| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire): I wanted to speak on the issue to show that, on the Labour Benches, there are some concerns about the matter and that there is some sympathy for the view of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend).
I accept that a review will take place. Much will depend on how seriously the matter is taken in that review. Obviously, what has been discussed in another place and here is relevant material, which the review should examine. The arguments have been put forward clearly.
The Minister said, "Why should the Army, Navy and Air Force be different from other public services?" The hon. Member for Windsor has responded to some of those points. I reiterate them a little and add some more.
Life in the forces is different from that in many other sectors. Many people place themselves in considerable danger in other public services--we are aware of that--but people serving in Kosovo and Northern Ireland face death continually. That may not be the case in other public services, although some terrible incidents occur in those services. However, as people in the forces face the problem day by day, some special consideration should be given.
The position of widows needs to be taken into account. They cannot develop careers readily and easily to provide for themselves later in life because of the nature of the service in which they are involved. They may move a dozen or more times during their life married to someone in the services, and will not have had an opportunity to build a stable career. They might even have great difficulty in finding employment in the areas to which they move. Often, life in the services is such that they
will be expected to be involved in many unpaid activities around the camps, providing welfare services. They assist their husband's career, so theirs is a special case, which needs to be looked at. Many of the arguments that have been presented by the War Widows Association of Great Britain make those points. We should consider them seriously.
Whatever happens in the Divisions, I hope that the Government will take the matter on board seriously. I hope that they will not say just that the review can consider the matter. The review must take the matter seriously into account and issue a quick report that is based on the principles that have been discussed tonight.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome):
The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) said that he was very proud that the Conservative party had changed its position on the matter since discussions were held in another place. I am very proud that the Liberal Democrats have not changed our position, and that we have been entirely consistent in our support for the Lords amendment. I very much hope that we shall have the opportunity to demonstrate that support at the end of the debate.
As has been said, we are talking about an anomaly--a fairly small anomaly affecting relatively few people. It is also a matter that we very rarely have the opportunity to debate, simply because it falls within the province of the Ministry of Defence and prerogative powers. This debate is one of the rare opportunities that we have had to explore the case on behalf of post-1973 war widows.
The current regulations are quintessentially archaic, as they treat the woman--the surviving spouse is usually a woman, but could be either gender--as a chattel and as someone who is dependent on their relationship with a partner, rather than as an independent person who has contributed equally to a partnership that has ended in the most tragic circumstances, in a death in service.
Yesterday, some of us were privileged to hear a lucid and extremely helpful briefing on the subject, and I was particularly struck by one statement made by the lady who gave the briefing. She said that the only real options available to a young war widow who wishes to retain the pension are to be single, celibate, promiscuous or homosexual. If she wants to preserve her pension entitlement on behalf of her family, the one thing that she cannot have is a stable relationship.
There are essentially three elements to the Government's position. The first is cost--which has already been dealt with by the hon. Member for Windsor. Implementing the change would not be a costly exercise. Indeed, a perfectly logical argument maintains that the Government would find themselves rather better off with the change.
The effects of precedent are the second element of the Government's position. However, I reject that argument, too. I do not believe that changing the provision for approximately 2,650 individuals will necessitate changes in other parts of the public service, or that there will be any clamour for such change.
The third element is the fact that a review is in process, and the Government maintain that we must await its completion. I reject that, too. This is an opportunity to correct a wrong that has continued for far too long.
Children are being been deprived of the opportunity to grow up in what should be stable families simply because of pension rules.
We have the opportunity not only to be fair to those widows, but to improve the terms of service of those serving in our armed services. Hon. Members who participate in defence debates will know how difficult it is to recruit and retain people in the services, but, today, we have the opportunity to make a significant change for the better.
Most of all, we should support those young wives and families who, through no fault of their own, find themselves in the most tragic circumstances, deprived of a partner.
The issue is not concerned only with the past--it arises every year. Every year, young people in our armed services are losing their lives in service. Often, they leave behind young spouses and families. The House would do well to reflect on that fact, and to take a rare opportunity to put right a rather small anomaly.
Mr. Dalyell:
Given that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is almost certainly anecdotally right in suggesting that there is a built-in financial disincentive either to marriage or to a stable relationship, I simply ask Ministers what advice they have had from their departmental experts on the costs if the Lords amendment were passed.
Mr. Rooker:
I am all for giving as much information as possible. On its own, the amendment would cost the Ministry of Defence less than £15 million annually.
Mr. Dalyell:
That was the factual answer that I wanted. I thank the Minister.
Mr. Brazier:
The school that I attended was set up for the sons of dead Army officers. The foundation for the sons of deceased service personnel continues to this day and there were several such children at school with me.
I should like to add two points to the excellent speeches that have been made already. First, it is a sad fact that today 40 per cent. of marriages end in divorce. It is a further sad fact that if one of the parties to the marriage comes in with children from a previous marriage, whether as a widow or as a divorcee, the chances of a divorce are even greater. If a member of the armed forces with children dies in action and his widow chooses to remarry, giving their children another father, she puts those children at serious financial risk. We must be clear about that.
I do not want to repeat the arguments that have been put so well already. My second point is that every hon. Member present tonight should ask themselves what sort of message we are sending to members of the armed forces, who risk their lives for us in so many uncomfortable and dangerous parts of the world, if we tell them that we are determined once again to save a relatively small sum of money by putting their widows and children in such a position if anything should happen to them.
Dr. George Turner:
I shall be brief. I am willing to accept that this may not be the moment, but at some point
Many Labour Members cannot support the attitudes, particularly to young women, that we have inherited. People should not be discouraged from entering into new relationships by a financial penalty, particularly if there are young children. I accept the need to consider small cases in the round to ensure that we do not create one anomaly after another. I should like some reassurance that the Government will take a positive look at the issue and that the House will return to it before too long.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate):
This is an opportunity to make a small gesture for war widows. The Minister has told us that the cost to the Ministry of Defence would be £15 million. What would the saving be to the Department of Social Security, caused by the widows surrendering their DSS pension when they got married? Let us have some joined-up government. I want to know the net cost to the Government, not just the cost to the Ministry of Defence.
9.30 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |