| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
After Clause 6
Lords amendment: No. 2.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, in line 3, after 'widows' insert 'or'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendments (b) and (c).
Mr. Howarth: I am speaking to the amendments that stand in my name. There are several, but they add up to the same thing, which is to amend the amendment proposed by their lordships in the other place.
On retirement widows, as with the burden of proof, the Government have remained stubbornly resistant throughout, refusing to give an inch in response to calls from the Forces Pension Society, Members of this House and of the other place and the widows themselves.
Currently, those who retired before 6 April 1978 and married for the first or subsequent time after their retirement receive no widow's benefit. Those who retired after 6 April 1978 have a widow's benefit based only on that part of their service that took place after 1978. For example, a serviceman who served a full career with half his service before 1978 would leave his widow from a post-retirement marriage on a pension worth just over 12 per cent. of his final salary. That compares with a pension worth 24.25 per cent. of final salary that would be paid to a pre-retirement marriage widow; that is, a woman who had married her husband while he was serving in the armed forces.
The Government have set out the same arguments repeatedly, and I have no doubt that we will hear them again today. They say that the projected cost of £50 million is too expensive, that such a change would affect the longstanding policy that there should be no retrospection and that there would be a read-across to the rest of the public sector. As the Opposition have said on previous occasions, we remain unconvinced on the two latter points, and I shall turn to them now.
20 Oct 2004 : Column 932
3 pm
First, I shall deal with the question of cost. Lords amendment No. 2 offers an affordable compromise, and is aimed at helping the oldest and most vulnerable widows. We accept that the one-off, up-front cost of £50 million could be difficult to justify, given the competing pressures on an already overstretched budget, so we are offering a compromise to address the needs of the most vulnerable members of this group. By making provision for those over 70, we would maintain the spirit of the amendment tabled by Lord Freyberg, and would do so at a relatively small cost, which we believe to be entirely justified.
I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Lord Freyberg. From the Cross Benches, he made a very valuable contribution to the debates on these matters in the other place.
The Government Actuary's Department and the Ministry of Defence have refused to release the assumptions on which their costings are based, so it is difficult to make accurate financial projections. However, the Forces Pension Society has estimated that were the Government minded to make a small concession on payments to those who married a member of the armed forces pension scheme before his 60th birthday and who are now widows over the age of 70, the cost would be of the order of £10 million.
We believe that to be affordable and justified. If the Government refuse to relent on this issue, the next Conservative Government will make the provision for the oldest and most vulnerable of the people affected. We are willing to make that commitment. Are the Government willing to do the same?
Furthermore, the stipulation that the marriage should have taken place before the member's 60th birthday would bring the provision into line with the normal retirement age for the vast majority of workers in the public sector. The vast majority of service people leave the armed forces at or before their 40th birthday, so that stipulation would mean only that service personnel would be treated equitably with the rest of the public sector. It would confer on them no special privilege, but would merely bring them into line with the rest of the public sector. The amendment is designed to secure parity, and there would be no read-across to the rest of the public sector.
Since 1973, service personnel have had their pay abated; in other words, a deduction is made from their salary to assist in the provision of pensions for themselves and their dependants. Pension provision is therefore not without cost for members of our armed forces, as they make payments by way of a reduced salary. That principle was conceded in the new scheme, and changes were introduced in 1978, so there can be no justification for this small and disadvantaged group to continue to be penalised by outdated legislation.
The Minister has said that providing the proposed pension provision for widows and widowers of post-retirement marriages would go against the policy adopted by successive Governments that there should be no retrospection. Again, we remain unconvinced. The precedent has already been set for making provision for vulnerable groups adversely affected by changes in
20 Oct 2004 : Column 933
legislation. In 1989, for example the then Secretary of State for Defence, my noble Friend Lord King, responded to concerns that help should be given to a "uniquely deserving category" of individuals and stated that pre-1973 widows would, from April 1990, be given an additional, tax-free payment of £40 a week. That payment would come from the Department then known as the Department for Social Security.
In his statement to the House and in the ensuing debate, Lord King made it clear that the change was not retrospective, and that the new payment was designed to boost the income of a group of people who had not benefited from the later improvements made to the armed forces pension scheme because of the policy of non-retrospection. When any new scheme is introduced, there will always be some who are left behind, as happened in 1978. However, the precedent exists to make provision for what Lord King called a "uniquely deserving category" of people.
On the question of read-across to other public sector workers, we have maintained throughout the Bill's passage through Parliament that the armed forces are different from all other public services. As Opposition Members, Liberal Democrat Members and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) have all said, what we ask of our armed forces is unique. We ask them to place their lives on the line as a matter of routine, in the name of their country.
A former Pensions Minister said:
"I should emphasise that the exemption of the armed forces will not be a precedent for the treatment of any other group. The armed forces are unique in the demands that are placed on them and the diversity of duties that their members may be required to undertake at any time and for any period." —[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 5 February 1998; c. 777.]
That was not said by my noble Friend Lord King, nor even by a member of the Conservative party, although it might have been. It was said by the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). We agree. The sacrifice made by the members of our armed forces should be recognised in the way in which we treat them and those whom they leave behind.
As the splendidly feisty organisation No Pension 4 U has observed, many of the spouses of the oldest widows covered by our amendments will have seen service during the second world war. Indeed, some of the very oldest widows may have contributed to that victory themselves, through the Women's Royal Army Corps, the Women's Royal Naval Service, the Auxiliary Territorial Service and the Women's Royal Air Force, or other associated occupations.
Some pretty touching cases have been drawn to my attention. A lady from Devon stated:
"My husband was in Bomber Command during the second world war. He stayed on in the Royal Air Force and served until 1970. He lost his first wife in 1974 and he and I married in 1977. He is now nearly 88 and I am 82—however, not too old to feel very bitter that although now partners of the same sex are entitled to a pension I am not and would have a struggle to maintain standards if he dies first. One really does feel was his sacrifice of his youth worth it when the older service men seem to be forgotten?"
"My husband joined the army in 1946 and left in 1975. His first wife sadly died in 1987. We married at Christmas 1989 and I am dismayed to find that I have less status regarding pensions than an unmarried or same sex relationship partner. My husband is now
- 75 and still works. Although he enjoys working I know that his main motivation for doing so is to help to provide for my future as he now knows that I shall not receive any part of his pension if he dies first."
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal) (Con): Does my hon. Friend remember an earlier debate in which the need to recognise the realities of life were mentioned? It was said then that people facing circumstances that were less favourable than expected should have a reasonable or fair deal. That is an attractive argument. Will my hon. Friend explain why people do not feel the same way about women who have lived as second wives for a long period of time and who then find themselves in reduced circumstances? That was wrong under the previous Conservative Government; surely it is time that the House recognised that it would be sensible to put the matter right?
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |