Government refuses to axe 'Dickensian' rules which force Army widows to choose between new love and their pension

• Up to 400 widows have had their pensions seized the past year alone
• Forces Pension Society accuses Coalition of breaking military covenant
• Many women sacrifice careers to support husbands in the Armed Forces
  

By IAN DRURY FOR THE DAILY MAIL

Published: 04:39 EST, 18 January 2014 | Updated: 05:11 EST, 19 January 2014

Touch choice: A rule of the Armed Forces pension scheme states that if a widow marries or cohabits with a new love she will forfeit her retirement fund

Military widows are having to choose between love and their pensions because ministers refuse to axe ‘Dickensian’ rules governing their income.

Campaigners are furious the Government has rejected proposals to relax the system which forces a bereaved wife to give up her pension if she enters a new relationship.

Up to 400 widows have had their pensions seized in the past year because of the ‘obscene’ rule and another 1,000 face losing their retirement pot next year.

The Forces Pension Society accused the Coalition of breaking the military covenant – which sets out the nation’s duty of care to the Armed Forces.

Air Marshal Sir Christopher Coville, chairman of the FPS, said the decision had ‘given our widows a slap in the face for Christmas’.

He added: ‘Any government that thinks it is right to leave a service widow with the cruel dilemma of having to give up her income or give up a new love should be deeply ashamed of itself.

‘It’s an obscenity in modern society. Decent women with a natural human need for love and partnership are being turned into criminals.’

The rule applies to the old Armed Forces pension scheme and states that if a widow finds new love, marries or cohabits she will forfeit her retirement fund.

It excludes widows of soldiers killed in action.

Despite a new system introduced in 2005, allowing widows to keep their income if they remarry, around 150,000 ex-servicemen are still part of the older scheme.

Sir Christopher said many women had sacrificed their careers because of their husband’s work in the Armed Forces and had been unable to build their own pension pots.

He added: ‘This is intolerable – the cost of ceasing this practice is negligible, the hardship in continuing it unbearable.’

Chrissie Fraser, 64, had her late husband Clive’s £900-a-month pension seized after she married a new partner.

She said: ‘My faith in the Army, which my husband revered, has gone … It now seems that 20 years as an Army wife stands for nothing.

‘I could not pursue a career, and it was difficult bringing up children whilst constantly on the move. I am a dependant … I may as well be living in Victorian England.’

Chris Simpkins, of the Royal British Legion, described the rule as ‘Dickensian’ but the Ministry of Defence said it was a ‘fundamental principle … that pensions should not be improved retrospectively for those who are no longer contributing members’.