§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Amendment standing next, in the name of the hon. 2084 and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy)—in page 19, line 5, after the word "force," to insert the words
or if the deceased husband or father has died or been killed through enemy action while serving in the British Mercantile Marine—.is, I am afraid, contrary to what we have already decided in Clause 1. It does not seem to me that it would do to bring these people into Clause 18.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI had a very strong doubt about this Amendment, and I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity of explaining what I mean by it. We do make the scheme retrospective in this Clause 18 to certain widows, but not exactly to this particular class to which my Amendment refers, and I do not really see how Clause 1, therefore, would rule out my Amendment, if Clause 1 does not rule out Clause 18 itself as a whole. That is my submission to you, Mr. Speaker, and if it be right that widows now should receive their pensions if their husbands fulfilled certain conditions. I put it to you that it is for the House to decide whether widows whose husbands have fulfilled other conditions should be included, neither having made any contributions at all.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI will give the hon. and gallant Member the benefit of the doubt.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINIs not the distinction that Clause 1 relates to the widows of insured men and Clause 18 also relates to the widows of men who are either insured or deemed to be insured, but the Amendment would bring in widows of men who are neither insured nor deemed to be insured?
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYOn that point, is there any reason why these men should not be treated as deemed to be insured? I am referring to a particular class of seamen in merchant ships who were killed in the War, and they differ from the ex-service men in that the widows of the soldiers and sailors killed in the War automatically get pensions. In this other case, because of the Royal Warrant, they are cut out of that, and I think this Bill is a suitable occasion for remedying that defect. If it be in order, I would like to get the opinion of 2085 the Government on it, and I will briefly put the case for the Amendment, if you will permit me, Mr. Speaker.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is rather a modern practice in Acts of Parliament to deem things to be something which they are not. I am afraid it has become rather common, and on that ground I do not feel that I can rule this further Amendment out of Order. The hon. and gallant Member can, therefore, move it.
§ Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHYI beg to move, in page 19, line 5, after the word "force," to insert the words:
or if the deceased husband or father has died or been killed through enemy action while serving in the British Mercantile Marine.As I have said, the widows of soldiers, sailors, and airmen killed in the War are already provided for automatically. In the case, however, of the men of the Mercantile Marine, they do not get a pension. Many of the lines have given pensions to the widows, and a great many have had compensation from the various funds set up for the purpose, but there are numbers who have had nothing at all, whose husbands were killed directly in the War by enemy action, while serving in mercantile ships, and I think the sense of justice of this House would say that these people should be included. That is all that I have to say on the matter, except that I have put the Amendment down as the result of a number of letters that I have received from these women in different parts of the country, whose case is a very harsh one, and who feel a sense of injustice, which I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to remedy.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINMy intervention on the point of Order was really only to bring out a point which I am not quite certain that the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken worthy) apprehends, namely, that the ordinary seamen are already covered by the Bill. They are deemed to be insured, and, therefore, the only class to which this Amendment would apply would be the officer class. I do not think there would be any justification for treating the officer class in the Mercantile Marine any differently from the way in which you treat the commissioned officers. They are 2086 outside the limit of insurance on account of the rate of their remuneration, and I might further point out to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, even if the Amendment were carried, it would not carry any benefit, because Clause 45 defines service dependants' pensions, in paragraph (b), as meaning
any pension or allowance payable out of moneys provided by Parliament …. to a person …. in respect of the death of some other person attributable to, or connected with, the service of that other person during the late War.Therefore, this officer class would come under the provisions of the Clause which deals with service dependants' pensions, and they would naturally prefer the greater benefits under that Clause.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYAm I to understand that all the widows of these men, of seamen, firemen and so on come in?
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEI beg to move, in page 19, line 18, to leave out the words "of fourteen" and to insert instead thereof the words "specified in section one of this Act."
This proposal was mentioned at an earlier stage of the Bill, but I do not think it was really fairly considered at that time. I hope very much that the House will re-adjust the matter, and give this simple Amendment, not only a hearing, but support, and induce the Minister to grant it. According to the Clause, women whose husbands are deceased at the time this Act commences will not get the widow's pension if they have not got any child under 14, though they may be keeping a child at school after the age of 14. Though under ordinary circumstances they would draw the widow's pension and the child allowance, they will not do so if they have the misfortune to have a child over 14 at the time this Act commences. I think it should be made quite clear that these Clauses, or the revised Bill, which speak of widows' pensions includes the child allowance.
