SERVICE WIDOWS (EQUALITY OF PENSIONS) (Hansard, 23 February 1977)

§ Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide pensions for widows of Service men below the rank of Warrant Officer, Class 1 who retired prior to 1st September 1950; to provide for equality of pensions for widows of Service men below the rank of Warrant Officer, Class 1 who retired between 1st September 1950 and 31st March 1973; to provide for the payment of such pensions from the National Insurance Fund; and for connected purposes. I am obliged to the House for an opportunity to introduce a Bill under Standing Order No. 13. This subject has been debated from time to time in Parliament and on every occasion it has aroused sympathy but no action. I now put before the House a proposal that will convert the sympathy and compassion shown on all sides of the House into a parliamentary Bill. The anomaly that I am seeking to rectify relates to the payment of pensions to the widows of those who have served in the Armed Forces.

The widow of an officer who retired before 1950 receives a pension. The widow of a man who served in the ranks who retired before 1950 does not. This is indefensible and has been described as an "upstairs, downstairs" situation. I am seeking to rectify it in the Bill.

Traditionally, officers and men came from different classes of society and the way in which they were recruited and their terms of service recognised this. Widows of officers have received pensions for many years, but it was not until 1952 that the Forces Family Pension Scheme gave pensions to the widows of men below the rank of Warrant Officer Class I. The amount was one-third of the husband's pension, and it was increased in 1973 to one-half of the pension.

When the legislation was introduced in 1952 a cut-off date of 1st September 1950 was adopted. The widows of all Service men retiring after that date benefited from the new pension arrangements, but the widows of men retiring earlier were left out.

Service men and their wives can now look forward to a secure retirement on completion of their period of service. 1413 This is entirely right and proper. Moreover, pensions of Service men and widows are increased from time to time to take account of inflation. Only one group—the pre-1950 widows—remains left out. As other pensions and benefits increase with the cost of living, the pre-1950 widows receive as a Service pension exactly what they have always received—nothing.

Service pay now allows Service men to make some savings and there is no doubt that living conditions for men and their families are better than they have ever been. Conditions for Service men who retired before 1950 were very different. Pay was comparatively low and there was no realistic chance of making substantial savings. Indeed, the expectation of life during two world wars was such that it would have been difficult for any serving man to make insurance arrangements or to provide for his old age by savings. All the savings of these men who retired before 1950 were tied up in their pensions that died with them. I have had many letters and representations from all over the country from widows who were shocked and horrified to discover that they were entitled to no pension.

In areas with a large Service population and many Service pensioners, there are widows living next door to each other whose husbands served in a similar rank, but while one gets a pension, the other does not. This is unfair and is seen as such by organisations involved with Service pensions.

A Minister once went on record as saying that if any pre-1950 widow suffered hardship it should be mitigated by supplementary benefits, by rent rebates and other provisions. But why should this be necessary? I am talking of proud people, who wish to benefit from their husbands' service, and they would prefer to receive a pension earned by that service rather than money that they regard as charity.

The widows in question are the last people to cause civil disorder and difficulty. They are women whose husbands have served through one or even two world wars—the very people who have helped to safeguard the freedom we enjoy today.

1414 When the scheme was first introduced in 1952, there had to be a cut-off date, and I accept that 1st September 1950 was a proper date, but is it fair that widows who do not receive pensions should see other people who do receive benefits moving upwards, as on an escalator, with inflation while they still receive what they have always received—nothing?

Occasionally an abuse develops over the years that is acknowledged by Back-Benchers on both sides and even by Ministers who recognised it before they became Ministers. Everyone is sympathetic, but nothing happens. This has been the case for the last 20 years with the pre-1950 widows. Let us now put it right. In 1972 there were an estimated 30,000 pre-1950 widows, and the cost of giving them pensions was thought to be about £4 million a year.

May I make two points in regard to the cost? First, the people in question are among the least privileged in our community and are likely to be receiving supplementary benefits, rate rebates or other help from the State. Any amount given to them in pension will diminish the amount of help that needs to be given in other ways.

Secondly, my Bill has, as one of its clauses, a provision that it shall not come into force until an order has been made by the Secretary of State by Statutory Instrument. This means that there will be no immediate effect on Government expenditure if my Bill is passed. All I am seeking to establish at this point is the principle that pensions should be paid to the pre-1950 widows.

This is a completely non-party matter, and I am proud to have backing from a representative or spokesman of every party in the House as sponsors to the Bill. I hope that it will commend itself to the House.