New clause 18 - Pensions for life
Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill
9:45 am
Mr Andrew Robathan (Blaby, Conservative)
I shall address my remarks primarily to new clause 28, but first, I declare an interest in respect of new clauses 18 and 20. New clause 18 raises an extremely important issue that should be aired. My mother is one of the people who would be affected because she was widowed as a result of the battle of Arnhem, in which her first husband was killed. She subsequently married my father and therefore lost her widow's pension. She is now a widow again and has my father's pension, but not the war pension that she would have had.
I am not arguing one way or the other, but there are a small number of people—my mother is now 84—who are suffering hardship and who, perhaps without primary legislation, require special dispensation and care from the Government because of what they have suffered due to their spouses serving in the second world war and possibly subsequently.
Another side to the matter was raised by my constituent, Joan, who was married to a bomber pilot who was killed over Germany during the second world war. She had just one child, I think. She has said to me that she would be very upset if it transpired that she could have retained her widow's pension and remarried. She said that she did not remarry because she had a widow's pension and she wanted to bring up her child. She worked as a teacher throughout her career and is now in her 80s. She feels that she stuck with it because she could not keep her widow's pension and also remarry. I do not necessarily use that case to argue one way or the other, but we need to acknowledge that the issue is complex. I shall say no more about new clause 18.
I have a particular interest in new clause 20. If pressed to a Division, I could not vote for it. I am in receipt of a military pension and am therefore such a person as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot described. I spent a lot of my service abroad and never met a suitable young lady. I came back from the first Gulf war, and the weekend I left the Army I met my wife. We are still married. She does not therefore qualify for my pension, although I am indebted to my hon. Friend because I had thought that she did not qualify for any pension at all. I now understand that
she qualifies for a pension based on my post-1978 service.
New clause 28 is important. There is so little that is concrete in the Bill, and we need to have clarity on what should be in it. We should know what is intended and have that in the Bill so that there can be no doubt about what it means. We hear a great deal from the Government about how they are extending pensions and benefits to unmarried and same-sex partners. Personally, as Committee members probably know by now, I would restrict benefits to married spouses. However, that is not what the new clause is about; it is about clarity.
We hear a lot about nomination—about registered partnerships—and I believe that a civil partnerships Bill may come forward. Let us put what we mean about nomination in the Bill. I have the Defence Council instruction from the Select Committee report, which discusses partnership nomination schemes. In paragraph 12, it says:
''Nominating a partner for the payment of pensions benefits will not be compulsory''.
That is quite wrong; it should be compulsory. Let me give an example. Galloping majors from the cavalry are much in the news at the moment. Suppose that there were a notable philanderer.