HC Deb 09 June 1972 vol 838 cc945-52

3.30 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton

I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 13, line 5, after 'man', insert: or the widower of a woman'.

The Chairman

It would be convenient to take at the same time the following Amendments, also standing in the name of the hon. Gentleman:

No. 24, in page 13, line 7, after 'husband', insert: 'or, as the case may be, his late wife'.

No. 25, in line 19, after 'widow's, insert 'or widower's'.

No. 26, in line 20, after 'husband', insert: 'or, as the case may be, his late wife'.

No. 27, in line 22, after 'widow', insert 'or widower'.

No. 28, in line 28, after 'widow', insert 'or widower'.

No. 29, in line 29, leave out 'her husband's' and insert 'his or her'.

No. 30, in line 30, leave out from 'person' to end of line 35.

Mr. Hamilton

I agree, Sir Robert, although there is a slight difference between the first group of the Amendments and Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30. I shall come to that later.

These Amendments substantially are the obverse side of Women's Lib. This is "Men's Lib" and I am particularly glad to put them forward because I have no personal interest to declare in the matter one way or the other. The House of Commons is a monastery, almost. We have fewer than 30 Lady Members—in my view, far too few. I wish there were more, except, of course, in West Fife. It is important to remember also that we have equal pay and have had it for many years.

When one looks at our Lady Members, one sees, happily or unhappily, as the case may be, that some are married and some, happily or unhappily, are still single. But Clause 13 assumes that all Members are men and that when they die they leave dependent widows. But, of course, the reverse can happen—that is to say, a married woman Member could die and leave a widower who had been dependent on her income. I think of two Lady Members in whose case this could happen. I shall not mention their names but hon. Members probably know to whom I refer.

It is true that in Clause 14 there are provisions for a widower, but it says that the widower has to be …incapable by reason of age or bodily or mental infirmity of earning his own living and was wholly or mainly dependent on her… When a male Member dies, there is no such provision. The widow, even if she is capable of getting a job, mentally and physically, is still nevertheless entitled to the pension. Yet lady Members have contributed in exactly the same way as their male colleagues to the Members' Fund, which was established in 1939, and more recently to the Members' pension scheme, established in 1965.

I come immediately to the question of the widowers, who can be dealt with on a discretionary basis by the Trustees of the Members' Fund. Tributes have been paid to the manner in which the fund is administered by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Sir R. Cary) and his colleagues. They administer it in an extremely generous and humane way. But it is simply not enough. I feel strongly that the families of deceased Members of Parliament, should be treated alike, irrespective of the sex of the deceased Member. That is the purpose of the earlier Amendments.

I should like to refer especially to Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30, which concern cohabitation. As drafted, the Bill covers a widow of a deceased Member who is cohabiting with a man at the time of the Member's decease or who subsequently cohabits. If either of those circumstances occurs, the widow loses her pension, except that the Clause goes on to say that, at the discretion of the Trustees of the Members' Fund, if they are satisfied that the cohabitation has been terminated or that there are exceptional reasons for payment, the pension may be paid.

I hope that the hon. Member for Withington will tell us how he and his fellow trustees will satisfy themselves that the cohabitation has ended, or what special exceptional reasons would enable the pension to be paid, unless they are to be allowed to employ, as the Department of Health and Social Security employs, their own professional snoopers to find out whether the cohabitation has ceased in whole or in part. I do not know what "ceasing" means. Does it mean only one night a week? The hon. Gentleman has a great problem on his hands.

Sir R. Cary

No doubt the hon. Gentleman will recall what I said on Second Reading on this subject.

Mr. Hamilton

I am pointing to the great difficulty of putting into effect that part of the Clause with which we are dealing.

In any event, there is no similar provision in the Clause for the widower, and a widower might be mentally or physically incapable of work, although mentally and physically capable of cohabitation. There is no provision in the Bill to say that if he is mentally or physically incapable of working, but mentally and physically capable of participation in cohabitation, his pension will be taken from him. There is no justification for that and I should like the Minister to consider the matter.

My imagination ran away with me when I was considering the subject, and there occurred to me the possibility of an example concerning the Prime Minister. Let us suppose that the present Prime Minister marries—it is a possibility; I put it no higher than that. Let us suppose that he marries the right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith)as her consolation for having taken her constituency from her. Let us suppose that at the next election the Prime Minister loses his seat, but in the meantime the hon. Lady has found another seat and has won it. The Prime Minister would retire on his pension of £7,500 a year and his wife would sit here in the House.

Let us suppose that she then unfortunately dies—I could understand that—and that he then starts to cohabit with another woman. Does he then lose his Prime Minister's pension because he is cohabitating? These are fairly remote possibilities for which the Bill makes no provision.

The serious point is that we should treat Members of Parliament as Members of Parliament irrespective of their sex. Both the men and the women in the House of Commons work equally hard and do work of equal value. Sometimes I have gone home when the House has been sitting all night and I have known women Members to stay here all through the night. In that respect the women Members sometimes do a better job than the male Members. We have accepted that, and our acceptance should be written into the Bill so that lady Members and male Members and their dependants are treated on an equal basis.

Dame Joan Vickers (Plymouth, Devonport)

I support what the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) said. This is a blow for men's liberation, which is a nice change from women's liberation.

Incidentally, I am a little tired of being referred to as a woman Member of Parliament. We are Members of Parliament on equal footing with the male Members of Parliament and we should therefore have equal rights. Regrettably, there was no woman member on the Boyle Committee, otherwise these problems would not have risen.

We have won one small battle, however, because in reply to a Question from me my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council said this about cohabitation: The only difference so far as Members' widows and widowers specifically are concerned relates to the cessation of pension on cohabitation. The Government propose to implement the recommendation of the Boyle Committee so that this difference is removed."—[Official Report, 1st March, 1972; Vol. 832, c. 406–7.] So we have won one small point which will be reflected in Clause 14.

