§ 'From 6th April 2005 existing widows and widowers currently in receipt of an unattributable Forces Family Pension shall retain that pension for life.'.—[Mr. Gerald Howarth.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Gerald HowarthI beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 8—Date of marriage—
'From 6th April 2005 widows and surviving registered unmarried partners of all service personnel shall receive a full widow's Forces Family Pension based on their spouse's or partner's length of service and final salary regardless of that date of marriage or registration.'.
§ Mr. HowarthI regard these matters as extremely important, and in the absence of a satisfactory answer 1554 from the Minister, I might well have to invite my hon. Friends and others to press the new clause to a vote. I do not suggest that as a threat; rather, the business arrangements of the House are such that it will probably assist you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I explain my position at the outset.
New clause 7 deals with widows who have unattributable pensions—in other words, widows whose husbands died from natural causes rather than as a result of service. Under the current scheme, certain widows—here, I include widowers—retain their pensions for life should they care to remarry or cohabit, and others do not. A distinction is made according to whether the spouse's death was attributable to service or not. The new scheme will remove that distinction, and will allow all widows and unmarried partners, of whatever sexual orientation, to keep their pensions for life.
Nevertheless, the changes laid before Parliament in this Bill will create a group of disadvantaged widows: existing non-attributable widows. Those whose husbands died from natural causes will still lose their pension should they elect to remarry or to cohabit. That small discrete group will still be forced to choose between financial well-being and happiness in a future relationship. We regard that as indefensible. The group at risk is tightly defined and small—in other words, the existing non-attributable widows and those tragically created between now and the introduction of the new pension scheme in about 2007. Only about half may be expected to remarry.
The Government have already conceded the principle that widow's pensions for life are appropriate. They introduced them in 2000 for one type of service widow— the attributable widow whose husband died as a result of service. At that time, existing widows were included retrospectively and the Government also planned to introduce such pensions for the other type—the non- attributable widows, but not including such existing widows.
If the Government do not take the one further small step of including existing non-attributable widows, they will wilfully create a new group of disadvantaged and aggrieved people and a serious and unnecessary fault line within the scheme. Indeed, I venture to suggest to the Minister that they will create a new legacy issue. It would be a small, magnanimous and entirely appropriate step—wholly in line with the Government's own agenda—to include existing non-attributable widows. The Government have rightly tried to create fairness in some respects, but long-standing inequity has been exposed, so they should use the opportunity provided by the new Bill with its new scheme to start afresh and correct that inequity.
The Minister's predecessor suggested that if we established a precedent under this scheme, there would be a read-across to all other public sector schemes, but I do not believe that that would happen. It has always been the Conservatives' submission—and, I believe, that of the Select Committee—that our armed forces not only are different, but need to be different. There should therefore be no automatic read-across. We must be allowed to make particular provision for a particular category of people whom the entire nation recognises as 1555 different from the rest of us. The commitment of the serviceman is unique, so I see no reason why we cannot make a unique case in this respect.
I do not accept that it will cost us billions of pounds to provide the scheme because other groups of public sector workers will then expect the same treatment. I hate using the expression "public sector workers" in respect of Her Majesty's armed forces. Servicemen are not public sector workers; that is not to decry such workers, but to deny comparability between the two. We know that members of the armed forces are unique.
A service widow is also unique in that the requirements of the service caused her to be disadvantaged while her husband was serving—she was often unable to earn an occupational pension because of the frequent requirement to follow the flag. It was often impossible to develop a long-term career. A splendid lady, Mrs. Jenny Green, whose husband died in a Tornado accident, persuasively put that case yesterday. As she said, it was Ministry of Defence policy to involve wives in welfare duties at any RAF station.
A friend of my parents used to be the commander at a RAF station in Germany. He married late in life and his wife rather resented the fact that she had not realised that she had joined the RAF by default. It was her job in a wholly unpaid capacity to act as the welfare officer, getting all the wives on the station together. That was the position that prevailed. Wives had to travel with their husbands and were unable to pursue a career. The husband's career often depended on his wife's involvement in the wider service. Today, the Government pay for welfare officers to do the job, but in the old days. they had the wives to do the job on the cheap, as it were, and many a wife and widow across the country will recognise what I am describing.
As Jenny Green also pointed out, stakeholder pensions are not a viable option for service wives and widows because they are often unable to build up a personal pension in their own right, as other civilian widows and wives have the opportunity to do, neither can they afford the full national insurance contribution for a full DSS widow's pension.
All in all, I hope that the Minister will accept that the people involved belong to a very specific category. They have been uniquely disadvantaged, and it would be sensible for us to make provision for them. The nation would be grateful as well.
In addition, those women who receive pensions at the moment lose them only if they remarry. There is therefore no question that the Government or the MOD will have more costs to bear if the new clause is accepted, as current payments will merely have to be maintained.
§ Mr. CaplinWill the hon. Gentleman confirm that what he proposes from the Dispatch Box is now official Conservative party policy? In the likely event—I should say the unlikely event that the Tories ever return to power, will the policy be implemented in their first manifesto?
§ Mr. HowarthI am afraid that the Minister got it right first time. It is likely that we will assume office next year, but I do not want to be too partisan as there is genuine 1556 consensus across the House on some of these matters. Of course I speak on behalf of the Opposition, and my argument is that the people involved deserve to be shown some consideration.
For the benefit of people outside the House, I want to make it clear that the Minister has not addressed the serious issue that is at stake. He has chosen to cut the cake in a certain way, with the result that the people about whom I am speaking have been carved out. They are deeply resentful, and do not feel that they should have been treated in that way.
The Conservative party is not in government at the moment, and I do not know the state of the books, but I can tell the Minister that I will not be browbeaten or intimidated into saying that we would not help those people. On behalf of the official Opposition, I say that we will do our level best, when we return to government, to find ways of helping these people. That is not a spending commitment, as I do not know how much money is involved. Frankly, the truth is that the Minister does not know either. He cannot tell the House how much money is involved in dealing with these people, and neither can I. Therefore, the basis of his question to me is entirely specious. However, the Opposition believe that these splendid people should be helped and supported.
New clause 8 deals with post-retirement marriages. When people die who married after retirement from the services, their widows, in certain circumstances, are not eligible for a pension. Pensions for widows of post-retirement marriages were introduced on 6 April 1978—I think that that was the last time that the Labour party was in government—to comply with the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. However, the change benefited only those serving at that date, and only service from that date qualified. The review of the armed forces pensions announced last September introduced full dependants' benefits for unmarried partners, with effect from 6 April 2005.
Special factors undoubtedly apply to service personnel who are not applicable to any other group of public or private sector workers. The pattern of service life militated against early marriage. Service people were stationed abroad for long periods, with limited opportunities to meet suitable potential future spouses. They therefore tended to marry later, often after having completed distinguished military careers.
For officers, early marriage was formally discouraged up to 1973, through the denial of allowances and quarters. The strains on marriages of enforced separation and exposure to danger also probably led to the incidence of divorce being higher in the armed forces than elsewhere. The services' normal retirement age of 55 is well below the norm of 60 or 65 elsewhere. and the vast majority of service people are forced to retire at or below 40 because of service manpower policy. In consequence, the probability of service people marrying for the first time, or for a subsequent time, after leaving the armed forces was, and remains, higher than elsewhere.
At yesterday's meeting, it was interesting to hear one lady say that she had received letters from a number of people who had decided not to get married during their service careers. The reason was that they knew that part of their contract with the nation was that they had to put 1557 their lives on the line. They did not want to have the responsibility of getting married and then leaving their families with less than adequate provision in the event of their death. It is not an academic argument: it is supported by fact.
The post-retirement marriage pension rules bear heavily and unfairly on the armed forces whose unique conditions of service, as we all know, make them a special case. Serving personnel continue to be uniquely disadvantaged by the pattern of their employment, which is not the case in other public sector schemes and marks them apart as a special case. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the matter. He heard some of the forceful arguments that were advanced yesterday. I thought that they were persuasive and I hope that the Government will accept the new clauses.
