|
Mr. Caplin: I will be clear—as far as I can see, new clause 15 provides nothing that is not already available to members of our armed forces under the Data Protection Act 1998. That is the most important point in considering the new clause. The information that they want to receive is already available.
Mr. Howarth: I believe that this is a question of belt and braces. That is why I want to insist that the new clause should be included in the Bill. It is one of the core points that I have tried to bring before the Committee.
We should have more in the Bill. The Government have offered nothing concrete in the Bill: it is entirely an enabling piece of legislation. The issue is so critical. Adopting the new clause would send the clearest possible message to the armed forces that Parliament has every intention of ensuring that it understands their desire to have certainty and confidence in the system. I therefore ask Committee members to vote in favour of the motion on both new clauses.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9.
Division No. 4]
AYES
Brazier, Mr. Julian
Breed, Mr. Colin
Howarth, Mr. Gerald
Robathan, Mr. Andrew
Robertson, Hugh
Swayne, Mr. Desmond
NOES
Caplin, Mr. Ivor
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs. Claire
Joyce, Mr. Eric
McIsaac, Shona
Pickthall, Mr. Colin
Rapson, Syd
Robertson, John
Tami, Mark
Question accordingly negatived.
New clause 15
Access to medical records
'It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that any claimant to compensation arising from injury or illness attributable to military service shall have full and complete access to his medical records.'.—[Mr. Gerald Howarth.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9.
Division No. 5]
AYES
Brazier, Mr. Julian
Breed, Mr. Colin
Howarth, Mr. Gerald
Robathan, Mr. Andrew
Robertson, Hugh
Swayne, Mr. Desmond
Column Number: 232
NOES
Caplin, Mr. Ivor
Coaker, Mr. Vernon
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs. Claire
Joyce, Mr. Eric
McIsaac, Shona
Pickthall, Mr. Colin
Rapson, Syd
Robertson, John
Tami, Mark
Question accordingly negatived.
New clause 18
Pensions for life
'Widows, widowers and registered unmarried partners currently in receipt of any form of forces family pension shall retain that pension for life.'.—[Mr. Gerald Howarth.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Howarth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 20—Post-retirement marriage—
'With effect from 6th April 2005 Forces Family Pensions shall be payable to all widows regardless of the date of their marriage.'.
New clause 28—Spouse or nominated persons benefits—
'(1) Any benefits awarded to a member under section 1 shall upon the member's death be payable to—
(a) the member's lawfully married spouse,
(b) any person nominated by the member.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b) above a member must inform the administrators of the Armed Forces Pension scheme of the name of such person or persons the member wishes to receive any benefits payable to the member under the scheme upon the member's death (whether or not in service).
(3) A person nominated under subsection (2) may only be changed once every 10 years.'.
9.30 am
Mr. Howarth: We are back in the territory that we visited at the outset of the Committee. I apologise to the Minister for that. He may recall that the way in which we initially tabled amendments made it difficult for me to separate out individual issues and address them in detail. There will be a certain amount of repetition and I beg your indulgence, Mr. Griffiths. It is complex territory but I will do my best to master it.
New clause 20 concerns post-retirement marriages. The widow of such a marriage currently receives either no pension if her late husband retired before 1978, or a part-pension based on her late husband's post-1978 service. In the latter case, that widow would lose even that part-pension if she were to remarry or cohabit. That is a double whammy. New clause 18 seeks to correct that inequity, but not for those who have already married as they are no longer widows.
Mr. Caplin: So that I am absolutely clear about the purpose behind the clause, will the hon. Gentleman clarify the matter? Is he suggesting that if people move to the new scheme they should then get the benefit, or that if they are under the old scheme they should get the benefit of the new scheme?
Mr. Howarth: I am talking about those who are currently widowed, for whom adequate provision has not been made in all cases. I will take the Minister through the details. I make no bones about it, the
Column Number: 233
matter is complex; it deals with the details of attributable and non-attributable part-pensions and full pensions.
I will deal with the first issue that is raised by new clause 18. Under the new scheme, all future widows will retain their widow's pension if they remarry or cohabit; but existing non-attributable widows—and those who are widowed between now and the time when the arrangements come into force—will continue to be excluded from the benefits available under the new arrangements. The purpose of the new clause is to correct that anomaly.
In December 2000, the Government introduced a concession that enabled attributable widows—sometimes known as war widows—to retain their pensions on remarriage or cohabitation. That included those currently in receipt of attributable forces family pensions—that is existing widows—but did not include those who had already remarried and who were, by definition, no longer widows. It was not retrospective. In the new scheme, that concession will be extended in future to all future widows from the date of entry into the new scheme, but it will exclude existing non-attributable widows.
The MOD estimates that there are only about 130 new non-attributable widows each year of whom about half might be expected to remarry, so the numbers of people affected by this exclusion are very small. The MOD has conceded the principle that surrendering a widow's pension on remarriage is outdated: it has included all existing and future attributable widows, and it now intends to include all future non-attributable widows. It would be a small, magnanimous and entirely appropriate step, in line with the Government's equality agenda, to include existing non-attributable widows. That would prevent the wilful and unnecessary creation of another disadvantaged small group of widows who deserve better.
There is another class of widow whose predicament would be addressed by this new clause—war widows whose husbands died before 1973 and who, upon remarriage or cohabitation, surrender their pension entitlement. Many of these ladies are now very elderly. The president of the RAF Widows Association, Jenny Green, told me that many of them have the opportunity to share their old age with a companion but are terrified of sharing their home in case they lose their pension. She said that the result is that they choose to live alone, sacrificing the joy of companionship. They see the Government dispensing the entire range of benefits to cohabiting couples now serving, while they—some of whom will be the widows of those who fought for Britain in world war two—continue to be discriminated against.
Mr. Caplin: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is proposing. He is making an important statement on public pension policy from the Conservative Front Bench. I would like him to state that he has the full support of the leader of his party and the shadow Cabinet in making this retrospective pension announcement today.
Column Number: 234
Mr. Howarth: I am advancing the case that has been put to me. I think that it is a good case, and the Government should respond to it.
Mr. Caplin: The hon. Gentleman does not have the authority.
Mr. Howarth: I have not discussed this matter with the leader of my party, but these issues need to be addressed and this Committee is the place to address them. Not one of the Minister's Back Benchers has tabled a single amendment. The Minister will not raise this matter so we are raising it, and we are perfectly entitled to do so without the Minister asking whether I am announcing a new policy that my party would introduce.
I am sure that the Minister wants to remind me that when the Conservative party was in Government for 18 glorious years we did not address this issue. As time passes, the group of people whom we are addressing becomes increasingly small. The Minister is a bit younger than me so he may not be able to cast his mind back to the days when Mr. Anthony Barber was Chancellor of the Exchequer. He provided special pensions for widows over the age of 80. There are other groups in that diminishing category of people.
If the Minister were to say how much this would cost, I would be happy to put the matter to my colleagues to ascertain whether we could achieve some cross-party support on it, but for him simply to challenge me in the way that he did is not entirely fair.
Mr. Caplin: My point is that what we are discussing is not just about this scheme. The hon. Gentleman is talking about public pension policy in a way that appears very different from a position in government where we look at all the public sector schemes. That is what we are talking about if we start to go down the route of retrospection, as this proposal does.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has spoken to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) or any other members of the small shadow Cabinet, and I do not think that he has wider support. That is all that I am trying to establish.
Mr. Howarth: As I have said, my intention is to probe the Government.
I must challenge the Minister on his point that proposals have to fit in with wider Government policy. No other scheme provides early departure payment for those who are required to end their service at the time of Her Majesty's Government's choosing. I know that our argument has an echo on the other side of the Committee; I am not trying to monopolise for my party concern for the well-being of our armed forces. There is genuine cross-party support for them. In addressing the Government's desire to take a clean piece of paper and start again, the Committee wants to make sure that we find the best possible solution.
I am referring to one of the legacy issues, as they are called. If the Minister says that such a proposal will cost £350 million and asks me whether I am willing to stump up that amount from the shadow Chancellor next year, fair enough. I shall happily have a word with my right hon. Friend. In the meantime, will the
Column Number: 235
hon. Gentleman cost such action and come back to me about it?
| 
