HC Deb 09 May 1973 vol 856 cc610-6

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Dell

I beg to move Amendment No. 62, in page 70, line 29, leave out from 'scheme' to end of line 30.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this amendment it will be convenient if we discuss Government Amendment No. 64 and Amendment No. 177, in page 70, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 71.

Mr. Dell

We are now to deal in rapid succession with two issues on which the Government were defeated in Committee. In this case, the first occasion on which they were defeated, they appear to have accepted the defeat and they have brought forward the necessary amendment to implement the wish of the Committee.

The House will have realised that there was an anomaly in the original Bill which meant that in an occupational pension scheme, unlike the reserve pension scheme, a widow might not get the 50 per cent. of pension that the Bill was supposed to provide.

The circumstances in which that could occur would be when a man married after he had acquired an interest in preserved pensions. It was pointed out in Committee that this could frequently happen in respect of people who married in their late twenties or early thirties, by which time they might have acquired preserved occupational pensions. However, their widows would have no right in those preserved pensions unless the Bill was amended. The Government are now making the necessary change by Amendment No. 64.

I welcome the amendment. I simply ask the Government one question about it because it contains one element which I do not welcome—that is, its second word "may". Will the Government explain why they are not requiring regulations to be made to deal with this point and why they simply say that they may be made? This leaves open the possibility that the anomaly will continue. In our view, it would be better if the Government dealt with the situation outright and said that regulations definitely would be made to deal with the anomaly from which widows would otherwise suffer.

Mr. Airey Neave (Abingdon)

I do not intend to pursue the point made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) on Amendment No. 62. I want warmly to welcome Amendment No. 64, which deals with a very important principle about which some of us have been concerned for some time. The aspect to which I refer is that of the post-retirement widows, as they are known, in the public service. Under the amendment they would be covered by Clauses 53 and 54.

In January 1971, as some of my hon. Friends will remember, I raised this matter on the Adjournment so far as it affected the Armed Forces. Since members of the Armed Forces are now employed persons under the Bill their widows will benefit from Amendment No. 64.

The principle under which the current regulations apply to various branches of the public service goes back to 1818. It was designed apparently to prevent fortune hunters marrying old men, especially generals. The principle applied throughout the public service schemes, as hon. Members will know.

Members on both sides of the House have pressed the Government for a long time to abolish this archaic regulation, principally because the practice in other countries differs and widows are not deprived of any pension if their husbands marry or remarry after their retirement. For that reason I was pleased to read for the first time in November 1971 paragraph 20 of my right hon. Friend's White Paper which recommended the need for widowhood cover in occupational pension schemes for men who marry or remarry after retirement. I know that there have been difficulties, and my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on having overcome some of those which we faced in reconciling the different problems.

It will be regretted that many widows will not benefit from the amendment. The scheme is not retrospective, and I believe that it will not come into operation for some two years. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will tell us when.

There were big problems with regard to the different services which have different retiring ages. Some retire considerably earlier than others. But I wish to ask my hon. Friend a specific question about the last sentence of Amendment No. 64, which says that the regulations may restrict their application to cases where the marriage takes place not less than a prescribed period before the earner's death. What has he in mind here? During the Adjournment debate on the Armed Forces I suggested that it should be for only a period of two years. What period has he in mind? I would be glad if he would deal with this matter and tell us the estimated cost of pensioning an estimated few thousand widows. It is a small sum.

It has taken a long time to achieve this, but I am glad the Government have done it. By their wisdom they have brought about this change in occupational pension practice despite the problems involved. They are to be congratulated.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I should have said, some time ago, that Amendments Nos. 64 and 177 were being discussed at the same time.

Mr. Boscawen

I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing in this important social measure. This has been an injustice to a small number of people which should never have been allowed to occur. My hon. Friend is to be congratulated on putting this right, bearing in mind that it has gone on for more than a century He has overcome enormous difficulties, including opposition in the various services and the Armed Forces

I would like to hear the answer to the question about cost I hope that my right hon. Friend can persuade his right hon. Friends in the Defence Department to bring this into effect for the Services sooner than in 1975.

