| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tom Clarke (Coatbridge and Chryston): Like most of my hon. Friends, I followed the discussion yesterday in another place with great interest. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the spokeswoman for his party accepted the assurances given by the Minister and said that she would not push the matter and would not ask this House to discuss it. What has changed since yesterday in the minds of the Conservative Front-Bench team in this place?
Mr. Trend: I do not accept that there has been a change of mind between the two teams. This is the first time that
the House of Commons has had a chance to debate and take a view on the new amendment. It clarifies in an important way the most important feature, which is the ring fence. If the ring fence is solid and in place and if the Government are determined to keep to it, it is sufficient.
We all agree that our service men and women are unique among people in the public service. They cannot join a trades union; they do not get paid overtime; they are excluded from the maximum working hours legislation. They are on duty round the clock. They have long-term contracts of a sort that do not exist elsewhere in the public service. They are posted throughout the world with great disruption to their family life, whether they are in front-line positions overseas or in barracks, preparing for combat. They are the only group of people who are sent on service knowing full well that they should not assume that they will return alive. We cannot, however, take them for granted.
As the Minister knows, there is a real problem with the recruitment and retention of service men and women. In the past few days the Minister will also have been warned of the supposed knock-on effect of the amendment. As I have told the House before, that effect simply need not occur if the Government find the will to ring-fence the war widows. If, even at this stage, further tightening amendments can be found which will help to achieve that ring fencing, the Government will have our full support in speeding them through Parliament.
The Minister has referred to the supposed costs. None of us can be sure about the cost because we do not know how many widows will choose to remarry. All those widows who remarry will save the Exchequer roughly £4,500 by relinquishing their DSS pension. That will be a net gain, and should be recognised as such in the overall calculations. I hope that the Minister will hotfoot it again to the Treasury to show how minuscule the figures are.
I am disappointed that the Minister's journey round the Departments has hardened his heart. On the Conservative Benches there are many who dealt with the matter when we were in government. They have to this day a deep regret that they did not overcome departmental obstinacy on this most deserving group of people. The Minister must not hide behind departmental reviews. There have been many in the past and they have all agreed that the war widows should retain their armed forces pension if they remarry. I can tell that the Minister has reached that view privately. I profoundly hope that he will not find himself one day regretting that he left it too late to do anything about it. I intend to divide the House on the matter to show our strength of feeling and that the campaign will continue.
Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow):
I shall vote with the Government on this amendment. I understand perfectly the difficulties and complexities of the figures. I do not blame my hon. Friend the Minister of State in any way; indeed, I thank him for making inquiries. However, the point about the Ministry of Defence waiting until next summer is nonsense. If the MOD can make up its mind so quickly--as was done at Rambouillet in a matter of hours--to bomb the hell out of Serbia--
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
Keep to the subject.
Mr. Dalyell:
This is very much the subject. If the same expedition were to be shown in this matter as in some others, it could be dealt with far more quickly than next summer. It could be dealt with by Christmas.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome):
Like the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston(Mr. Clarke), I detect a scintilla of inconsistency in the position of Conservative spokesmen. The last time that we discussed this matter in this place, the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) was proud to announce his conversion, but it did not seem to have been communicated to his colleagues in another place. However, a double conversion is all the more welcome and I am grateful for it. At least the Liberal Democrats have been wholly consistent.
I shall not detain the House by repeating arguments that were adequately made on a previous occasion. As some Members have pointed out, the amendment has been slightly tightened since our previous discussions of the matter. It modernises the position and, most important, it is right. It would save money for the Exchequer, although we cannot prove it through financial forecasts. It does not set a precedent, but I have no intention of reciting a limerick to prove it, as did my noble Friend the Earl Russell in another place. The people who serve in our armed services and are killed in that capacity are a very special group. The measure will have the additional benefit of improving recruitment and retention. That too is important for the MOD.
Other hon. Members have pointed out that this week is an especially poignant one in which to discuss this subject--as we wear poppies in our lapels, two days away from the 11th day of the 11th month. I hope that we shall send the particular message to service men and women and their families that not only do we remember those who have fought, but we realise the sacrifices that the forces make every day.
I respect the Minister of State, who has approached the subject with his customary courtesy and integrity. I am grateful to him for his observations, although I am slightly saddened by the fact that no Minister from the MOD was able to spare two minutes to attend the debate--unlike what happened when the matter was debated in the other place. I hope that the House will show its firm intention and that the point will be made this evening.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire):
On the last occasion we discussed this matter--albeit under a slightly different measure--I voted with the Opposition. The arguments made by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats at that time and tonight are correct, but, as the Opposition spokesmen in the Lords have accepted the assurances of my hon. Friend the Minister of State that it is unreasonable to press the matter to a vote, I cannot join the Opposition in the Division Lobby tonight.
I raise two issues with my hon. Friend. First, he states that the measures can be dealt with properly and fully in a review. He has given sufficient commitment to show that he has considered the arguments made in this place and that he considers that the matter is serious and that it should be dealt with in the review. However, if there is a manifest defect, it could be put right by the measure before us. It would thus be open to the Government to accept the proposal, which is a compromise compared to the measure that we debated previously.
Mr. Crispin Blunt (Reigate):
I note that this evening, like last week, the Minister cannot begin to defend the way in which he invites his colleagues to vote on the ground that it is right.
We have the promise of a review by next summer. However, for the Ministry of Defence, "by next summer" is a somewhat flexible concept. I should be much happier if we had a date, rather than a season, for the review. We should not overturn the Lords amendment on the grounds that the findings of a review will be published at some time in the future, and that there will then be a lengthy consultation period. Even if the war widows measure were included in that review, and it would be appalling and a scandal if it were not, widows and their children would have to wait all that time before they could make sense of their future status--to remarry, to have fathers for their children.
We should not ask war widows to wait any longer. In this week of all weeks, when we are about to attend remembrance parades, it is wholly wrong to expect them to continue the sacrifice that their husbands have already made. In another place, the Baroness Strange stated that the matter was honourable and right. It is honourable and right for us to support the Lords amendment.
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Inverclyde):
I am more than happy to support the Government, although I share the reservations voiced by my hon. and old Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) about the length of the review process.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |