Clause 4 - Existing naval and marine pensions
Armed Forces(Pensions and Compensation) Bill
5:00 pm
Mr Andrew Robathan (Blaby, Conservative)
I oppose the clause on three grounds. I suspect that I will not have much support from Government Members, but I do have the support of the Prime Minister, the previous Home Secretary and the current Home Secretary, who all believe that the institution of marriage is special and needs to be safeguarded. The clause does not safeguard the institution of marriage. I happen to think that if people wish to make provision for their unmarried partners they marry them, but I do not expect to have a lot of support from the other side of the Committee in these politically correct days. When I served in the armed forces, people were entirely clear as to what would happen if they did or did not get married, and if they did not that was up to them.
The second point may have greater resonance both with people in this Committee Room and with those who are serving. This Bill is a cost-neutral measure. No extra money is being made available, but we are talking about spending money on people who would not otherwise have it, so current would-be beneficiaries of the scheme will suffer. Perhaps the Minister will address that.
The third point has resonance with the Select Committee, which identified that there were serious legal problems. I have read the Ministry of Defence's criteria, and I can say with almost absolute certainty that there will be legal challenges to them in future—whether from ex-girlfriends or ex-wives, or whomever—because money is involved, and people always want money. This is a legal nightmare and a minefield. There is talk of nominations, but the rules need to be absolutely clear before we pass this; otherwise, defending these actions will be an enormous cost to the Ministry of Defence, and I would rather see that money spent on the pensions and the pay of serving members of the armed forces than on making extremely rich lawyers richer.