new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 11

One third rate service widows' pension

`Widows of members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces who retired or who died in service before 31st March 1973 shall, in all cases where a pension is payable under the terms of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, be entitled to receive a pension based on one half of their late husband's retired pay or pension.'.-- [Mrs. Ewing.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 12-- Post 1973 war widows --

Column 249

`Notwithstanding any other enactment, a widow awarded a Forces Family Pension (Attributable) shall receive that pension for life.'. New clause 13-- Post 1973 war widows (No. 2) --

`Notwithstanding any other enactment, a widow in receipt of a Forces Family Pension (Attributable) shall receive that pension for life.'.

New clause 14-- Post-retirement marriage: service widow's pension --

`Without prejudice to benefits already available under the terms of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme for widows of members of Her Majesty's Armed Forces with service beyond 6th April 1978, no widow of a member of Her Majesty's Armed Forces shall be disqualified from receiving a full pension under that scheme in relation to her late husbands's membership of Her Majesty's Armed Forces by virtue of the fact that the marriage occurred after he had retired from Her Majesty's Armed Forces, provided that that marriage was before his 65th birthday and had lasted for at least three years.'.

Government amendment No. 84.

Mrs. Ewing: I feel greatly honoured to move the new clause, which is supported by hon. Members of all political persuasions. This year, we have seen the celebrations of the 50th anniversary of the setting up of the UN. Those of us who are sharing a similar anniversary are only too well aware that our generation has grown up in a time of peace, and we owe a great debt to those who went before us. It is important that we pay tribute to the men and women who gave so much in previous wars to enable my generation and subsequent generations to have the feeling of peace within Europe.

I wish to pay tribute to the Officers Pensions Society, which has done so much to ensure that hon. Members are aware of the difficulties faced by war widows--or victory widows as we prefer to call them. It has done so much to ensure that people are made well aware of the implications of new clauses 11, 12, 13 and 14. New clause 11 focuses on those widows, all of whom are now over 75 years of age, whose husbands retired or died in service before 31 March 1973 and who, as a result, receive only one third of their late husbands' service retired pay or pension.

Hon. Members will have seen, either in the press or by reading their own mail, the case of Mrs. Wormack. They will have been as horrified as I was to find that the occupational pension earned for her by her husband after 23 years of service, including the whole of the second world war--service which saw him promoted to the rank of captain, involved him in risking his life in the service of the Crown and left him suffering until the day he died--is today worth, after tax, £140 a month. That lady is typical of hundreds of war widows who, in the evening of their own lives, look to us in this House today to take this opportunity to improve their position before it is too late.

Several of those widows have said to me, and, I suspect, to other hon. Members, "I suppose that they are just waiting for us to die." Those widows are dying at the rate of 1,300 a year. If we agree to help them, as the nation clearly wants us to, it will hardly be an open-ended commitment. I feel that a principle of social justice is at stake--the debt we owe those widows and their families. The Government contend that there are three main obstacles to improving the pensions. First, they say that it will cost £27 million each year. There are several points that we need to make. First, that is almost certainly an exaggerated figure. The Government said that 16,500 widows would benefit from the amendment already

Column 250

secured by Lord Freyberg in the other place. Some four months on, only 6,500 have applied, thus reducing the estimate by almost two thirds.

Secondly, many of the ladies are on some form of income support, which is vastly more expensive to apply than giving them the pensions to which their husbands contributed. The Government also say that it would not be right to pay older widows half-rate pensions, because their husbands did not buy into half-rate pensions as the younger service men did.

The truth is that, despite the fact that the Government received constant warnings in 1973, when the half rate was introduced, that there would be problems of hardship in future, the Government refused to give older service men the opportunity to buy in--most would have taken that opportunity. If there is an inequity, it is that the Government denied older service men the opportunity to provide for their widows. That was the inequity in which the Government persisted.

The subject of retrospection is often raised. That, in itself, is not worth considering; we all know of situations in which retrospection is ignored when it suits the Government. A detailed examination of 14 other comparable allied schemes reveals that the United Kingdom is the only state that persists in paying any service widows less than 50 per cent. Some states pay as much as 71 per cent. Meanwhile, we in the United Kingdom continue to pay our older widows 33 per cent.

