---

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I support the amendment, mainly for the reasons that I gave in supporting the previous one. This is another legacy issue. If we do not raise the issue with the Government at this point and send it back to the Commons, it is very unlikely that the focus that the Minister talked about being placed on it will be directed with any alacrity, as has been shown on so many legacy issues over the past two to three decades.

The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, about read-across seems fair. Although it is threatened that immediately we would have to read across into other schemes, it has not happened with the Armed Forces pension scheme. Therefore, it is important that another decade does not elapse before the issues are looked at again. Perhaps this is a time when the
 
15 Sept 2004 : Column 1203
 
Commons can be given the figures that have been denied us through these stages of the Bill, and therefore make a decision on the merits of the case.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, despite a strongly argued debate, I propose to resist Amendment No. 4, for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Bach set out on Report: principally the cost issue and the fact that it breaches the Government's clear policy on non-retrospection.

Perhaps it would be helpful if I first reminded the House of the key background to the debate. Post-retirement widows' pensions were introduced following government-wide changes in policy through the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. Provision was made in the current Armed Forces pension scheme for the payment of pensions to widows of service pensioners who married or remarried after retirement. But that change benefited only widows of those giving service on or after 6 April 1978. Subsequent government policy changes to provide widowers with the same post-retirement provision were introduced later, but this change benefited only the widowers of those giving service on or after 1 October 1987.

Amendment No. 4, if carried, would have three effects. First, it would allow all service widows and widowers to qualify for a post-retirement widows' pension, provided that the marriage or partnership started before the serviceperson's sixtieth birthday. Secondly, it would increase the rate of post-retirement widows' pensions for those widows and widowers who currently receive a post-retirement pension based on only that part of their spouse's service after the changes were made. Thirdly, it would improve the benefits of unmarried partners who currently receive benefits only if their partners are attributably killed in service—that is, if their death is due to service.

The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said on Report that he sought only to give service personnel parity with personnel in other public service schemes. He argued that, because service personnel are "obliged to retire" well before the normal retirement age of 55, it puts them at a disadvantage compared with other public servants, who are more likely to serve a full career to age 60. However, the basic rules apply equally in all public service schemes.

Other public servants are equally unable to marry after leaving service and pass on benefits to their widow for any service before April 1978. There is a clear cut-off in all public service schemes between pre-April-1978 and post-April-1978 service, with "post-retirement" defined as after leaving the relevant service. Equally, many of those who leave the Armed Forces before the age of 60 do so by choice, while many in other public service schemes are obliged to retire. I am clear that we would not be able to make a special case for Armed Forces personnel who marry in retirement before the age of 60 that other public services would not argue should apply equally in their own schemes.

My noble friend said on Report that the Government Actuary's estimate of the cost of allowing all public service post-retirement marriages to qualify for
 
15 Sept 2004 : Column 1204
 
pension benefits is between £300 million and £500 million. Introducing a cut-off for those over the age of 60 would still leave us with an unaffordable cost. There is no significant distinction between Armed Forces personnel and other public service employees in this area. There are those serving in all schemes who have been obliged to leave early and who have then married after retirement, so we could not justify making a change only for the Armed Forces. I must remind the House that, on every occasion where such issues are under debate, it has been a longstanding policy of successive governments that changes to improve the benefits from public service pension schemes should be implemented from a current date for future service only.

For the Armed Forces alone, the Government Actuary has estimated that there would be a one-off cost in the order of £50 million to extend post-retirement widow and widower pensions to all current and deferred AFPS pensioners. This cost would increase if unmarried partners were included, but it is difficult to estimate given the limited information on the number of partners who might be eligible. There would be no future annual cost. I am afraid that I will have to resist the amendment.

Lord Freyberg: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who spoke in support of the amendment. I also thank the Minister for her reply, although I am unable to agree with much of what she said. She is wrong to contend that there will be a significant read-across with others in the public sector or to assert that £50 million is in any way an accurate figure.

I urge the House to remember that conditions in the forces are different from those in the rest of the public services. There is extreme danger to be endured, living abroad for long periods and, most of all, the knowledge that your chosen career could be cut short at around age 40. No other public career makes such demands. Is it not reasonable that your spouse should be able to inherit the share of the pension that you earned under such conditions? All that I ask is that those service widows should be put on the same footing as other public servants' widows and not be significantly worse off. This amendment would make that happen for the first time and therefore I urge the House to support it. I should like to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 111; Not-Contents, 110.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS
Addington, L.
Alderdice, L.
Alton of Liverpool, L.
Barker, B.
Bradshaw, L.
Bramall, L.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Carlile of Berriew, L.
Chan, L.
Clement-Jones, L.
Colwyn, L.
Condon, L.
Courtown, E.
Cox, B.
Craig of Radley, L.
Craigavon, V.
Crickhowell, L.
Darcy de Knayth, B.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Dholakia, L.
Dundee, E.
Dykes, L.
Eden of Winton, L.
Elles, B.
Elton, L.
Erroll, E.
Falkland, V.
Finlay of Llandaff, B.
Fookes, B.
Fowler, L.
Fraser of Carmyllie, L.
Freyberg, L. [Teller]
Garden, L.
Geddes, L.
Goodhart, L.
Greaves, L.
Greengross, B.
Guthrie of Craigiebank, L.
Hamwee, B.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Hooson, L.
Howe of Idlicote, B.
Hylton, L.
Jacobs, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Kimball, L.
Lang of Monkton, L.
Lindsay, E.
Liverpool, E.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Lucas, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Maclennan of Rogart, L.
McNally, L.
Maddock, B.
Mancroft, L.
Mar, C.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Marsh, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Molyneaux of Killead, L.
Monson, L.
Montagu of Beaulieu, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Naseby, L.
Newton of Braintree, L.
Northesk, E.
Norton of Louth, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Onslow, E.
Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
Palmer, L.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Plumb, L.
Redesdale, L. [Teller]
Rees, L.
Renton, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Roper, L.
Sandberg, L.
Sandwich, E.
Selsdon, L.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Slim, V.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Stewartby, L.
Strange, B.
Swinfen, L.
Taverne, L.
Tebbit, L.
Tenby, V.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Tordoff, L.
Ullswater, V.
Waddington, L.
Wade of Chorlton, L.
Wakeham, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Walpole, L.
Walton of Detchant, L.
Weatherill, L.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Williamson of Horton, L.
Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Acton, L.
Ahmed, L.
Alli, L.
Amos, B. (Lord President of the Council)
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Bach, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Billingham, B.
Blood, B.
Brookman, L.
Burlison, L.
Christopher, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Crawley, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Desai, L.
Dixon, L.
Drayson, L.
Dubs, L.
Elder, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Falkender, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Gale, B.
Gavron, L.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Giddens, L.
Gilbert, L.
Golding, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Gould of Brookwood, L.
Griffiths of Burry Port, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harrison, L.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Haskel, L.
Haworth, L.
Hayman, B.
Henig, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Chesterton, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Jones, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Leitch, L.
Lipsey, L.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
McDonagh, B.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Maxton, L.
Merlyn-Rees, L.
Morgan, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Patel of Blackburn, L.
Pendry, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Puttnam, L.
Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Richard, L.
Rogan, L.
Rooker, L.
Rosser, L.
Rowlands, L.
Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Sawyer, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Sewel, L.
Simon, V.
Snape, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Temple-Morris, L.
Thornton, B.
Tomlinson, L.
Triesman, L.
Truscott, L.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Uddin, B.
Wall of New Barnet, B.
Warner, L.
Whitaker, B.
Winston, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.


Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

 
15 Sept 2004 : Column 1206
 

Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Bach.)

On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons with amendments.

---