§ Joyce Quin (Gateshead, East and Washington, West) (Lab)I first became interested in the issue covered by new clause 8 through the situation of a constituent who had married a serviceman who had retired from the service before 1976 and therefore fell foul of the subsequent changes, which were welcome in other respects but did not benefit her. Some cost would be involved in making the changes retrospective and I wondered whether my hon. Friend the Minister had any recent estimates of the likely cost. His predecessor wrote to me a couple of years ago and suggested a figure of —50 million. The number of people in such circumstances is likely to have fallen, and it would be useful to know whether any estimate has been made more recently.
I do not wish to pre-empt my hon. Friend's response, but if he does not envisage a change in the law to allow retrospective claims, I wonder whether individual cases could be considered on grounds of hardship. The constituent I mentioned lives in straitened circumstances and I know that her late husband would have wanted her to have benefited from his pension. There are probably other hardship cases that should also be considered sympathetically.
§ Mr. HancockI wish to associate myself and my colleagues with new clauses 7 and 8. There can be few hon. Members who have not deals with this issue at some stage in their parliamentary careers. The right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) mentioned the possibility of considering individual cases on hardship grounds. I have tried to make that happen in the past 20 years, but there is no flexibility in the system. Under the present regulations, the MOD cannot make payments to help widows of service personnel who do not fit the criteria for the receipt of pensions. Unfortunately, those widows have had to fall back on the good offices of the British Legion or other service-related charities for hardship grants.
We are trying to give justice to those few people who were denied justice when the legislation was changed in the 1970s. New clause 8 would go some way towards doing so and the cost would be nowhere near the £50 million that was envisaged two years ago. The number of people who might be affected has diminished considerably in that time.
New clause 7 would rectify the injustice faced by widows of those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of this nation. The costs involved are already 1558 accounted for, because if the widow receiving a pension did not remarry, the MOD would have to continue to pay it. It is only when she marries that the MOD benefits. New clause 7 would merely put right a wrong that most of us have come across in our constituencies. Whether we are in government or opposition we have told our constituents that we sympathise with their case and will take it up. It is a question of natural justice and this is our opportunity to put it right. I am delighted to be associated with the new clauses and I hope that the Minister will welcome and support them.
§ Mr. CaplinI begin by telling my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) that the costs that she was given by my predecessor remain, broadly, the same. I shall be more than happy to receive written details from her about the individual case that she mentioned, to see whether the Department can offer her constituent any assistance. That offer is open to other Members, and the number of letters that I sign shows that they take it up regularly—many such Members are in the House this afternoon.
The proposed new armed forces pension scheme includes provision for non-attributable widows' and widowers' pensions to be paid for life. Existing members can transfer to the new scheme if they want to benefit from that provision. The proposed new clause would cover existing widows and widowers who are not provided for—I accept that—in the new scheme.
In the majority of public service schemes, non-attributable widows' and widowers' pensions cease on re-marriage but, as in the armed forces current scheme, can be reinstated on second widowhood or divorce if the individual is otherwise worse off financially than when first in receipt of their armed forces pension. Although we are able to make changes for the future under the new armed forces scheme, which, as I think the House now understands, will be paid for by adjusting benefits elsewhere, the change under the new clause would carry with it no offsetting saving. I have been working hard to ensure that I could give the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) some figures on the policy that he has just been announcing—he said that he was speaking for the official Opposition and that it was their policy. The cost of his retrospectivity proposal in year 1 would be £500 million, but I hear what he said about the Conservative policy and I shall return to it shortly.
I shall speak briefly on new clause 8. It relates to rules for the current armed forces pension scheme, which are set out in prerogative instruments rather than in primary legislation. The new clause relates to widows who did not receive a widow's pension if their husbands served before 1978 and the marriage took place after their husbands left service. I accept what Jenny Green said yesterday at the event attended by the hon. Member for Aldershot and me, but that is how the armed forces often operated in those days. If I were to accept the new clause, such people would be provided with a pension from the date of introduction of the new scheme, but that would not include the widowers of post-retirement marriages.