Thirdly, the most plausible obstacle raised by the Government is that, if the elderly service widows were to be given 50 per cent. of their late husbands' service retired pay or pension, it would have to be paid to all the public services. How many obligations have the Government ducked on the basis of precedent? We must answer the question today, and decide whether or not the armed forces are a special case. I speak not only as a Member of Parliament with clear defence interests--with two key RAF bases in my area- -but as one who has grown up in a generation of peace. I believe that we have a responsibility to all such widows.

Most people who write to me and to other hon. Members think that they are a special case. We tended to think so until the Whitehall ethic tried to subdue us all. I draw particular attention to the comments of the Prime Minister when he first entered

Parliament--perhaps it is not a key thought in his mind this evening. In his first year as a Back Bencher, he made a memorable speech in a debate about service pensions, in which he said:

"service men, by virtue of their profession, are in a special position and should be treated accordingly . . . I ask him to promise that the door is not closed on justice for these pensioners and their widows".--[ Official Report , 2 May 1980; Vol. 983, c. 1846.] That plea is echoed by all those hon. Members who have remained in the Chamber this evening to ensure that justice is done. That view is echoed also by the 251 Members of Parliament who put their signatures to early-day motion 186, tabled by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), and by the 59 Front Benchers who have written to the Victory Widows Campaign assuring it of their support.

In the first of the new clauses, we must decide to do what our constituents have asked us to do and what we feel is the right thing to do: bring the pensions of elderly service widows--our victory widows--up to the half-rate pensions which their younger colleagues receive, and

Column 251

closer to the pensions paid to service widows by all the European and western nations that fought with and against us in the war. On the 50th anniversary of victory in Europe and victory in Japan, we would do well to remember that, from 1939 to 1945, those who were called upon to guarantee our continued freedom from fascism risked everything in so doing. We are talking about their widows this evening. I trust that the new clauses will be accepted as part of the Bill.

Sir Jim Spicer: I shall address my remarks to new clause 12, the second clause with which we are dealing tonight, which refers to war widows who have been awarded attributable forces family pensions. It states that they should keep that pension for life, regardless of any subsequent change in their marital status.

The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) spoke about elderly war widows; I am talking about the younger generation of war widows, who I believe have been treated quite disgracefully over many years. I shall expand on that point. War widows are not treated as well as many other widows. Should they remarry, war widows lose all pension rights, whereas most widows keep their pensions for life. Now is not the occasion to talk about private pension schemes, but 84 per cent. of widows involved in private pension schemes keep their pensions for life, and 21 per cent. of all public pension schemes in the United Kingdom are retained for life.

The lump sums on death awarded to widows of firemen or policemen are significantly more generous than those given to war widows. The widow of a policeman receives five times the annual salary. In the case of firemen and Royal Ulster Constabulary officers--whose situations are closest to those of soldiers and whose lives have been at risk over the years--their widows receive seven times the annual salary, whereas armed forces widows receive two times the basic salary.

Whatever else the Government can or cannot do, I would like my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People to give me an absolute commitment that the Government will re-examine the figure for war widows, and increase it sevenfold to match the sum received by widows of RUC officers and firemen. How can we possibly equate the situation of service men with that of firemen? How many times are firemen tragically killed on duty, compared with the number of service men killed on duty? I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that the Government intend to examine that situation.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South): I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving way on that point, and particularly the contrast that he makes with RUC members. One sympathises with and understands his point. Twice a squaddie's salary is a pittance compared with five times the salary of an RUC constable. That is not in any sense treating in a generous spirit the widows of those who have served in the nation's defence.

10.30 pm

Sir Jim Spicer: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who reinforces my point. On the streets of Belfast or anywhere else in Northern Ireland, members of the RUC

Column 252

and of the armed forces have served side by side. They have shared the same risks and stood the same chance of being killed, so it seems intolerable that we should allow them to be treated differently. The independent review team recommended that all service widows should receive a pension for life, regardless of any change in marital status. I should like an undertaking from the Government that that recommendation will be considered positively, and that action will be taken in the short term, not the long term.

The argument against is for doing nothing at all. Civil servants--with my apology to all civil servants--come out of the woodwork and say, "But Minister, if you do this, you might open the door to other people." There are no other people in the same category. Members of our armed forces are a special category, and deserve special treatment.

If I were a Minister and anyone said to me, "How can you say that these people are a special case? If you give a pension to them, you must give a pension to everyone else," I would answer, "Go away. You don't understand what we have done and why we have done it." I beg Ministers not to be deluded by that totally wrong view, which would not be supported by the vast majority of the public. There would be no knock-on effect unless one allowed it.

The widows of men who die in the service of their country are a special case. In my view, public opinion demands that they be treated as such. There is no question of an overspill or a concession to other groups, so please let us not have that offered as an excuse. There is no better year than this to deal with that problem. The husbands of a number of war widows --some of them are in the Public Gallery tonight--were killed on active service in the Gulf war. Those widows know that, if they remarry, they will put at risk their existing pension. It would be iniquitous to say to them, "You should not think about remarrying, or you should think three times about doing so, because if you remarry we shall take this pension away from you."

We are looking at a pittance in cash terms. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take a sensible view, and I beg the Government--if they cannot accept new clause 11--seriously to consider a times seven award and the other aspect that I emphasised.

Mr. Alfred Morris (Manchester, Wythenshawe): If I were asked to suggest a poetic text to preface the debate on this group of amendments-- all of which have my support--I would be tempted to choose Rudyard Kipling's poem "Tommy":

"it's `Thank you, Mister Atkins,' when the band begins to play" and

"it's `Saviour of 'is country' when the guns begin to shoot." But when the war is over, then

"it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' Tommy go away." The hurt that poem expresses about double standards well reflects the feelings of many war and service widows as they strive--happily now with the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House--to remove the heartless and mindless restrictions that demean both them and the memory of husbands who fought that we might live in freedom. All of them are the widows of husbands who fought in war, to whom we owe an undoubted debt of honour. But, to the shame of Whitehall and

Column 253

Westminster alike, most of them now have to apply for some degree of income support even barely to make ends meet.

New clause 14 would affect, by definition, widows most of whom are now over 75 years of age. They could thus hardly be more deserving. There are no widows as disadvantaged as they are in any of the European or allied nations' military pension schemes that were examined by the Officers Pensions Society. Their husbands served through most of the second world war and retired before April 1973. They contributed to an eventual widow's pension both by their service to the Crown and by effective financial contributions throughout their service, a point to which I shall return as I proceed. They made only one mistake: they married after retirement, and, for that reason, all their contributions were cancelled.

One case which comes to mind is that of Lady Earle. Her first and second husbands gave between them 80 years of service in the Royal Air Force, yet she receives no pension from either of them. Officials call such widows post-retirement marriage widows, or PRM. In having no provision of a pension made for them, they are almost unique in the world. Our own pensions scheme provides pensions for all our widows whenever they marry. So, too, do the schemes of every other nation's armed forces. Even the UK scheme does so for the younger service widow, as do almost all commercial schemes and most public schemes as well. So why are the PRM widows so isolated?

The main argument for so astonishingly neglecting those widows is precedent --that, if they were granted pensions, civil servants would have to be given the same. The Victory Widows Campaign does not seek to evade that argument by claiming, as it might, that the armed forces are a special case, although we all know that they are. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) said, the Prime Minister explicitly and strongly made that point in a speech in this place. No, the campaigners have faced the issue of precedent head on, by devising a scheme which provides a PRM pension only if the widows' husbands had been civil servants. They have imposed upon themselves the limitation that the marriage must have been entered into before the ex-service man reached the age of 65, the age up to which, in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, almost all civil servants worked. By contrast, the average age of retirement for the armed forces was nearer 45, and post-retirement marriage was a most unwelcome problem. One important factor in choosing the age of 65 is that service men had, and in fact still have, a liability to recall up to that age. Nor is it essentially a matter of cost. The Ministry of Defence insists that it cannot provide an accurate estimate of the cost, and this makes it uncertain ground upon which to argue. Experience shows, moreover, that most Government estimates in such matters are over-estimates. The Department of Social Security predicted that 16, 500 widows would apply for the enhancement secured by Lord Freyberg, to whom I again pay warm tribute today for his extremely important help in another place, when he amended the Bill.

