I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts: Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 Highways (Obstruction by Body Corporate) Act 2004 Human Tissue Act 2004 Children Act 2004

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.

I announced on Friday 12 November my intention to despecify the Ulster Defence Association, incorporating the Ulster Freedom Fighters. I signalled my intention to lay an order before this House to give effect to that decision, and today I have taken the earliest opportunity to do so. The House will also be aware of the statement made yesterday by the Ulster Political Research Group on behalf of the UDA. I welcome that development, which is positive, and will say more about the detail in a few moments.

First, I want to explain my actions in terms of despecifying the UDA. I have reviewed the status of all specified and other paramilitary organisations, as I am obliged to do under legislation, and concluded that there are sufficient grounds to despecify the UDA-UFF. For some time now, there has been contact between my officials and its political representatives, whom I, too, have recently met. I view that as part of an overall strategy to bring final closure to the problems that have hindered progress in Northern Ireland and to set in place an inclusive future for all, based on an enduring political settlement.

The UPRG announced a 12-month period of "military inactivity" by the UDA-UFF, known as the Gregg initiative, on 23 February 2003, and it announced an "indefinite extension" of that initiative on 24 February this year. I have taken advice from the Chief Constable and others and, as I am obliged to do under the terms of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, I have reviewed the status of all specified and other paramilitary organisations. It is my judgment, made in the round and having regard to the 1998 Act and other relevant issues, that the UDA ceasefire is now holding and is genuine.

I appreciate that some may question this decision in the light of negative comments in recent Independent Monitoring Commission reports. I have carefully studied both relevant IMC reports and support the strong language directed against a range of paramilitary organisations, but it is clear that UDA activity decreased between the first and second relevant reports, and other material provided to me endorses that view.

I am persuaded by the advice I have received that it is appropriate to despecify the organisation, but I have taken the decision cautiously and prudently, considering the full consequences of my actions and the effect on others, especially victims. I am only too conscious of the impact on victims of violence and the terrible consequences of both sectarianism and feuding within communities. I reassure victims that this Government have not forgotten their suffering and that we will continue to support and to work with them.

There is, however, now an opportunity to move forward. The statement made yesterday by the UDA contained a number of important undertakings. First, there is its commitment to work towards the day when, to use its own words, there will no longer be a need for the UDA or the UFF; its reaffirmation that the UDA will desist from all military activity and its declaration that the organisation's strategy will focus on community development, job creation, social inclusion and community politics. Secondly, there is its agreement to enter into a process with the Government that will see the eradication of all paramilitary activity. Thirdly, there is confirmation that it will re-engage with the Decommissioning Commission, and indeed I understand that that has already begun.

Those undertakings, which are commitments, not aspirations, are positive. The Government agree with the UPRG when it says that the loyalist community's enemies are issues such as poverty, social deprivation, drugs and crime, and we will work energetically with them and others to tackle those problems. The other issue is to end paramilitarism, and we will be discussing equally urgently with them how that is to be achieved.

The UDA says that it wants lasting peace and that it can prove to the people of Northern Ireland that it can change. I believe that it should be given the opportunity to do so.However, the Government have always made it clear that we would judge paramilitary organisations by their deeds, but also, of course, by their words, so I shall be watching the UDA's actions very carefully over the coming weeks to ensure that it lives up to the commitments that it has made. The UDA remains a proscribed organisation and the police will pursue relentlessly any criminal activity undertaken by its members or those of any other group.

In coming to a final judgment on this matter, I would wish to acknowledge the work that has been done in terms of political leadership by the UPRG. I also want to recognise the contribution that members of other political parties have made to creating the conditions in which loyalism can take these important steps. I take this opportunity to call on other groups engaged in violent activity to take similar steps.

I know that the House will agree that the time has long since passed for all paramilitary groups, loyalist and republican, to cease their activities once and for all and to decommission the weapons that have brought so much suffering to the people of Northern Ireland. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in Belfast in 2002, the Government want to see all paramilitary groups complete the transition from violence to exclusively peaceful means. I believe that yesterday's announcement by the UDA, together with the political dialogue that is currently taking place with other interested parties, constitutes a significant step towards achieving that goal—a goal that unites every Member of the House and every decent person in Northern Ireland.

I thank the Secretary of State both for his statement and for his customary courtesy in giving me early knowledge of its contents.

Yesterday's words by the Ulster Political Research Group were welcome, but they need to be matched by action that is both swift and consistent with the pledges that were apparently given yesterday. Less than a fortnight ago, the Independent Monitoring Commission reported that, in the six months between March and August this year, the UDA was responsible for shootings, assaults and at least one vicious sectarian attack on Roman Catholics.

The IMC concluded in its most recent report that the UDA

"remains heavily involved in many kinds of organised crime, and remains an active organisation capable of more widespread violence, with the will to commit it if judged appropriate."

All this at a time when UDA leaders were reiterating their commitment to the cessation of military activities, which they first announced 10 years ago. That discrepancy between words and conduct in the past is in itself good reason for caution, and so too was the wicked attack last night on an SDLP councillor in Larne—an attack which the victim's family have blamed specifically on the UDA.

I have a few questions for the Secretary of State. First, the UDA has now committed itself to the eradication of all paramilitary activity. Does he agree that that must include an end not only to shootings and assaults, but to the organised crime that has enabled the UDA to impose what can only be described as a mafia-style terror on loyalist communities? What assurances has he been given that the drug dealing, racketeering, exiling and intimidation will now stop?

Secondly, the Secretary of State said that the UDA had agreed to engage with General de Chastelain's commission. Do the Government believe that it has now accepted that it will have to decommission all the weapons and explosives that it currently holds? Will he also take the opportunity to deny the claims made in some of yesterday's media that the Government have secretly agreed that terrorists should be allowed to keep hold of small arms rather than decommissioning them? I hope that he will agree that such a concession would be an insult to the courage of democrats, whether nationalist or Unionist, who serve on the Policing Board and on local partnerships and have to put up daily with intimidation from the paramilitaries.

Thirdly, I welcome the indications that the Secretary of State reported that people who previously supported the UDA intend in future to commit themselves to democratic politics and to working to attract the new investment and jobs that are sorely needed in loyalist areas, but I hope that he can also assure the House that the Government will have no truck with any suggestion that a paramilitary or former paramilitary organisation could in some way become the intermediary between the agencies of Government and the people of those areas. People who have been members of the UDA need to put that past behind them. Will he confirm that if the UDA fails to deliver on its promises, he will have no hesitation in putting it back on the specified list?

The Secretary of State referred to there being no let-up in work by the police to track down and bring to justice people who are responsible for crimes, and I welcome that assurance, but can he also make it clear that there will be no soft-pedalling in the work of the police or the Assets Recovery Agency in pursuing the UDA or other godfathers who have amassed vast fortunes on the back of crime and terror?

Finally, there will be speculation in Northern Ireland that these announcements are part of a sequence designed to bring about the restoration of the political institutions at Stormont. That is an objective that I certainly share, but I hope that the Secretary of State will confirm that, in seeking that objective of restoring devolution, there can no longer be any room for fudge or ambiguity, and that nobody, and above all the paramilitary organisations, must be in any doubt about what they now have to do, and that their talk must now be matched with action.

I entirely agree with the point about talk being matched by action. As I said in my statement, we have had the words and the deeds must now follow. I think that everyone in Northern Ireland is expressing exactly the same view.

Today's announcement, and the events of the past few days, have not been part of any choreography or sequence. I have held a parallel series of meetings over recent weeks. There is, however, no doubt that if the UDA is genuine, as I believe it is, that is bound to help the political process.

Obviously the Government condemn any attack on Mr O'Connor, the Larne SDLP councillor, or indeed on his mother, who I believe was involved; but I assure the House that there is no evidence to suggest that the attack was the work of any specific organisation. The police are currently investigating.

The hon. Gentleman is right to mention drugs and organised crime. The drugs trade in Northern Ireland—if it can be termed thus—is a scourge on society. It is a particular scourge on young Protestant women and young Protestant men who must live in that society. I made it absolutely clear in my discussions with the UPRG that dealing with the problem would have to form a major part of any development involving the UDA and despecification, and I must say that the response was very positive. The UPRG recognises that drugs are a scourge on the community.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there must be no let-up in the pursuit of criminality in any form, particularly—in this case—among loyalist communities. The Assets Recovery Agency must continue its good work, and the Northern Ireland Organised Crime Task Force will continue to examine the issues.

As I said, the UPRG held a meeting with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning last week, and there will be further meetings. I myself will have further meetings with the UPRG to stress the importance of decommissioning, which it already recognises.

As for reports in the newspapers about some sort of deal involving small arms, I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that that was a load of nonsense. Such a deal would not be tolerable.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned intermediaries. I accept that when dealing with the problems of loyalist areas we must deal with public representatives—in the House, in the Assembly or in local authorities—but also with those involved in community groups. I should like the widest possible consensus on our wish to do something about the problems of deprivation. As all Members know, deprived areas breed paramilitarism. The best remedies are education, training, jobs and housing.

I entirely agree with the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's observations. We welcome this development, but we welcome it with caution: deeds must match words.

The words are fine, but we need to define what we are talking about.

Given the IMC's recent rather stern assessment, which the Secretary of State mentioned, what new evidence or information has emerged in favour of his despecifying the UDA? Presumably, specific information has come to light since the report.

What constitutes the Secretary of State's definition of a ceasefire has proved over the past 10 years that the concept is ill-defined and pretty ambiguous. We should really be talking about paramilitary organisations committing themselves to paragraph 13 of the joint declaration.

The Secretary of State mentioned small arms. Can he assure us that no understandings have been reached with the UDA that would allow it to believe that the Government would countenance a role for it involving the preservation of elements of its paramilitary infrastructure? Given the UDA's supposed change of stance, why were its members parading on the Rathcoole estate yesterday wearing masks?

What is the Government's view of the UDA's statement that it will retain the right to defend its own communities? May we have an assurance—putting aside the question of small arms—that the Government do not regard that as acceptable if it means some form of vigilantism? In that context, does the Secretary of State recognise the UDA as a legitimate representative of those communities when it comes to, for instance, community development? If so, in my judgment the UPRG is a very willing and sensible organisation that is committed to reforming that organisation. What support will the Government be giving the UPRG leadership to enable it to transit from a paramilitary infrastructure to an organisation with a primary focus on democratic and peaceful means of campaigning for the communities that it is rightly interested in defending and promoting?

With regard to the IMC, there has been a change in the period between the two reports, as I mentioned in my statement. To give the details to the hon. Gentleman, the report shows that there has been a marked reduction in the level of violence from the group, that the leadership has reaffirmed its intention to hold to the terms of the ceasefire and that there is no desire within the group for a resumption of internecine feuding. In addition to that, I have other sources of information that indicate to me that there is a seriousness about the move that we have seen in the past few days.

Above all else, our view is that we are now looking to the future. The IMC will report at six-monthly intervals so we shall see what happens between now and the next time that that body reports. The point has been made so often this afternoon in the Chamber about deeds and words, and they are extremely relevant. I know that the hon. Gentleman is aware that when we look back over the past number of years and see the number of deaths from paramilitary terrorist activity compared with, say, 20 years ago, there is no comparison. There have been enormous developments in that area. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to point, as other hon. Members will undoubtedly do, to the continuance of criminality and other activities such as so-called punishment beatings. All those things have to be taken into account.

If we can persuade these organisations to go down the right road—to go down a political, non-violent road—all the better. The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to the UPRG and the work that it has done, remembering that the UDP, which was a party representing the UDA, played a part in the negotiations in the run-up to the Good Friday agreement. Clearly, there is a tremendous amount of opportunity there for people to go down that road as opposed to the one that we have seen. On the hon. Gentleman's point about vigilantism, he will be aware that the organisation remains proscribed as opposed to specified.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I hope that this means that there is a good step forward towards resurrection of the true political process in Northern Ireland. How soon does my right hon. Friend expect to be able to announce the restoration of the operation of the elected Assembly in Northern Ireland and the resumption of devolved government there as being a true sign that political progress has been made on top of all the other work that he has done?

My hon. Friend is right in pointing to this as a measure by which we can look at some progress that has been made. As for the general political situation, talks are still continuing between the political parties and the Governments. As I have said on a number of occasions—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has, too—these talks cannot go on forever. We would hope to see a resolution as soon as possible, certainly in the next number of weeks. My hon. Friend is right to refer to the restoration of the Assembly as being the key to this, so that people in Northern Ireland can be governed by the people who represent them and who live there, and the sooner that happens the better.

Like the Secretary of State, I welcome these developments. I am sure that he will agree with me that it will be much easier to deal with the problems of loyalist areas and with organised crime if paramilitary organisations transform themselves in the way that has been indicated. I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the statement made by the UDA that it needs to be assured that the current political efforts are for real. It would be ironic if those efforts were to stumble just as we are seeing some progress in this area. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the danger that there may be other paramilitary groups and other parties that will want to obstruct this process? It would be particularly helpful if the authorities were to keep a careful eye on interface areas to ensure that that does not happen.

The right hon. Gentleman is right about the interface areas. These are the most difficult areas in Northern Ireland in terms of sectarianism. Clearly, we shall be looking carefully at that. I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's support for this move. I know that he and other members of his party, who represent with others some of the areas that we are dealing with, would want to see the development occur, and I thank him for that.