The hon. Gentleman and I are in the same position in that we have to contribute. Our contributions are to be increased considerably, although neither of us benefits. Therefore, we are free to speak on this subject. I am glad to note from the debate on Second Reading that the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) strongly supported this point. The Government have been asked to look at what happens in the European Economic Community countries. We have still had no reply. I gather that in the EEC countries all Members—male and female—are treated alike. I hope that that will happen here.

I therefore suggest that this matter should be looked at again and an Amendment made in another place. This is essential because I gather that on the death of a former lady Member the widower must show that he is incapable of earning a living by reason of age. People's ability at a certain age varies. Lord Shinwell has recently married for the third time and he is over 80. I do not believe that age is any bar.

All lady Members must have the co-operation of their husbands in their parliamentary work. It is not so necessary for a male Member to have the co-operation of his wife, although it is desirable. No woman can become a Member of Parliament unless her husband agrees.

I can think of one Member of Parliament who had to support her husband. It is essential that all Members of Parliament are put on an equal basis. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will either give way now or agree to make a change in another place.

Mr. Kenneth Baker

The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) has explained with his usual eloquence the case for amending Clauses 13 and 14 so as to make identical with the provisions relating to the pensions of widows those relating to the pensions of widowers. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dame Joan Vickers) supported this. This would have the effect of putting widowers of Members in the same position as widows of Members.

3.45 p.m.

The Amendments contain an interesting drafting point, which nullifies the effect that the hon. Member wishes to achieve. Clause 13(4) provides that a widow's pension shall be withheld if, first, she is cohabiting at the time of her husband's death and, secondly, if she begins cohabiting later. That deals with widows, but the proviso enables the trustees to restore the pension if the cohabitation ceases—[Hon. Members: "How do they know?" ] That is not for me to decide; it is a matter for the trustees. The hon. Member's Amendments remove the second alternative, and the trustees will no longer be able to restore the pension in the first case when the widow ceases to cohabit.

I am glad to be able to say a little more about this than I did at the end of the Second Reading debate, when both the right hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) fastened upon this and called it a Women's Lib point. The right hon. Member for Leeds, West regarded the idea that remarriage should be termed cohabitation as quite unseemly. That is the view of the hon. Member for Fife, West and his hon. Friends.

We start, as ever, from the Boyle Report. It is clear from paragraph 8 in Appendix H that the pattern of Clauses 13 and 14 follows the Committee's instructions. Moreover, as I explained in the Second Reading debate, it would be difficult for us if, faced with the task of settling the issues ourselves without the recommendations of the Boyle Committee, we departed from the usual pattern of public pension schemes. This is not a minor discrepancy; the Women's Lib point is fundamental. It is not so much a moral as an economic point, inasmuch as a person who is likely to lose his pension if he marries again may decide not to marry again on economic grounds rather than on moral grounds. Like many other Women's Lib points, it benefits the men, because the effect would be to give the former husband of a lady Member of this House the right to a pension.

I cannot recommend the Committee to accept the Amendments because it would mean moving ahead of the general practice in the public services and in the country as a whole. Hon. Members might like to have the cohabitation rules changed. As a Minister replying to the debate, I am not allowed to have a view on this matter, but I am sure that the views expressed in the Second Reading debate and in the course of today's debate will be noted. Any such change as this will have to follow changes within the wider schemes.

The hon. Member for Fife, West referred to the case of a senile widower who, because he is senile, draws his pension under the Bill. The hon. Member asked whether, if such a widower cohabits, he has his pension withdrawn, or whether his senility ensures its continuation. I am advised that in this case cohabitation is greater than senility, and the fact that he is cohabiting means that he is in the same position as the widow who is cohabiting. We must observe exactly equality with the widow, and a widow in that position would have her pension withdrawn.

That demonstrates the strange byways into which one can stray in regard to cohabitation rules. I remind the hon. Member for Fife, West of what he said at about half-past eleven today; namely, that we should think very carefully about increasing the division between ourselves and the public. If we implemented these changes without making the necessary changes in outside schemes we should be putting our dependants, or possible dependants, in a privileged position. That is why I recommend the Committee to reject the Amendments.

Dame Joan Vickers

May I ask my hon. Friend a question about a widower who does not marry again? An hon. Member pays for pension rights. Why should he or she not get them?

Mr. Baker

Because the principle of widows' pensions essentially is that the great majority of women in our society today are dependent upon their husbands or upon the pension rights which their husbands may have earned for them during their life. It is assumed that the husband of the wife who has earned should make provision for his own pension rights. That is a provision which my hon. Friend may not like, but it is the principle in the pension schemes at the moment, and my argument is that it would be wrong to make the House of Commons scheme run ahead by a change which may become practicable in a few years' time.

Mr. Houghton

My own view and that of a large number of hon. Members I stated on Second Reading. The Minister is being saved by the bell. His principles are strong but his brief is weak. We cannot pursue this matter further this afternoon. It is a pity we have not more time, because this is a very important principle. I think we shall have this out when next we come to the wider issues in the National Insurance Scheme, which is probably where it belongs. The new thinking, and the absurdities of some of these rules, can then be fully examined. I agree that it would be difficult to make an important change of this kind solely in relation to the Members of Parliament Pension Scheme, but I think I can promise the hon. Gentleman that there is more to come on this issue later.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 14 to 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, without Amendment to the House.

Mr. Kenneth Baker

Briefly, Mr Mallalieu, I should like to thank you for your courtesy in presiding over the Committee today, and I should also like to thank those hon. Members who have been here for their interesting contributions and for their assistance in getting this Bill through.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading) , and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.