Hon. Members will be familiar with the case of Mrs. Charney, featured in the Victory Widows Campaign's advertisement. Her husband was a Spitfire pilot. His early days included defending Malta from air attack. He and his few brave colleagues displayed unparalleled courage, and it was no surprise when he was awarded his first

Column 254

Distinguished Flying Cross. He flew with total disregard for his own safety in the battle of the Falaise Gap, for which he was awarded a second DFC. He married Mrs. Charney shortly after retiring from the RAF, on completion of 30 years as a fighter pilot. Simply because he married after retirement, his contributions were pocketed by the Treasury, and his widow gets not a penny. She has had a struggle to survive; she has sold his medals and his flying log book in order to raise cash.

In this 50th anniversary year of victory in the second world war, is that not a total disgrace? Does anyone in any part of the House dare to defend the grossly shabby treatment meted out to this unmerited victim of the present system?

I ask the House to see this as a matter of honour, a debt that must now be settled. I ask that elderly service widows like Mrs. Charney, on whose behalf I speak, be granted a pension comparable to that which they would have received had they married their husbands before they retired from HM armed forces. I so move, and, in moving, I must again make it clear that, if the battle still has to go on after tonight to achieve fairness for these widows, then go on it will.

Sir Peter Lloyd (Fareham): The hour is late and I want to touch on one brief, specific point on new clause 14. It is very similar to the point ably made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris). It is an important point because it would right a particular unfairness well illustrated by a retired service couple living in my constituency.

The husband paid his contributions throughout his service. He retired before 1978. His wife, who of course qualified for a widow's pension, alas, died. The husband then remarried the widow of another former service man. On remarriage, as the rules stand, his wife naturally lost her service widow's pension. If her present husband dies before her, as the rules stand she will not regain the pension earned by her first husband's contributions which she forfeited on remarriage. She will also be denied any pension earned on her second husband's contributions. That is clearly not right.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to assure me in his response that he will find a way of automatically restoring service widows' pensions to those who were once entitled to them but lost them on remarriage if they are widowed a second time, and especially if they are left without any equivalent occupational pension on their second husband's contributions.

If he can so assure me, I shall admire my hon. Friend's humanity, I shall rely on his ingenuity, and I shall refrain from going into the Lobby in support of the new clause.

10.45 pm

Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark and Bermondsey): It is clear from the speeches already made, and from the new clauses of the hon. Members for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and for Dorset, West (Sir J. Spicer), and of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), that what we are trying to do has huge support in the House. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I add our voices to those of not just the six political parties represented in the new clauses, but all our colleagues who have expressly

Column 255

requested the changes and the huge number of people who have written--I can certainly vouch for it from my postbag--in support of them.

I do not want to repeat what has been said by colleagues, but I shall add a word or two about new clauses 12 and 13--they are alternatives, one better than the other--and then say something about new clause 14. As has been alluded to, if not expressly set out, the present position is that war widows of service men who died on active service after 1973 are entitled to both the Ministry of Defence and the war widow's pension. I understand that there are 2,200 such widows. Both those entitlements cease on remarriage.

Many people will testify to the fact that the consequence has been that many women do not remarry, in spite of their personal circumstances and wishes, because they know how that would prejudice their position. They are deprived of the opportunity of remarriage because it is not financially viable, and therefore have two alternatives--to carry on a relationship illicitly and risk running the gauntlet of the investigation services of the Department of Social Security and so on, or to be deprived of any stable second relationship. The War Widows Association of Great Britain claims that only one in every 100 war widows has remarried--far fewer than in any comparable group. Clearly, that statistic is a result of the present financial position.

The cost to the Treasury would reportedly be extremely small. The MOD in- house pension review team report concluded that retaining such pensions for life would cost less than £1 million a year. Moreover, the War Widows Association of Great Britain and others argue that actually the net cost could be negative, because of the benefits being claimed otherwise. We would give out with one hand but recoup with another. A young widow who does not remarry costs the DSS a considerable sum--perhaps as much as £1 million over her whole lifetime.

I ask the Minister to confirm that the change would not affect a huge number of people--indeed, that the number is small--and that it would not necessarily mean a net cost to the Treasury. But as the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe made absolutely clear, even if it did mean a net cost, it is something that in all justice we should do.

The right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) is not in his place now, but in 1989, when he was Secretary of State for Defence, he said in the House that the husbands had fully paid for the pensions for life. There is no argument about that; the contributions have been fully made.

By way of comparison, 84 per cent. of all public and private pension schemes in this country now pay a pension which, once obtained on widowhood, is retained for the rest of one's life, irrespective of changes in one's status. We have heard that that is true of most other military pension schemes, too. We are the only country with a hard, immovable rule, which is not only unjust but has been unjust for far too long. It seems incompatible with everything that we said on the 50th anniversary of VE day, to continue that penny-pinching anomaly.

Any widow of someone killed in an industrial or mining accident receives compensation that is not affected by subsequent remarriage. Policemen's and firemen's

Column 256

attributable pensions, largely in the form of gratuities, and the occupational element, are in the same category, in the sense that they are restored on subsequent bereavement.

I hope that the Minister will agree to the new clauses, or at least, as the hon. Member for Dorset, West requested, that he will say that before the end of this year the Government will agree to the changes for which we ask. Clearly, new clause 12 is more generous than new clause 13, because it would apply to all widows.

New clause 14 deals with a small anomaly that it is mean for the Government not to correct in the way that it suggests.

Post-retirement marriage pensions have been in existence for 17 years, but only service after that time counts towards a pension. Therefore, two categories suffer. Older widows receive nothing, as do widows of husbands who retire between 1978 and 2000, or, as I understand it, 2012 for officers' widows. Those categories receive only a variable fraction of the full war widow's pension.

The point of principle has been made that the new clause would give fair treatment to service widows who married their husbands after they had left the service. There is a qualification in the new clause that the marriage must be before a 65th birthday and has to have lasted for three years. Those are perfectly reasonable preconditions for entitlement. An amendment was moved and the case well argued in another place, but unfortunately it is not something that the Government have conceded. The real unfairness of not doing so is that the majority of comparable schemes in other countries would give the entitlement.

We as Members of Parliament--Ministers and Members alike--have voted that we have this entitlement, so marriage to a Member of Parliament subsequent to service, provided that it meets the preconditions, entitles somebody to the Member's pension. It is not acceptable that we vote for the entitlement for ourselves, while those who have served, and their dependants after their death, are not entitled to it. It is unacceptable that widows who are in the category before 1978 receive no pension.

I hope that the Minister understands the strength of feeling. The issue will not go away, and it does not deserve to do so. Given that the Government may be feeling a little more relaxed and enthusiastic this evening, I hope that the Minister will start doing things that are not only right but vote-winning. I offer him this, as do my colleagues, as the first way in which to restore the Government's credibility. A victory in Committee Room 12 is one thing, but a victory on the Floor of the House is much more valuable and might do much more for the Prime Minister's image than the votes of his colleagues earlier this evening. It is a chance for the Minister to make another mark in his career. Who knows? He might be rewarded as early as tomorrow morning.

Sir Andrew Bowden: I support the new clauses. I shall concentrate my comments on pre-1973 war widows. After 50 years, it is too easy to forget that when they were young women, they watched their husbands go to war and never return. It is a matter of deep shame that the pensions that they receive are the worst in western Europe. Immediate steps should be taken to increase their pension from 33 per cent. to 50 per cent. of their husband's pension. Some 80 per cent. are over 70; the majority are between 75 and 85. Nearly all of them have financial problems, and it is appalling that so many have to apply for and receive income support. But for the sacrifices of their husbands, this debate would not be taking place.

Column 257

The words that so many of us will have heard at meetings of Royal British Legion branches are appropriate in this debate:

"When you go home, tell them of us and say

For your tomorrow we gave our to-day."

The present position is appalling. Those war widows deserve and must have a better deal now.

Next Section

Home Page