As to whether political efforts are for real, we all face the same situation and we all have to do our best to try to ensure that we make progress. There is a particular onus, of course, on the bigger Unionist and nationalist parties at the moment, but, as I said, we all have a role to play. The right hon. Gentleman is right to point the matter out to the House. At the end of the day, what will restore confidence and stability in Northern Ireland is the restoration of the Assembly and the Executive, as I just said.

My right hon. Friend's statement is to be welcomed wholeheartedly and I pay tribute to the perseverance with which he and his team have entered into political contact and dialogue over the past months. Is it not the case that any political grouping in Northern Ireland that declares itself to be in a ceasefire should be starting to work constructively with the Police Service of Northern Ireland so that they can work together with their communities to deliver a final end to paramilitary violence in those constituencies? What assurances and commitments has my right hon. Friend received from the UPRG or, indeed, the UDA to enter into constructive dialogue with the police service on these matters?

My hon. Friend is right. On the drugs issue, for example, it is very important for the UPRG and others to work closely with the Police Service of Northern Ireland to deal with those particular matters, which I have already described as a scourge. It is then for the organisation and the Chief Constable to decide whether a meeting would be fruitful. I agree with the general thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks, that relationships with the police are indeed very important.

The Secretary of State will know that all the paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland are engaged in types of activity similar to those for which the UDA is responsible. Will he accept that for the people of Northern Ireland, in this case as in others, the real test is action, not words, and that it must be tested over a period of time? That applies to republican organisations as well as to loyalist ones. Will the Secretary of State also accept, as I and elected representatives in these areas have an overwhelming electoral mandate, that he and the Government must deal urgently with the serious social and economic issues in loyalist areas that we have highlighted, in a way that has the confidence and support of local people in those communities?

Finally, the Secretary of State will have the support of all right-thinking people for encouraging those who wish to turn away from violence and crime. However, those same people will look to him and the law enforcement agencies to ensure that the full force of the law is brought to bear against those who refuse to turn away from violence, criminality, racketeering and so forth.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He represents an area where there have been many difficulties on the interface over the last months. Like others in the House, he will be aware of the particular problems that face Protestant working-class areas in Northern Ireland. Nationalist areas face them, too, of course, but we are dealing particularly with loyalism today. The hon. Gentleman is right that these organisations should be given a chance. He is also right to point out that paramilitary groups of all sides are still proscribed and that there should be no let-up in pursuing criminality. The economic and social problems that have bedevilled these areas must be dealt with. If we can do that, we will go a long way towards ensuring that there is no return to violence, which the hon. Gentleman and I both condemn.

The UDA and the UFF are late in coming to the peace table. We all welcome this small step forward, but as long as paramilitary activity continues—racketeering, drug running, the rise of race-hate crime on certain estates—our reservations and concerns will continue. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the PSNI reports back to him regularly on whether those crimes on estates are decreasing? That will be the real measure of success. As politicians, we can welcome this move forward, but people living on estates who continue to have those crimes committed against them will be the real judge of whether the UFF and UDA are genuine and reasonable in their intent.

My hon. Friend is right to point out that people will inevitably have reservations about the despecification of the UDA. I repeat that the matter was not taken lightly, and nor was the decision. He is also right to point out something that has not yet been mentioned, which is the appalling increase in race hate crime that has occurred in Northern Ireland in the last number of years, which must be addressed.

People in Northern Ireland will be aware of it if things do not change as they should. I was convinced that there was genuineness about the people whom I met who want to try to change things. There is a question, of course, about whether the whole organisation is able to follow on from the aspirations of those people and of those who lead the UDA. Here is its chance, however. It is the chance to show the world that things are going to change. No one is going to say that the world will change dramatically by a week next Tuesday on the estates and elsewhere in Northern Ireland—it does not work like that—but if we see an absolute and consistent trend towards improvement, that will be what we all want.

I shall, of course, be in touch with the police and the other security agencies to assess whether there has actually been progress. The people I met highlighted drugs, so-called punishment beatings and other issues of criminality that they admitted they had to address in order to get the confidence of people in Northern Ireland.

Does the Secretary of State accept that many of us agree that he must move extremely cautiously, bearing in mind the history of the UDA and the UFF? Does he also agree that the definition of terrorism should be broad? That applies not only to loyalists, but to republican paramilitaries. There may be an end to traditional terrorist violence, but there has been no end to punishment beatings, to racketeering or to drug dealing. If that continues, through any paramilitary group, will he revise his initial decision?

That is absolutely right. The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the history of the organisation and the appalling crimes that it committed against people in Northern Ireland, particularly in the Catholic community, although, obviously, what he said applies right across the board and to all paramilitary groups. He is right to emphasise what so many hon. Members have emphasised during the past half hour, which is that while we have indeed seen a welcome end to what could be termed political terrorism, the move over the last number of years to criminality, racketeering and all the rest of it is something that we have to address. If, as we hope it will, this organisation does turn its attention away from all that and genuinely towards community activity to try to help the people it lives with, we will all be pleased. We shall watch the moves very carefully.

As I tried to emphasise in my statement, because of the history of these groups, it is right to recognise the importance of their victims. It is important that all hon. Members are aware that the Government and other agencies and groups in Northern Ireland do their best to try to help the victims of appalling crimes. They are not forgotten, but we believe that if we can change the course of the UDA, there will be fewer victims in future.

May I welcome the comments of the Minister and the moves by the UPRG? A positive move by that group must be met with a positive response from the Government, but I am sure that the Secretary of State will be aware of apprehension given the long record of criminality among the paramilitaries. Will he assure us that the level of criminal activities and their association with the UDA and other paramilitaries will be measured? Will he assure us that, if necessary and appropriate, the issue will be reconsidered? Will he assure us, too, that criminality will be defined in terms of race hate, and not just those crimes traditionally associated with paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland?

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has already done a great deal of work with regard to race hate crime in Northern Ireland, including changing penalties to make them harsher. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey), like hon. Members from across the spectrum of the House, is right to say that if this does not work, we will obviously have to consider going back to where we were before last Friday. Our hope is that that will not have to happen. He will recall that one of the important ingredients of the Good Friday agreement was the presence of loyalism at the talks. Of course, that meant David Ervine's party, the Progressive Unionist party, but it also meant the party that represented the UDA—the UDP with Gary McMichael and others. They made a valuable contribution to those talks and I want to get back to the situation in which we can deal with people in loyalism from a political point of view and put the paramilitary and criminal side to one side.

The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) cannot be here, but he would have raised, as I now do, the case of Davy Adams, who helped with some of the earlier loyalist ceasefires. Is the Secretary of State aware that on Thursday, five days ago, threats were made against the lives of both Mr. and Mrs. Adams? Will he make it plain to the UDA that that is unacceptable and must stop now?

I have already done that. The hon. Gentleman may rest assured that I entirely share his views. I just mentioned the work that the UDP did in the talks that led up to the Good Friday agreement, and Davy Adams was an outstanding contributor to those talks. Any attempt to intimidate him is bad in itself, but also does great disservice to political loyalism.

I welcome the statement made by my right hon. Friend today, and it may be a significant step in the peace process. However, it has been met with wide scepticism in the Province. Indeed, in the papers today a Mr. Alban Maginness, an SDLP Assembly Member for north Belfast, echoed the sentiments voiced in the Chamber today by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds). Only when actions are seen, not just words, will the many communities in Northern Ireland believe that this is a positive step. We took evidence last year from the Prison Officers Association, whose members have been specifically targeted by the UDA, and it would need reassurance—

Order. The purpose of calling Back Benchers is to enable them to ask one supplementary question.

The POA seeks assurances that the UDA and UFF will desist from targeting prison officers to get their own way in prisons.

Criminality includes the intimidation of prison officers, which we all condemn. My hon. Friend mentioned widespread scepticism, but I have read about the reaction of politicians and journalists in Northern Ireland in the past day or two and I would say that widespread caution was expressed. I did not detect anybody saying that we should not do what is proposed. Perhaps one or two people have said that, but generally speaking the political consensus in Northern Ireland—while rightly cautious and probably a little sceptical—is that we should give the UDA the chance to prove itself. If it does, everybody in Northern Ireland will benefit.

My knowledge of the character of the Secretary of State and of the work that he has done since taking that office leaves no room for doubt about his intentions and motives with regard to securing a better future for Northern Ireland. Can he assure me that absolution for past heinous crimes cannot simply be bought by a few words and the expression of an intention not to commit crimes in the future? There is a danger that members of the public—especially on this side of the Irish sea, but even in Northern Ireland—could gain the impression that too often absolution for terrible crimes is bought at a cheap price without any benefit accruing.

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind words. We have all expressed the same theme this afternoon. Words are very important in Northern Ireland, but they are not the only criteria that we have on which to judge developments. We have to judge developments on deeds—an end to paramilitary activity, to criminality and to drug dealing. We need to see a complete turnaround so that people in those organisations—and there are thousands of them—turn their energies to addressing those very issues that have provided the basis for paramilitarism in the past. They need to concentrate on education, training, schools, jobs, housing and health. We have to tackle all those issues, particularly in deprived Protestant working class communities in Northern Ireland. If we do that, there will be no need for paramilitary activity; indeed, there is never any need for that—the hon. and learned Gentleman knows what I mean—but we can take away any excuse for it. My meetings over the past couple of weeks have led me to believe that people are sincere in what they want to do. Time will tell.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 12 March 2003, in the Eighth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, I raised a concern with the Minister for School Standards—that the new procedures for co-ordinating admissions to secondary schools may, through the ranking of the schools to which parents are applying, allow schools to discriminate against those who did not rank a school as a first preference.

I was given a clear assurance by the Minister, who said:

"As far as the schools are concerned, preferences will be equal. The ranking will come into play only if pupils are offered more than one place. If that happens, they will be given a place at the higher ranking school."

He went on to say that

"because the preferences are equal, they will be sent to the school as if they are the same and . . . there will be no ranking in the notification sent to the school."—[Official Report, Eighth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 12 March 2004; c. 14–15.]

From press reports yesterday, it appears that grammar schools in particular now have concerns that some of the non-selective schools in their areas are discriminating against applicants who do not put non-selective schools as first choices. The Minister for School Standards is quoted as having replied to one such school that

"no government action is planned to prevent the school taking such measures."

May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? What is the appropriate course of action when a Minister has given a very clear, unquestionable assurance during the passage of a statutory instrument that appears to be at variance with the code of practice subsequently issued by the Department, on which schools and parents rely?

The hon. Gentleman is obviously concerned. Persistence is required from Back Benchers such as himself. He should put down parliamentary questions to the Minister and, perhaps, apply to me for an Adjournment debate—not that I agree or disagree with the hon. Gentleman; I am neutral in these matters.

I inform the House that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 2C. If the House agrees to the amendment, I shall arrange for the necessary entry to be made in the Journal.

After Clause 6

Lords amendment: No 2C

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

It is ironic that the only remaining issue standing in the way of the Bill has nothing whatever to do with the new pensions and compensation arrangements. By my reckoning, this is the seventh time during the passage of the Bill that there has been a debate in either House on the issue of post-retirement benefits of widows and widowers. This House has twice voted resoundingly against adding a provision of the sort proposed to the Bill—on Report, on 6 May, by 252 to 132 votes, and on 20 October, the last time that this House discussed the issue, by 270 votes to 181.

No one would dispute the figures, but is the Minister saying that because the Government Whips can get their people to vote as the Government want, that carries the argument on merit?

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I respond to that during the course of my opening remarks. To put the issue into perspective, I was about to say that the House of Lords had twice voted in favour of a provision, once by a single vote, and most recently on 2 November. Members will recall that

"a charge on public funds"—

estimated by the Government Actuary at about £50 million for the Ministry of Defence alone and at between £300 million and £500 million across all public service schemes—was the clear reason for the House's refusal of the Lords' previous position. That remains the Government position and indeed, I hope and expect, the view of the House.

We do not think that the figures would be reduced in the major way indicated in the context of attempts by the Opposition, in this place and then in the Lords, to limit the impact of the amendment by inserting age thresholds for payment of 70 and then 75. Clearly, it was thought that, in each case, such a constraint would make the amendment a lot less expensive and, therefore, more palatable to the Government. I want to disabuse the House on that point.

I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way. Incidentally, I was sorry to hear the recent announcement that he will be retiring from the House at the end of this Parliament.

Does the Minister really want to pursue the post-retirement pensions analogy for the Ministry of Defence and other elements of the public service? Surely, the point is that members of the armed forces tend to retire when they are much younger, so the problem bears on them disproportionately. There is no reason why there should be a read-across. Age limits could deal with the problem in a way that would not read across to other parts of the public service.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I shall deal with his remarks in the context of my contribution, as we have only a short time for this debate.

Most widows' and widowers' pensions come into payment only when the recipients are in their 70s, so little is likely to be saved by introducing what would, in any case, be an entirely arbitrary age point. The other point about the proposed amendment is that it is just not possible to ring-fence the armed forces on that issue, which brings me to the read-across point made by the hon. Gentleman. We have given that question careful consideration and I have revisited it in the light of the clear concerns expressed both in this place and in the Lords. Any concession to the widows and widowers of service personnel would inevitably read across to the other public service schemes, where individuals frequently leave service, for all kinds of reasons, before normal retirement age.

Against that background, it is disappointing to say the least that their lordships have not heeded the clearly expressed will of this House, so I invite the House today to send a strong signal to the Lords on the matter. The stakes could not be higher. I must make it clear that the Bill will not be able to proceed if the Lords insist on an amendment on post-retirement widows' and widowers' benefits. The Government have no provision within their programme for the £300 million to £500 million that might be involved, and could not justify making such provision.

This is but one of a number of equally deserving pension legacy issues, which affect not only the public services, but many people who were employed in the private sector. To address them all would cost many billions of pounds. Successive Governments of all persuasions have concluded that a remedy would be unaffordable.

If their lordships were to insist on their amendment, or something like it, on Wednesday, there would be no realistic chance of the Bill coming on to the statute book. In that case, the significant improvements to the pension scheme, which have long been sought by serving personnel and are strongly supported by the chiefs of staff, and also by many veterans organisations, including the Forces Pension Society and the Royal British Legion, would be lost; as would the benefits under the new compensation scheme, of lump sum payments and a new deal for the more seriously disabled. I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) would welcome that outcome, even though I know that some of his Opposition colleagues have shown no such reservations, as we saw the last time we debated the matter.

Given the number of times that we have debated the issue, I shall not take the House through all the arguments again. The Government's strong opposition to the proposal is clearly on the record: the cost implications of the amendment are too far-reaching to allow any Government to make such a change. Furthermore, despite what the hon. Gentleman said during our last debate, I doubt, in the very unlikely event he were standing in my place, that he would take a different view. Those who continue to support the amendment must face up to the very real and substantial cost implications of the change.

No one has grounds for saying that the Government have been insensitive to the needs of our older veterans or widows. Indeed, my noble Friend Lord Bach announced in the Lords on 8 September a tightly-defined concession for the pre-1973 war widows, reflecting the very special circumstances of that group of generally elderly and relatively poorly off war pensioners. That concession was targeted on that deserving group, which the War Widows Association has regularly highlighted for special treatment, and will cost the Government more than £20 million. However, that is as far as we can afford to go and further than any previous Government have gone.

Does the Minister accept that most of his argument turns on cost? Would he not care to consider the fact that, for example, the Public Accounts Committee has made some pretty trenchant remarks about some failures in relation to Ministry of Defence costings and accountancy? Therefore, bearing in mind that the sum of £300 million to £500 million may seem a lot by comparison with the issues and principles at stake, it pales into insignificance when compared to the very considerable amount of inefficiency that has been occasionally highlighted by the PAC, although I should like to add one thing—

Order. That is sufficient for one bite of the cherry.

I thought that we were just getting to the interesting bit, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I say to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) that the MOD has a defined budget, and we rightly have to live within it. The measure would involve extra expenditure, and there is no provision for it in our current thinking. Of course, we take into account what the Public Accounts Committee has said, and we had a very lively debate on procurement just 10 days ago in this House, when all those issues were properly and fully examined.

I do not believe that the Lords amendment can achieve what its proposer is seeking. There were no pensions before 1975 for those with less than 22 years' service as another rank and 16 years' service as an officer. In other pension schemes, arrangements were even less generous, as no pensions were payable with less than 40 years' service. The measure would therefore benefit very few of those who may have decided to delay marriage out of deference to the constraints of service. We would expect the main beneficiaries to be those remarrying later in life after either the death of the spouse or divorce. There can be no compelling case for the special treatment of those in that group who are in the same position as many others across the public services.

Overall, I strongly believe that the Government have put together a very good package of pensions and compensation benefits for our armed forces. The improvements to the pension scheme have been made in response to concerns about the current arrangements that have been voiced over the years by serving personnel, including many former Chiefs of the Defence Staff and the ex-service community.

I hope that the Lords will not insist on their position, but let us just consider what is at risk if they do: a pension scheme based on final salary, against the general trend seen outside; a very significant improvement to widows' and dependants' benefits; the extension of benefits to unmarried partners, including same-sex relationships; the introduction of common terms for officers and other ranks; and a new deal for the more seriously disabled, significantly improving their benefits.

As I have said before in the House, I am in no doubt that the new pension and compensation schemes are a good deal for service personnel and that it would be quite wrong to tear up the new schemes now and start again, thus asking the armed forces to wait yet longer for proper, modern employment terms. I am therefore again asking the House to send a clear signal to the House of Lords about the wishes of the elected House on this matter. I hope that, in the light of the debate and in the knowledge that we could not allow the Bill to proceed if it contained the Lords amendment, the Lords will agree that it is now time to accept the will of this, the elected House, and allow the Bill to proceed to Royal Assent later this week. I therefore ask the House to reject Lords amendment No. 2C.

First, may I point out that we have only a relatively short time to debate the amendment? That has nothing to do with the Opposition; the Government have set an arbitrary limit of an hour for the debate. I hope that that will not result in those who wish to participate being unable to do so.

After months of detailed deliberations on the Bill in the House, in Committee and in the other place, the Government now seem likely to get their Bill pretty much in the form that they originally intended. It is disappointing that they have proved unwilling to consider any form of compromise on a number of key issues, including the burden of proof, on which the Select Committee on Defence offered a very sensible compromise solution, the reduced early departure payments scheme and the refusal to allow our servicemen and women to earn a full career pension.

Sadly, only on the issue of independent oversight did the Government accede to Opposition demands by giving an oversight role to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. Of course, we welcome that. As the Minister said, the only outstanding issue between the two Houses is the provision for the payment of a widow's pension to the oldest of those widows of post-retirement marriages whose spouses' service took place before 1978.

I was very interested to hear the Minister produce the figures that he used, because he produced them completely out of the air—there was no back-up or substance to them whatever. He does a disservice to the House in so doing. The Government Actuary's Department and the Ministry of Defence refuse to release the assumptions on which those costings are based, so it is very difficult to make accurate projections of the financial cost of the amendment. However, as the Minister knows, the Forces Pension Society has done some work on the issue, and it estimates that the provision would cost in the order of £7 million. I will come in a moment to the read-across to other Departments. For the Minister to suggest, as we sit here in the week of the Armistice commemorations, that these people are somehow not particularly deserving and that there ought to be a read-across to every other Department will, frankly, not wash.

rose—

I will give way to the Minister if he wishes to repent.

I am not prepared to allow the hon. Gentleman to get away with such an outrageous and disgraceful comment. I have never said that the widows and widowers were not a deserving group. I was merely pointing out the specific issue in relation to widows, Government policy and wider pension policy.

Well, I am afraid that that does not stack up, and I will explain to the Minister in words of one syllable in a moment why it does not.

As I say, £7 million is hardly a king's ransom. Furthermore, the Minister knows that those who have been seeking to put right this anomaly have made genuine efforts to give the Government the opportunity to put it right. They have made plenty of efforts both here and, in particular, in another place, where Lord Freyberg introduced the amendment and secured the support of their lordships in the vote. They reduced the entitlement and narrowed it down to those over the age of 75 in an endeavour to meet the Government part way. Indeed, as one of my hon. Friends pointed out to me a moment ago, when we calculate these figures, we also have to take into account the fact that there will be some saving in social security. Although these pensions will be payable out of the public purse, many of those who would be the beneficiaries if the amendment were accepted are currently in receipt of social security payments. Given that they would no longer apply, there would be a counter-balancing saving to the public purse.

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for making a slightly ungracious intervention. He must bear it in mind that he is advocating something that has been rejected by all Governments for all time. Will he tell us why the argument on read-across does not apply? If we retrospectively change the law on pensions, why will we not be asked to reopen the matter in many other cases for younger age groups?

I shall come on to read-across in a moment. It is common ground among us that the matter is one of several legacy issues that Governments of both political complexions have found it difficult to address. We believe that it is now time to address the matter—we suggested others for consideration, but we have narrowed them down to one. I hope that the fact that the proposal has found favour in the other place will carry some weight with my right hon. and learned—and, if I may also say so, noble—Friend. Let me remind him that Lord Freyberg's amendment, which would limit the entitlement to those over 75, was carried by 149 votes to 126. Among those who supported the measure was the most recently retired Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Boyce. Many of us would argue that he was one of the most distinguished people who have had the honour to serve in that post, and he has made no secret of his worries about several issues, of which this is one.

rose—

I shall give way to the Minister in a moment.

If the Government give life peerages to all and sundry, but cannot find 150 people to turn up and support them on this measure, they clearly either have given peerages to the wrong people—perhaps they did not give the Labour party enough money—or could not persuade them of the argument. Frankly, I think that the latter is the case.

That was a cheap shot—we are hearing plenty of those at the moment. The hon. Gentleman might like to reflect on the number of Labour peers who voted in that Division and the number of Conservative peers. I am sure that he has the figures to hand, but if not, I can certainly tell him.

I have not done a detailed analysis on those who voted, although I note that at least one Labour peer voted with Lord Freyberg, who is, of course, a Cross Bencher. Cross Benchers, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats supported the amendment, and I think that most of those who voted against it were members of the Labour party. However, the Government have created many Labour peers, so if they do not turn up to vote, either they are not earning their corn, or they do not believe in the Government's policy.

I doubt that I am alone in finding it pretty grubby that the day after Remembrance Sunday, the Government's message to widows who married after their spouses had left the service of the Crown is, "We realise that your spouse risked his life for this country, but we are sorry that, as his widow, you are not entitled to anything from his service." Many such widows aged over 75 will have been married to men who served in the second world war, so hon. Members on both sides of the House and the British people will share our dismay at the Government's refusal to make such a small provision for some of the oldest and most vulnerable of our forces' widows.

I cited two cases the last time that we discussed the Bill, and I shall cite another today. A lady from Oxfordshire said:

"We married in 1977 after my husband retired, but he unfortunately died in 1991. Consequently I get no pension. My husband served for 25 years in the RAF and was flying as a pilot throughout the last war. He was awarded the AFC and Bar and was mentioned in dispatches. He like many, many more was prepared to give his life if necessary."

That is the tenor of many letters that have been sent to organisations that champion the cause.

The Minister sometimes adopts a hectoring manner and it has been suggested to me that he has said that if he fails to get his way on the matter, he will pull the Bill. Indeed, he made it abundantly clear to the House that that remained his position.

Surely there is a second argument besides the strong one that my hon. Friend puts. The armed forces are in a unique position, with the possible exception of the diplomatic corps, in which people are moved about quickly and sent abroad for long periods. As a result, many personnel have less opportunity for marriage. Above all, unlike all other forms of public service, they typically retire in their 40s, so half their life's pension, which they acquired in the armed forces, cannot be read-across to a later marriage. The problem does not usually arise for someone who retires at a later age in any other part of public service.

My hon. Friend is right and I am grateful to him for that. Hon. Members will know that it was almost frowned on to get married too early. The practice was that people married after they retired rather than when they moved around the world in service.

The Minister made it crystal clear again that if the House votes against the amendment and if it is carried in the other place, he will pull the Bill. That is as churlish as it is unlikely.

Let me clarify something. I said that if the Lords insisted on the amendment, the Bill would be very different. Conservative Members criticised the Government in Committee because the Bill was enabling legislation, to be followed by secondary legislation. It would clearly be wrong for this matter, which does not need legislation, to be in the Bill.

The Minister blows a hole in the Bill by making it crystal clear that it is essentially enabling legislation, as I made clear at the outset. There is some consistency in his argument that to include the measure would go against the Bill's general principle. In that case, we would be delighted for him to say that the Government will introduce proposals in a statutory instrument to achieve the same effect if the amendment is not insisted on in another place.

I intend to respond to the debate in full and will give my thoughts about the future then.

The Minister will need to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if he wishes to respond. We had his definitive statement. I find it astonishing that he is suggesting that something is up his sleeve that he wishes to impart to the House at the end of the debate. If he has good news for us, perhaps he will kindly tell us now so that I can properly respond.

Clearly, the Minister has nothing to say. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will have to consider whether there is any point in him winding up if the Government have nothing additional to offer. It will be unfortunate if he imparts new information that he was unwilling to give at the start of the debate, without enabling us to comment on it.

As I said, it is as churlish as it is unlikely that the Minister will pull the Bill. He would look pretty silly explaining how a small group of widows, their cause championed in this House and another place, had so overwhelmed the Ministry of Defence that it was forced to deprive tomorrow's armed forces of the myriad benefits he has claimed the Bill will provide.

The Government have cited a policy of no retrospection as grounds for resisting the amendment. In 1989, the then Secretary of State for Defence, Tom King, agreed a £40 a week tax-free payment to pre-1973 widows without any implication for retrospection in other areas. That provision was said to have been made for a "uniquely deserving category". Surely those widows of post-retirement marriages over the age of 75 today, like the lady from Oxfordshire whose case I quoted, should qualify as another uniquely deserving category. We were talking about read-across earlier, but it was not an issue when my noble Friend Lord King made that special gesture. The Ministry of Defence was clearly not telling him that if he made that concession, there would be a read-across to every other Government Department. It is unacceptable and outrageous that the Ministry and its officials should insist that if we look after a unique category of people, similar provisions should be made for every other Department so that an expenditure of £7 million on that small group would become £500 million across Government.

Would my hon. Friend equip me with an argument that I can put to the widows of, for example, firemen, prison officers, policemen or teachers, and explain why they should not have the same benefit?

Given the nature of my right hon. and learned Friend's constituency, which includes many Royal Air Force airfields and former RAF airfields, he will know that there is something unique about the people who fought in the second world war and whose widows would be the beneficiaries of the measure. I hope that I do not need to spell out the argument for him, because I am sure that it is apparent to him.

On the question of retrospection, there is plenty of precedent to show that the MOD has not needed to argue against retrospection in the past. More recently, the Civil Partnership Bill provides retrospective benefits dating back to 1988. If retrospective benefits are okay for homosexual couples, why is that not the case for the widows of men who fought for our freedom? I confess that I am surprised that the Minister has chosen to snub the widows as his parting shot. As he activates his ejector seat and parachutes back into the world of personal finance—my assumption may be unreasonable—which was comprehensively mucked up by the Government, he will surely want to be remembered with affection by that small but valiant group. The sum of £7 million, as well as being wholly justified, is an entirely affordable option. If the Government continue to be pigheaded and stubborn, next year's incoming Conservative Government will put the matter right and make provision for that deserving group.

I shall conclude by paying tribute to Lord Freyberg, who kindly mentioned me last week in the debate in the other place. We ought to leave the last word to him, because he concluded that debate and won the hearts of Members of the upper House. I hope that by repeating his remarks I can win the hearts of Members of the House of Commons:

"I should like to remind the House that those affected by this issue are mostly widows of Second World War servicemen who fought for a pensionable length of time—for around two decades—and endured great hardship without being able to provide for their wives in the event of their death, through no fault of their own and in contrast to contemporary colleagues in less arduous positions. I hope the House will grasp this late opportunity to help such a vulnerable group."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 November 2004; Vol. 666, c. 181.]

Amen to that—I hope that this House, too, will grasp it.

I shall make only a few comments, because I want to ensure that the Minister has time to enlighten us about how he will bring our proceedings to an end. We have discussed the Bill seven times, and I hope that he agrees that when primary legislation is introduced it is not just a time to look forward and lay out plans for the years and decades to come, but to address perceived injustices in systems that have been in place for some time. There is widespread acceptance of the fact that certain injustices ought to be put right by the Bill. The group that we are discussing falls into that category.

The cost depends on the extent of the read-across. It is difficult to quantify the cost until we know the extent of the read-over to other public service pension schemes.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes my point exactly. That would have enabled us to define the extent of the read-across, and would have served the House in two respects. It would have given us a more solid estimate of the cost and provided boundaries to the read-across. As I understand it—I do not possess anything like the legal experience of the right hon. and learned Gentleman—there would have to be some comparability among the various schemes to which read-across applied. As has been pointed out, aspects of the armed forces pension scheme are fundamentally different from other public service pension schemes.

It would have helped us—perhaps that is why we do not have the figures—to know, rather than to guess, the extent of the read-across and the costs. It is almost impossible for us to debate these matters without more solid figures. It is a great shame that, after all this time, we do not have a clearer idea of the Government's views and the basis for their contentions.

I accept, however, that the Bill is valuable in other respects and I would not want to see it fall. Many aspects of it have received support across the House. The Government have missed the opportunity to address a widely perceived injustice, and it is a pity that that is being used as a hostage to fortune in the proceedings on the Bill. If the Minister indicates that the Government are willing to reconsider the matter and introduce a statutory instrument to address it, that will be welcome. Nevertheless, I am still minded to press this relatively small issue.

I rise with some disquiet, as I dislike disagreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) on a matter of considerable sensitivity. I recognise that the group of people under discussion deserve well of the country. At the same time, one must ask some questions of principle. I was a member of a Government who, for many years, declined to reopen the question. We were satisfied that the reasons for not doing so were sound; they are two in number.

One should be very cautious about reopening contractual arrangements retrospectively. Contractual arrangements are based on a contract—certain payments to obtain certain benefits—and one should be slow to give benefits for which contributions have not been paid. Once one starts to do that, one abandons the basic rule that one should not make retrospective changes and opens oneself to a range of demands with huge public spending implications.

My right hon. and learned Friend is right that one must exercise a great deal of caution, but I put it to him that such issues have been reopened on a number of occasions. He will remember that Tony Barber, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, made an ex gratia payment to war widows, and I have cited the individual, special case that occurred when Lord King of Bridgwater was Secretary of State for Defence—my right hon. and learned Friend was a Minister at that time and, indeed, may have been a Cabinet Minister. Those at the top end of the age bracket—in that case, over-75s—have a long history of special consideration, which we are trying to introduce here.

The fact that my hon. Friend has identified only two cases—I am not saying that other cases do not exist—after, I suspect, considerable research, indicates the caution with which Governments have approached that proposition over the years. If one reopens contractual arrangements for over-75s, one immediately faces the question of why an arbitrary age limit should be imposed—why not 70 or 65? Once one breaches the principle of not making retrospective changes, one opens oneself to considerable demands with huge public spending implications.

My right hon. and learned Friend referred to comparisons with people in other activities. Does he apply that principle to those in the fire service or other dangerous activities, irrespective of whether the widowing took place as a result of that activity's danger or merely because that occupation is dangerous in general terms? I am sure that he recognises that the war widows situation arises explicitly when a war widow, such as my mother, is widowed as a result of her husband being killed in action.

However, that is not true of the amendment, although it is, of course, true in some cases. The amendment does not deal with such a tragic situation; it deals with a wholly different situation in which a person in the armed forces continues to serve for many years and does not die in service, which is different from my hon. Friend's example.

One must face this question: if one makes such a change in respect of a deserving group of people, what does one say to widows in comparable circumstances—for example, the widows of policemen or firemen who die in service? Indeed, leaving aside dangerous occupations, what does one say to the widows of those in public service? By making such a change, one accepts changes to one kind of pension provision, and I find it difficult to resist the argument that pensioners or prospective pensioners married to other public servants should be entitled to the same benefits. I ask myself whether one can ring fence the surviving spouses of servicemen and have great difficultly in defining that principle.

We have done it, and I pointed out the case in which it was done.

The case has been made, but it is not a justification in principle. My hon. Friend must give us a principled argument as to how one can properly make a distinction between the surviving spouses of servicemen and the surviving spouses of other individuals in thousands of other public sector occupations. it is very difficult to make that distinction as a matter of principle. As it happens, I would like to be able to benefit that group of surviving spouses but we have to understand the consequences of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot has not dealt satisfactorily either with the point about retrospection or with the point about read-across. Unless he can do so, I shall not support him.

Perhaps I could begin where the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) ended. There seems to be some confusion in the House in relation to the suggestion by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) about the single change that Tom King made when he was Secretary of State for Defence. I want to try to clarify that. There was a change to the war pension scheme, which is not an occupational scheme. It does not raise the same issues that we have debated this afternoon. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, the benefit is not in relation to the terms of service, which were set separately for service personnel at the time of their service, and there is no direct pay adjustment.

Furthermore, the war widows already had an entitlement to benefit in 1989 and all that happened was that the value of the benefit was increased for pre-1973 widows. That was an honourable thing for the Secretary of State at the time to do. It was also the right thing to do. The post-retirement marriages measure that we are debating today and that has been debated in the House of Lords would introduce a completely new entitlement. That is why I ask the House to disagree with their lordships. It is a completely different area. It is not right to make a comparison with the change that Tom King made at that time.

I wanted to start on a point of consensus in winding up this short debate. I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Aldershot about our inclusion of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body and of the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) in relation to the Bill in general. I want to say how much I have enjoyed the "trio debates" that we have had for the best part of eight months. When this Bill got into Committee in February, I did not expect us to be debating it in the last week of the Session, but there we are.

I want to try to make it absolutely clear where I stand in relation to post-retirement widows. The House will recall from our previous debate that I had a meeting with Lord Freyberg and the Forces Pension Society. I hope that I can build on the comments that I made then with some further comments. I make it clear that I remain open-minded on the possibility of a measure that may make further improvements for particularly vulnerable groups of armed forces widows, in particular some of those who are older and less well provided for. As I have already indicated to the society, I am prepared to meet it and Lord Freyberg once the Bill has received Royal Assent to consider the issues raised throughout our debates. I hope that the House will accept that commitment from me on behalf of the Government and, in consequence of it, will allow the House to disagree with the Lords and send a clear message back to their lordships on this issue.

I am aware that the Minister had a meeting with Lord Freyberg and others. I find it surprising that the Minister, having said at the outset of the debate that, if the amendment were insisted upon, the Bill would have to be pulled and all these benefits to the armed forces would be lost, chooses at the end of the debate, when there is no real opportunity for us to reply, to say that he is open-minded about it and willing to reconsider.

If the Minister is saying that he is prepared to consider righting this injustice at some point in the near future, that is fine; but if he is saying that he is prepared to talk, but in fact there is nothing new to say, frankly, I do not see what purpose there is in his talking further. Can he give us some more definite commitment?

I have given a clear commitment both today and in what I have said previously. My words have been carefully chosen and reflect a further conversation that I had with the Forces Pension Society last week. I am saying that I am open-minded on the possibility of a measure that might make further improvements for especially vulnerable groups of armed forces widows, and in particular some of those who are older and less well provided for. It seems to me that that is clear and unambiguous, and it is a matter that we can discuss afterwards.

The hon. Gentleman knows, as we have already debated it today, that this is an enabling measure. It is right and proper to discuss these issues. He said to me in Committee when the matter was raised on, I think, 22 February, that it was a probing amendment. We did not divide on it then and he did not appear to wish to pursue it further. That is a normal consequence of House business, but in these circumstances I am trying to make it clear to the House and to the other place that there are opportunities for further discussions, and I am not ruling anything out and remain open-minded. He will simply have to accept that that is as far as I can go in making a commitment today.

I am afraid that, from what I have heard so far, I do not feel sufficiently confident that there is a real intention to deal with this issue. I welcome the idea that the Minister is prepared for further negotiations, but I find what he has said so far unpersuasive, and unless he can give a certain commitment I am likely to seek to divide the House on this issue, because he has shown nothing but intransigence thus far, so I cannot place huge reliance on his delivering if he comes to further negotiations.

I did not use the word "negotiations", and I reject the charge of intransigence. That was not a sensible point to make, and in fact the concession that we made to the pre-1973 widows, at a cost of more than £20 million, was welcomed by the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall and should perhaps have been welcomed by the hon. Gentleman, too.

I want to respond briefly to two points, the first of which concerns the Civil Partnerships Bill and retrospection—the two are not the same, and it is worth my placing on the record why that is the case. The regulations under that Bill will provide equality, as they will allow registered same-sex partners to accrue survivor pensions in public service schemes from 1988. That puts registered same-sex couples in the same position as married couples. This new legal status is akin to marriage and inevitably produces corresponding benefit rights. That is different from the issues relating to any retrospective improvements for pension benefits that have arisen in debates on our Bill both today and previously.

Secondly, it is simply not true that the Lords amendment would cost £7 million. The Government Actuary has confirmed that limiting the threshold for payments to age 75—I made this point in my opening remarks—does not reduce significantly the one-off cost, which I have stated clearly throughout this debate is in the region of £50 million to the Ministry of Defence, and the read-across of that is the other figures that we have heard: £300 million to £500 million.

Are those costs net of social security payments that will be saved?

It really was not worth my giving way. The Government Actuary works the figures out, and I have given the House a clear understanding of them. It is not £7 million; it is much, much more. Reading across to the public services and rectifying all the legacies, we would be talking about billions of pounds. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman would expect any Government to present such a case.

We have now discussed this matter on seven occasions. I believe that the House should disagree with the Lords, and I urge it to do so by rejecting the amendment.

Question put, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment:-

I beg to move,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Pensions Bill, it is expedient to authorise the levying of charges by virtue of the Act for the purpose of meeting expenditure of the Secretary of State to or in respect of the Ombudsman for the Board of the Pension Protection Fund.

The Bill provides for the Secretary of State to appoint an ombudsman for the pension protection fund. This is a new office which is being set up to provide an independent forum for dealing with PPF disputes.

rose—

I have not got to the very exciting bit yet, but will happily give way if the hon. Gentleman cannot contain himself.

I am grateful to the Minister, and I do not want him to get too excited too early in his speech. Will he confirm that it is still the Government's thinking, as emerged in Committee, that at least to begin with the self-same person will be both the pensions ombudsman and the PPF ombudsman?

Yes, I am happy to confirm that. Clearly, in the early months of the pension protection fund—perhaps the first year or so—there should be little demand on the ombudsman. We therefore think it important that the same individual—the same man in this case—should undertake both roles. [Interruption.] I can deal with this matter relatively briefly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Whether the House can is out of my hands.

When we debated the clauses on the pension protection fund ombudsman in this House on 20 April, the Bill made provision for the costs of the ombudsman and his office and staff to be provided by grant-in-aid by the Secretary of State. That would require the general taxpayer to foot the bill.

On reflection, we introduced an amendment in the other place allowing regulations to be made to allow the grant-in-aid to be recouped by a levy on pension schemes. That brings the funding of the PPF ombudsman into line with the approach already in place for organisations such as the pensions ombudsman, the PPF board and the pensions regulator. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) follows such things with great interest.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way so early. Can we just be clear about what he is saying? When he refers to the levying of a charge, what he actually means is a stealth tax on business.

We think that as this measure is of benefit to people in, to use the jargon, final salary schemes or defined benefit schemes, and not to the general public or even to the general body of all people in personal pensions, it is not unreasonable that that group rather than the general body of taxpayers should pay the cost.