Dame Irene Ward

I should like to add my thanks and congratulations. We have fought for a long time for the points made in Amendment No. 64. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has put it all very clearly. He was the leader of the campaign in the Services. I was delighted to be there to support him every time he took action because I have always taken a great interest in the Services. I am glad we now have a Government which are devoted to the Services.

After what my hon. Friend said I am lucky to be alive to see that our campaign has finally resulted in legislation. It will be a great joy to many people. The more people we can make happy, as the Government try to do, the better the country will be. The quicker we can bring this in, the better.

Mr. Dean

This has been a happy little debate. I am very glad to reply in that spirit. My hon. Friends the Members for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) and for Wells (Mr. Boscawen) have long campaigned for this proposal, particularly with regard to the Armed Services. I am sure the whole House would wish to pay tribute to their work over the years which has resulted in the amendment.

The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) explained the effect of Amendment No. 62. There is no need for me to say much more about it except to point out that the effect of this group of amendments is to delete the words which are no longer meaningful now that the Bill requires a minimum death benefit whenever a man dies leaving a widow.

The right hon. Gentleman asked what was the significance of the word "may" in the phrase "Regulations may provide" in Amendment No. 64. The answer is that the Bill now leaves no choice but to cover post-leaving marriages. There may be modifications covering marriages of short duration. There may have to be modifications to the death benefit. Amendment No. 64 is complementary to Amendment No. 62. The Government accept that schemes should be required to cover marriages contracted after leaving the relevant employment and the regulation-making power in subsection (2A) is a necessary precaution while the implications of those requirements are discussed with all concerned. We know that some schemes could have difficulty in covering these marriages, particularly those occurring after pensionable age. It may be necessary to permit those schemes that wish to do so to protect themselves against the abuse of deathbed marriages, perhaps by excluding marriages which have lasted for only a short time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon asked what period we had in mind. I cannot give him a precise answer because we wish to discuss this fully with the pension interests and the schemes concerned. We have a comparatively short time in mind to prevent obvious abuse which I do not think anyone would wish to see. My hon. Friend also asked whether this would apply to the Armed Forces. This provision will apply to all recognised schemes. At the moment I cannot say what occupational schemes, be they public or private sector, will apply for recognition. It will apply to all recognised schemes from the date when the new recognition conditions come into operation, namely April 1975. It is not possible to give an accurate estimate of the cost. It is likely to be fairly small.

I am grateful for what has been said on both sides of the House about this improvement for a comparatively small but very deserving group of widows. I commend the amendment to the House.

Mr. O'Malley

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, will he answer one question? He spoke of a comparatively small number of widows who would benefit from this. As I understand it, when a man retires from recognised pensionable employment and marries following that retirement, the widow will be entitled to widowhood and death benefit. Is it not also true that when a young person leaves employment after having been there for over five years and subsequently marries, there would be a widowhood entitlement?

Mr. Dean

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the case. This applies not only to marriages which take place after retirement but to those which take place after a person leaves the scheme. There are likely to be more in the latter category than in the former.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Dell

I thank the Under-Secretary for accepting in its entirety one of my amendments. I said in Committee that I had no such ambition. This evening the hon. Gentleman has done it.

One of the incidental benefits of my series of amendments on this matter has been the elimination of the statutory definition of "widow" which appeared in the original legislation: a woman to whom he was married at whatever time is under that subsection the relevant time of marriage for the particular case. Whatever else this series of amendments has done for widows, it has done a great deal for the English language.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Dean

I beg to move Amendment No. 63, in page 70, line 37, leave out from 'for' to 'allowed' in line 38 and insert 'recognition credits'.

This is a consequential amendment following the acceptance of an amendment to Clause 56 in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 64, in page 70, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 71 and insert: '(2A) Regulations may provide for the requirements of this section and section 54 of this Act to apply with prescribed modifications in relation to an earner whose marriage takes place after the termination of his service in recognised pensionable employment by reference to the scheme, and may restrict their application to cases where the marriage takes place not less than a prescribed period before the earner's death'.

No. 66, in page 71, leave out lines 35 to 37.—[Mr. Dean.]

Forward to