Standing Committee D
Tuesday 30 March 1999
(Morning)
[Mr. John McWilliam in the Chair]
10.30 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): On a point of order, Mr. McWilliam. This afternoon, Parliament will have many visitors. A large number of disabled people will be coming to lobby hon. Members and some may wish to listen to our proceedings. Would it be in order to ask the Serjeant at Arms if the Committee could move to a larger Room this afternoon so that more people can be accommodated in the public gallery?
Mr. Quentin Davies (Grantham and Stamford): Further to that point of order, Mr. McWilliam. On behalf of the Opposition, I endorse that request, which is an admirable suggestion.
The Chairman: Order. I shall do what I can when the Committee adjourns for lunch. I shall ask the Serjeant at Arms if the Committee can move to a larger Room and, in anticipation that that will be possible, I suggest that hon. Members take their papers with them when we adjourn.
It is rather warm in the Room this morning, so hon. Gentlemen may remove their jackets. Also, there is an odd odour of cyclamen in the Room. I do not know why and I cannot imagine that anyone has been fixing lamp slides. I apologise for that, but there is nothing I can do about it.
Clause 45
New allowances for bereaved spouses
Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar): I beg to move amendment No. 105, in page 41, leave out lines 44 to 48.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 103, in page 41, line 45, leave out "26 weeks" and insert "six years".
No. 95, in page 41, line 45, leave out "26 weeks" and insert "five years".
No. 96, in page 41, line 45, leave out "26 weeks" and insert "three years".
No. 97, in page 41, line 45, leave out "26 weeks" and insert "one year".
No. 219, in page 41, line 45, after "26 weeks", insert ", or 52 weeks should the surviving spouse have been caring for the spouse full-time immediately before the death,".
No. 107, in page 41, line 45, leave out "26 weeks" and insert
"1 year plus 26 weeks for every whole year the surviving spouse has lived over the age of 45".
No. 106, in page 42, leave out lines 6 to 8.
No. 108, in page 42, line 6, leave out "26 weeks".
No. 104, in page 42, line 6, leave out "26 weeks" and insert "six years".
No. 98, in page 42, line 6, leave out "26 weeks" and insert "five years".
No. 99, in page 42, line 6, leave out "26 weeks" and insert "three years".
No. 100, in page 42, line 6, leave out "26 weeks" and insert "one year".
Mr. Pickles: One of the advantages of the cold from which I am suffering is that I am blissfully unaware of any smell in the Committee Room.
The amendments cover the substantial change that is being made by the Government, namely, the abolition of the widows pension. That has given rise to most of the lobbying that members of the Committee have received. You will recall, Mr. McWilliam, that during our previous sitting the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for City of York (Mr. Bayley) clarified the position of existing widows. We are still receiving many letters about the matter and confusion exists. It is worth repeating that existing widows will be unaffected by the provisions if they reach 45 when their youngest child ceases full-time education. It is worth emphasising that because there is still confusion about it.
Mr. Timms: Existing widows are not affected, by the changes at all.
Mr. Pickles: I am slightly taken aback by that. The Under-Secretary stated at our previous sitting:
"Existing widows in receipt of widowed mother"s allowance will be able to receive widow"s pension if they are aged 45 or over when their youngest child ceases to be dependent. That is the current system and that protection will be continued. New widows and widowers in receipt of widowed parents allowance will not be able to receive bereavement allowance." (Official Report, Standing Committee D, 25 March 1999; c. 533.)
Therefore, a widow aged 44 would not receive the pension that is slightly different from what the Minister of State is saying. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security can clarify that? I think that it illustrates the confusion that exists. Is what the hon. Gentleman says in col. 533 correct?
Mr. Timms: Indeed it is. I want to make it clear, as my hon. Friend did last week, that existing widows are not affected by these changes. The hon. Gentleman has qualified that in a way that has obscured the point.
Mr. Pickles: I prefer what the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security said in col. 533 to what the Minister is saying.
Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): Does not the intervention of the Minister of State throw these matters into a harsh light? Why should new widows be treated differently from existing widows? What has suddenly changed about widowhood that means that they have to be treated differently?
Mr. Pickles: My hon. Friend has asked a salient question. The answer is that the Government wish to save £500 million a year and their chosen target for that saving is widows, because they are soft targets. Those who will be affected by the measure do not know that they are about to be affected. They are married to a healthy husband, with whom they are looking forward to spending long years of marriage, and they do not realise that in two or three years" time they might be placed in a difficult situation.
They think that they will have a lifeline to help them whereas they will find that that lifeline is limited, and has a span of only six month.
The amendments try in every way imaginable to ameliorate that situation. Some have been tabled by my hon. Friends and me, some by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel). They all seek to do the same thing, which is to find a way to cut back on the harshness of the six months rule. Although I cannot speak for the hon. Member for Newbury, I can speak for my hon. Friends in saying that all the amendments represent a second-best solution. The best solution would be for the existing protection, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) referred, to continue. The amendments are all second best they are amelioration amendments.
The clause exists to pay for the equality that the Bill would introduce. In its attempt to help men by offering them parents bereavement allowance, it will cause great injustice and inequality among women. A number of cases have been taken before the European courts, in which men looking after children have been disadvantaged because widow's benefit related only to women. I accept that that injustice existed. However, in striving for equality, the measures will detrimentally affect women, and widows will be considerably damaged. The cutting off of the bereavement allowance after six months will cause widows real hardship. The way in which we treat the bereaved is a test of a civilised society. People are at their most vulnerable at the time of their bereavement and, with this measure, we are abandoning women to their fate.
We have been fortunate to receive high quality briefing from the National Association of Widows and the Widows Advisory Trust, which have experience of and expertise in the problems of widowhood. They say that it takes an average of two years for a person to adjust. The briefing states:
"The proposals given an allowance of six months after which the widowed person is expected to be fit to move through the system into full-time paid employment. In our long experience of bereavement care we would identify six months as being a crucial point in the grieving process. In the early stages of grief the shock goes some way to numb the pain, however at six months the shock is fading and the loss becomes a reality. Imagine the difficulty at this point for a woman who may not have worked outside the home, may have nursed her husband for many months, and still grieving, having to register as unemployed and begin actively seeking work."
I do not believe that Labour Members are cruel or without care, but what I cannot believe is that anyone who has experience of bereavement who has either lost a spouse or seen a mother, sister or daughter go through the experience could accept the measures. People with experience of bereavement know how debilitating it is.
I am not sure whether any Committee member has suffered the loss of a spouse I hope that they will be spared that experience for many years but I know what it felt like to lose my mother in my mid-20s. It had an absolutely numbing effect. You have no judgment I am sorry, Mr. McWilliam, I did not mean to address you directly.
The Chairman: Order. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is apologising. I lost my mother when I was 21. I know exactly what he is talking about.
Mr. Pickles: I recall having no judgment. I went through a period when I thought that I was recovering and then something happened and it hit me again. It is a recurring problem. Anyone who has seen a friend or a relative suffer from the effects of widowhood will know that it affects people in different ways. There is a denial phase and a woman may go into deep grief on a wedding anniversary or a birthday, when the loss is especially felt. We are about to have a public holiday. Easter, like Christmas and Whitsuntide, brings memories of happier times. When families are gathered together, the loss is felt all the more. When families that are that not suffering from bereavement are enjoying themselves and a person is excluded from those celebrations, the loss is acute.
There are many famous examples of bereavement. It is easier to talk about historical figures than our relatives. I am reminded of Queen Victoria and the loss of Prince Albert. She was without Albert for a longer period of her reign than she was with him. After his death, she had his clothes put out every morning and his shaving bowl filled with hot water the routine of the house went on as it always had. Relatives of mine who have suffered a bereavement were unable to take their husband"s clothes out of the wardrobe. The example of Queen Victoria is interesting because she put the court into mourning for many years, to such an extent that it threatened the viability of the monarchy. Any one who has read her highland journals will understand how deep was her loss.
10.45 am
Another extreme in bereavement may be that a bereaved person quickly plunges into a new relationship. They may do so because they need companionship, although I do not suggest that their loss is any less, or out of economic necessity, although that influence was greater before pensions were available. I want to give an historical example rather than to discuss people whom I know have experienced a loss. My example will be of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), who is a keen military historian. During the Napoleonic wars in the early 19th century, it was the habit for many wives to follow the Army they drew lots for the right to do so. After a fatality on the field, it was common for a widow to be married before nightfall. Frankly, they did so out of economic necessity.
My worry about the Government"s proposals is that they may push a widow into a rushed relationship, partially because economic necessity
| 
