A bad precedent

The Ministry of Defence is offering to award the partner of an SAS man killed in last year's Sierra Leone rescue raid £250,000 in lieu of a widow's pension. This is a characteristic gesture by this Government, ever eager to appear caring and sympathetic. Yet it raises serious questions about the responsibility of the public payroll for dependents who have no legal relationship with a dead breadwinner. We shall never know why Trooper Brad Tinnion and his long-time partner Anna Homsi chose not to marry.

At the time of his death, she was pregnant with his child. When his daughter was born, she was granted a pension of £2000 a year until she is 17. Ms Homsi's award is additional to this. It is now commonplace for couples, even those with children, to choose not to marry. This is of course their privilege.

But why should the taxpayer assume a posthumous legal responsibility for an individual, which in his lifetime her partner declined to recognise? The Tinnion case makes it certain that others of a similar nature will follow. How is the state to assess the validity of relationships and partnerships? "Caring" MPs will rush to make claims on the public purse, as the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman Mr Paul Keetch has done in the Tinnion case.

In the eyes of many politicians, cash from public funds is not real money. It comes from the bottomless well of mere taxpayers' money. The Tinnion offer - which Ms Homsi today rejected because it does not formally acknowledge her status - reeks of a Government anxious to pander to public opinion, behaving irresponsibly in order to buy off criticism. It sets a precedent responsible Treasury ministers, at least, will live to regret.