If I had a pound for every time I have thanked someone during the course of this campaign I would have enough money to pay our lifelong pensions - today I am starting with an apology. In the early hours of Wednesday morning I woke up with a headache of gigantic proportions, and it didn't respond to pain relief during our trip to London – as consequence we had to make an unscheduled stop at the services putting us behind schedule. With 30 minutes to go before our meeting with Richard Graham MP, we were still half a mile out from Westminster and stuck in traffic, we had 30 minutes to reach the carpark gather our things together, get to the Houses of Parliament, pass through security and make our way to Westminster Hall. At this point I decided to contact everyone on my list of supporters to tell them to go straight to the meeting without me. As I was texting away frantically - a radio station phoned me to ask for an interview – I think I may have sounded a tad impolite as I explained that I didn’t have time. If in my confusion and haste I missed anyone and as a result they missed the day’s proceedings I am truly sorry. For me personally the day did improve as we arrived in time for the meeting and the pain killers finally kicked in. In the half an hour meeting prior to his Adjournment Debate - Mr Graham listened patiently whilst we reiterated that we stand together in our campaign for lifelong pensions for all widows and widowers. He listened to individual stories and made notes about the facts and figures available. Brenda Neary had created an emblem for each of us to pin to our coats – a chequered ribbon and a red rose – Mr Graham graciously accepted his and wore it into the televised debate. We were allowed into the room to hear the arguments put forward on our behalf – here is the TV link: http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=17270&st=11:00:30 I have chosen some of the key comments to include here to give an overview of what was said. Tribute was paid to you as campaign supporters: Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con): ‘I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) for securing this debate. Does the Minister accept that, in many cases, such as that of my constituent, Mrs Penn, who has taken the issue up with me at a surgery, people are supporting the campaign on behalf of others? The pension might not be hugely necessary for them financially, but they are supporting the campaign on behalf of their colleagues for whom it is. I very much commend the public-spirited nature of the petition. It is about not only those who need the pension—we fully respect their needs—but those who are doing it on behalf of others.’ Mike Penning: ‘I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The compassion that has been shown in the correspondence is remarkable. If people who are campaigning on other issues could look at how this campaign has been conducted, they might find that their campaigns receive not dissimilar support from across the House.’ Successive governments have refused to consider the changes we are asking for, as they would involve retrospective improvements to the schemes involved. Providing the ‘clear and compelling arguments’ in the personal accounts that you sent to your MPs and to the Minister - have led to the following developments: Mike Penning: ‘My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester mentioned that there was scepticism, to say the least, because no matter what colour of Government are in office, when people talk about “retrospective”, the Treasury has jitters galore. The important thing now, however, since we acknowledged that the case was compelling and the Home Secretary and I asked our officials to look into things, is that the Treasury as well as the Home Office is involved. Home Office and Treasury officials are working together, which is very important, because we must ensure that any decision we make is not only right, but one without a huge impact on other aspects that might lead, for example, to people claiming judicial review of other schemes.’ Listening to the terms of the changes that are being examined by the Home Office and the Treasury – was for me the most difficult part of the debate. Mr Penning: ‘A full-time police officer in a force in England and Wales—I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Bridgend and am as proud of being responsible for the police in Wales as I am for those in England, while those responsible in the other two devolved Administrations are also surely paying attention to the debate and the campaign—has a warrant in the service of the Queen and so is still responsible when off duty. Different terminologies can be used, but that is what I feel—police officers are still serving their community even when off duty. That puts pressures and responsibilities on them. What does “an officer on duty” mean? Is an officer on duty only when they are on shift, or could it mean someone in a similar situation to Frank Mason, who was assisting the public when off duty? I am adamant that, if a scheme comes through and if we make the changes, there should be help in cases of the likes of Frank Mason’s—should his widow so wish.’ I am currently in discussion with a sympathetic MP with regard to how we can best respond to the gap that exists between what we are asking for and what the government appear to be considering – the key word here is ‘considering’. Mike Penning: ‘We are now at an important stage. We are analysing the implications in cost terms and any impact on other schemes that might be affected. For example, three months ago we did the right thing for the armed forces and now that case is being used for the police, so we have to be careful about whether what we do has implications for other schemes. The compelling case that has been put forward by colleagues today, as well as by others, and the nature, tone and empathy of the campaign, have been enormously helpful to me as a Minister and to the Home Secretary, enabling us to acknowledge the “compelling” case—the first time such language has been used.’ We have been praised for our dignified campaign and we need to maintain our high standards, keep our heads and respond in an appropriate fashion. All is still going to plan and as always I will have something in mind that supporters can do to move the campaign forward. This is the written record of the debate as it appears in Hansard: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm150225/halltext/150225h0001.htm#15022587000001 As you can see from the transcript – we have come a long way in a comparatively short space of time and you guys have made it happen. I will send a further update when I have a firm idea of what is required and how best to progress – for those of you still willing to accept that challenge - you will not have long to wait. I did give the radio interview on BBC Radio 5 Live at 12.35 pm - I concluded by saying: "It is a courageous government that makes changes that successive governments have been unable to make." Once the budget is announced - we may know just how brave our government is prepared to be. Cathryn