| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
".--(1) A widow in receipt of a widow's pension under any of the enactments mentioned in subsection (2) ("the DSS pension"), and in receipt of a pension paid under the Armed Forces Pension scheme shall on remarriage or when living together as husband and wife with a member of the opposite sex, only retain the Forces Family Pension (attributable).
(2) The enactments referred to in subsection (1) are--
(a) the Naval, Military and Air Forces etc. (Disablement and Death) Service Pensions Order 1983, and any order re-enacting the provisions of that order,
(b) the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme 1983, and any subsequent scheme made under the Personal Injuries (Emergency Provisions) Act 1939,
(c) any scheme made under the Pensions (Navy, Army, Air Force and Mercantile Marine) Act 1939 or the Polish Resettlement Act 1947 applying the provisions of any such order as is referred to in paragraph (a),
(d) the order made under section 1(5) of the Ulster Defence Regiment Act 1969 concerning pensions and other grants in respect of disablement or death due to service in the Ulster Defence Regiment."
Mr. Rooker: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment relates to the situation of war widows. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, who leads on these issues, has asked me to put the case to the House, and I hope that hon. Members will find that acceptable. We recognise, as everyone does, the importance of ensuring that the dependants of those who are killed as a result of their service careers are properly looked after. The Government greatly value the contribution that those people have made for their country.
Amendment No. 20 seeks to retain for life a widow's attributable pension awarded under the Ministry of Defence's armed forces pension scheme. It would not affect payments under the DSS war pension scheme. Such pensions would continue to be withdrawn if the widow remarried or cohabited with a man, as would pensions paid to widows under the MOD's occupational pension scheme if their spouse's death was not attributable to service. It is quite a narrow amendment.
Introducing special arrangements for widows who receive the attributable pension would be anomalous, and might be seen as unfair by other service widows, because that would ring-fence that particular group of widows. That may be stating the obvious, but it is important to put it on the record. Other public service widows may also think it unfair. Under the schemes for the emergency services--the police and the fire service, in which men and women put their lives at risk during their public duty--occupational pensions are withdrawn on remarriage or cohabitation. We could create a festering sore among widows in many walks of life, and we do not think that that is the way to go.
The Government have had to consider the implications of the amendment for all public service schemes. It cannot be treated in isolation. Making widows pensions available for life would be very costly if applied across the public service as a whole. However, the Secretary of State for Defence is conducting a major review of the armed forces pension scheme. As a new Government, we are entitled to review these issues. Widows pensions are being examined as part of that review, including the issue of withdrawal on remarriage. We expect the report by next summer--we have put a target date on it: it will not get lost in the ether--and I cannot speculate about the outcome of that review.
The concerns expressed in the other place, which will be reiterated here, are fully understood and are not dismissed lightly. I cannot say more than that, because this is a sensitive issue. I will not go over the arguments about the reference in the amendment to the armed forces pension scheme. There are three different schemes, and the amendment affects only those widows in receipt of an attributable pension: it does not cover all service widows.
It would be premature to make a decision on this matter now without the benefit of the in-depth inquiry and review that is taking place to enable the House to come to a conclusion. The review will enable us to take into account the effect on other widows in other services.
Dr. George Turner (North-West Norfolk):
I understand that the review is already behind schedule, as is common with such matters. If cases arise between the time when the review was launched and the decisions it makes, will the Minister consider any difficult individual cases, or will that be within the ambit of the review body?
Mr. Rooker:
I am not sure of the details of why the process has been delayed, but, according to the best information I have, the review is being conducted and a report is due by next summer. I do not know what the original timetable was or the reason for the delay, but I think that the House would be wise to await the results of the review before legislating, so that we can take into
Mr. Trend:
The Opposition agree with the Lords amendment. Those who follow these matters in detail will realise that it represents a change in our policy--indeed, a change since the proposal was debated, very recently, in another place. I am quietly proud to be able to tell the House of that change, but well aware that mere good fortune has enabled me to voice what many Conservatives, on both Front and Back Benches, have for so long felt to be right and thoughtful. This is an issue that commands support throughout the House; it has only ever been a problem for Front-Bench Members, and it is now only a problem for Ministers.
The Government will have been told by civil servants--as we were when we were in government--that to concede this point will be to open the floodgates. That is what the Minister told us today. The Government may even have been persuaded to accept the red herring that some 68,000 widows are involved in the proposal. Both claims are simply untrue. It would be entirely possible to accept this modest proposal, strictly ring-fenced to post-1973 war widows, without further repercussions, and we are assured that there is no technical or legal reason why that could not be done. The Government are quite able to put their powerful shoulders against all sorts of floodgates if they are determined to do so; what is unfair in this instance is that a small group of people are unjustly on the wrong side of the Government's stubbornness.
I suspect that, when the phrase "war widows" is used in this context, most people conjure up a picture of women getting on in years whose husbands fought courageously in the second world war. That is far from the truth of what we are talking about. We are talking specifically about post-1973 war widows, and the total number of people in that group--those in receipt of attributable armed forces family pensions--is thought to be 2,650. At present, along with the AFFP, they receive DSS war widows pensions; if they remarry, they lose both.
The widows in question, ably represented by the War Widows Association of Great Britain--believe that to be grossly unfair, and a serious and understandable disincentive for them to remarry. Under the Government's current proposals for pension splitting on divorce, those women would be able to retain a share in their former husbands' occupational pension schemes, which is what the AFFP is; but the Government say that those who are separated from their spouses by death must lose both their DSS and their MOD occupational pensions if they remarry. That is a monstrous injustice. The great majority of private pension schemes, and an increasing number of public pension schemes, now pay bereaved spouses pensions for life, and it is surely a good thing for pension schemes to be regarded increasingly as the assets and the property of individuals rather than as a handout from a grudging Government.
The armed forces are different from any and all other public services. Service men and women are the only group in our society who are asked as a condition of their work to be ready to lay down their lives for the rest of us. They are not paid overtime; they cannot join a trade union; their contracts are totally different from contracts in the other public services. Their wives and families are
posted anywhere throughout the globe. It is impossible for service men's wives to take up careers of their own. I know that from personal experience, as I represent Windsor, a town with two barracks.
In fact, 806 of those widows are under 50 and 1,542 are under 60. It is not an enormous problem for the Government. Young women are involved, too. In particular, it is the children who suffer from the injustice of their late father's occupational pension being stopped if their mother remarries.
Recently, a large group of young children went to Downing street, where they were courteously received by the Prime Minister. Who could fail to be struck by the predicament in which those families find themselves? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was. I ask the Minister to consider accepting the amendment, even at this late stage.
9.15 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |