My Lords, I thought this was short, sweet and simple. It is now long and less simple but still very sweet, in the sense that I think there is consensus all round the Committee. I welcome that and I am very grateful to the Minister for his responsiveness to the concerns that we raised. Clearly this amendment was a peg for the discussion that we have had. My noble friend Lady Dean is highly knowledgeable about service families and speaks from very real experience. I am very glad that my noble friend Lord McKenzie was able to get on record from the Minister what the Government’s intentions were about easement, which was very useful. I am still slightly surprised that we did not have this information about the eligible population base for claiming credits since 2010-11 and how many have actually claimed. Is it 500 of 5,000 or 500 of 700? We do not know and I would have expected that information, but I am sure that the Minister will write to us with that because it gives us some sense of how problematic it is when you rely on people to claim, as we have experienced with means-tested benefits for pensioners, for example.
12.30 pm
My noble friend Lord Browne was Secretary of State for Defence, so when he says that there were records, I believe him. Some junior staff members in the MoD or the DWP many not have asked the right questions, but I am absolutely confident that if there is anyone in this Chamber who knows what he is talking about in terms of the military covenant, it is my noble friend. He was asking whether there was any way of making this retrospective; I suggested the 10 years. My worry is that we are removing the 60% married women’s or partners’ dependency pension, which is the default option. If the Minister offers service wives that, rather as he is doing for the reduced married women’s stamp, that may—I will discuss this with my noble friend Lady Dean, who knows more about this than I ever will—be an acceptable alternative and an easy way to go forward.
I can think of three or four ways to do this, if the Minister so wanted. The amendment is just a peg; that would be another way. If we do not do something, it is possible that military spouses doing the right thing and, in some cases, the required thing, as my noble friend said, in accompanying their partners or husbands abroad may pay a penalty on their pension. That cannot be right. I am very glad that the Minister will
review this. Does that mean that he will bring forward an amendment, or does it require us to table an amendment at Report?