Army ex-wives fight for their share of husbands' pensions
For more than 30 years, she loyally supported her husband as he carved out a brilliant military career fighting wars and defending Britain's interests in 21 different countries around the world.
But her globetrotting lifestyle came to a painful end when Gen Sir Rupert Smith, one of the Army's most highly respected officers, fell in love with a younger woman while leading the United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Bosnia in 1995.
Now, however, Susan Smith, 59, has discovered that she is one of hundreds of former military wives left languishing in a financial trap for up to 10 years - facing an uncertain future because they are not allowed access to pensions that rightfully belong to them.
Under the Armed Forces pension rules, which differ from the rest of the public sector, retired servicemen and women are allowed to claim pensions from the age of 55. If they divorce, their former spouses, some of whom may have never worked, will not receive any money until the age of 65.
The Sunday Telegraph has learnt that an estimated 500 divorced women have been awarded ''pension sharing orders'' by courts as part of their divorce settlements - but under the Ministry of Defence's rules they will not get access to the money until they reach "retirement age" of 65. The number affected by the ruling could, however, run into thousands.
In an attempt to end what she believes is an unjust and unfair practice, Lady Smith, whose ex-husband was a former deputy supreme commander of Nato, took her case to the High Court, but despite winning the first round, she later lost a judicial review hearing.
Her legal battle has so far cost her more than £12,000. But she is now taking the fight to the European Court of Human Rights and, if she wins, Lady Smith claims that it could force the MoD and the Government into a costly climb down.
"There are huge implications for the Government if the European court rules in my favour," she said. "It could affect not only service wives but the wives of policemen, firemen, prison officers, civil servants and all sorts of people in the public sector."
Another senior officer's wife is Jennifer "Chez" Cairns, 57, who is still married but separated from her husband, a former lieutenant colonel. She said: "The Army is making out we were idle ladies of leisure, but we have done our bit for Queen and country, the same as our husbands, and yet we are not being treated the same. It is blatant discrimination."
Lady Smith, who has two sons from her former marriage, met her husband when he was a young captain in the Parachute Regiment.
They divorced in July 2003 after she learnt that her then husband, now 63, had fathered a child with an Israeli-born woman whom he had met when he was in Bosnia.
When they divorced, a year after he retired from the Army, she was told she would have to wait for her share of the pension until she was 60. But a rule change which came in last month will mean that many women will now have to wait until they are 65 before receiving their pension.
Lady Smith, who lives in Wells, Somerset, where she runs an antique shop, added: "We are both getting on with our lives. He did the decent thing when he agreed to my half-share of his Army pension and he was as furious as I was to discover that I couldn't start claiming my bit."
Mrs Cairns, who now lives in Buckland Monachorum, on the edge of Dartmoor, was married for 30 years and has a son and two daughters.
She and her husband amicably separated three years ago, sold the house they owned and split the proceeds. The couple agreed not to get divorced until she was 60 because if they had parted earlier, under MoD rules, her husband's pension would have been reduced by half and her share would have been frozen.
In April, however, Mrs Cairns discovered that the MoD rules had changed and the eligibility raised to 65. She said: "I don't have a state pension because my job was to follow my husband around the world. Why are we being penalised when our husbands can legally collect their half of the service pension from 55?"
David Marsh, of the Forces Pension Society, said: "We may mount a serious legal challenge on the grounds that the Armed Forces Pension review, which introduced this new rule, did not have the authority to change the terms and conditions of the pensions which affect these ladies."
Nema komentara:
Objavi komentar