1559 The new clause proposes that the pension should be based on the length of service and final salary, as under the new scheme. However, the current scheme provides benefits, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, based on representative pay and reckonable service.
§ Mr. HowarthIs that not changing? Under the new scheme the pension will be based on final salary; it is based on representative pay at present.
§ Mr. CaplinThat is what I said. The current armed forces scheme is based on representative pay and reckonable service. The new scheme will be based on length of service and final salary. I was comparing the two schemes.
Post-retirement widows' pensions were introduced in 1978 for service after 1978, following the introduction of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975. If my memory serves me right, the late Baroness Castle was responsible for that splendid piece of legislation, and we all know who her special adviser was at the time—our current Foreign Secretary.
The change was introduced non-retrospectively in schemes across the public sector, so there is no distinction between servicemen and public sector employees in this instance. The cost of extending post-retirement widow and widowers' entitlement to all current and deferred pensioners would be more than £;50 million, according to our current calculations, as I indicated to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West. Such an extension would be contrary to the policy of successive Governments.
In conclusion, the Conservative party had 18 years in power to deal with such issues, but it never once introduced a proposal in the House to do so. It now finds it convenient to do so—the convenience of opposition, the convenience of opportunism and the convenience of increasing public spending when it well knows that its shadow Chancellor is looking for major and significant cuts in the defence budget.
§ Mr. HowarthThe Minister is completely wrong: there are no planned Tory cuts in defence expenditure, so he is just trying to mislead the public again. I am genuinely disappointed. It is very pleasant to see that the Secretary of State is now present.
The Minister referred to the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin). who made a very useful contribution to these proceedings. He said that she should write to him, and he would try to do something about the case that she raised. He said that everyone is writing to him, saying, "Let's do something about this." Well, let us do something about it.
The hon. Gentleman cannot stick £500 million on us because that figure is simply not true. The people who currently receive pensions are being paid by his Department. They cease to be paid if they remarry. I put it to him that he cannot quantify how many will elect to remarry, thereby forgoing the pension that they now receive. The Minister is adducing a disingenuous argument. My commitment to the House and to those in 1560 the country who are concerned about such matters is that the next Conservative Government will review the issue with a determination to do something about it.
To accommodate some of those people, the Secretary of State introduced a new scheme to enable attributable widows to benefit if they remarry, but he did not do so by telling the House that there was a compensating cut elsewhere in his pension provision for our armed forces. He was not reslicing the cake; he was just providing a welcome addition. We welcome the fact that he has done that. We believe that the funds should be made available to meet the requirements, certainly given the 1.7 per cent. saving that the Government will make from rejigging the mortality and longevity issues.
There is another, final point that I want to nail in what the Minister said. He keeps on saying it, and it is unfortunate that the Government keep on doing so because they believe in supporting our armed forces. As I said before the Secretary of State arrived, I believe that the Government have the interests of our armed forces at heart. I do not claim a monopoly of that for the Opposition. There are differences of view. Certain things could be done better than the Government are doing them, but I am not suggesting that they are cavalier about our armed forces. However, constantly to equate them with other public sector services and say that if we did something for the armed forces we would have to do it for everybody else is not acceptable. The public believe that our armed forces are different, and we do too. Most Members of Parliament, whatever their party, believe that the armed forces are different, and it is because of that, because their commitment to our country is unique, and because they put their lives on the line for our country—they are doing so as we speak— that we ought to give them the best that we can offer them. They certainly deserve that, and it is the very least that they are entitled to expect. It is the very least that we can do for our armed forces, and it is irrelevant to suggest that we must compare them with other public sector workers. If the current rules mean that we have to do so we should make special provision in law— It being Five o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put the Questions necessary to bring proceedings on consideration to a conclusion, pursuant to Order [22 January].
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 252.
1563§ Question accordingly negatived.