A woman who has got one child and keeps it on at school would by this 2087 Clause be excluded if the child is over 14 in January of next year. The Minister would, of course, quite naturally answer that great alterations have been made in Clause 1 which have brought in children over 14. I think, however, it was not reasonable that that Clause should be kept in its original form. There are two classes of widows who are very much affected by these proposals. First of all, there is the widow who has already got a child over 14, and is making great sacrifices to keep it at school. She is excluded by this Clause. Then there is the widow whose child becomes 14 between to-day and the starting of the Act. If my Amendment be carried, that widow will be encouraged to keep her child at school, knowing that when January comes along she will get benefit, whereas if this Amendment is defeated that widow will have no hope, and she will, therefore, take her child away at 14, and in that way the education of her child and the advantages to the country of well-educated children will be lost.
I do venture to appeal to all sides of the House. We have hon. Members who are interested in education—I believe they are. I see in his place the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Somerville). He is an educationist. There are other Members I see on the other side of the House who take a great deal of interest in education. I appeal to them to raise their voices with mine for this very small Amendment. It is not one that is going to wreck the Bill. I am not asking them to do anything that will jeopardise the fortunes of this Bill or to do anything which is going to cost a very great deal. We know from experience that if one or two of them support a proposition, and an educational advantage of this kind, very probably the Minister will give us what we ask. We on this side of the House are like the wind in the fable. We blow hard or soft, but our efforts alone are unable to get the Minister to remove the cloak of his displeasure, and our efforts are often unavailing. Members on the other side of the House, however, sitting behind the Minister, are like the sun in the fable. If they will all put out their rays, T feel that we shall do something. I appeal to hon. Members opposite who have educational interests at 2088 heart, and in this matter the interests of the widow at heart—the widow whose child is already 14, or becomes 14 before the commencement of this Act—to urge the Minister to give this pretty small concession which will do something in the interests of education and in the interests of the children that are growing into young manhood.
Mr. LEES-SMITHI beg to second the Amendment.
This is an Amendment to which we attach a certain importance. Might i remind the Minister of Health that arguments like those put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) who has just sat down are of a special character. This Bill is going through this House with the speed of an express train. To have got to this stage of the Bill must be quite a surprise to the Minister of Health himself. I would ask him to remember that that is due to the deliberate intention of hon. Members on this side of the House, due to the fact that we have not put down on the Paper a series of demonstration Amendments.
We have put down Amendments raising, it may be, small points, but real points. We did so because we thought we might get some reward. We said to ourselves: "If we put forward good points, we shall get a few more Amendments carried. Up to the present, so far as the Bill has gone, we have not had anything. Here, however, is an Amendment in which the Minister can give that which would not cost very much money, because it deals with a small class of women who will present no problem for two years. It must appeal to everybody's sympathy. The point is really a substantial one. We are dealing with women who are already widows. By the extension of the provision for children at school, the children's allowance, now given in the case of the widows, will be given for children who remain in education up to the age of 16.
There is a curious contradiction in this matter. If the child at school is not yet 14, the mother may keep the child at school up to 16, and receive the widow's allowance. If the child happens to be over 14, and is already at school, then if the mother keeps the child at school till 16 she receives no children's allowance at all. That is an anomaly. It is an anomaly 2089 which bears pretty hardly upon women of the most deserving kind. There are women who have been ready to keep their children at school till 16, although they have had no pension, laying out their own resources. We believe that these are among the most heroic women in the whole community. As a matter of fact, more than one Member of this House has only got here because his mother, left in that position, a widow without resources, made a sacrifice in order to give her boy a good education. I know the Minister of Health has a logical answer. His answer, of course, is that these women have not contributed for anything at all, and, therefore, they ought to be satisfied with whatever they get. We quite understand that argument. It is a good argument. But the fact is that other existing widows have not contributed, and they are getting other benefits. These are among the most deserving of women, and for that reason we ask the Minister to give us this small Amendment, at quite a modest cost, and it will satisfy this particular case.
§ Sir K. WOODThe speeches of both the hon. Members who have spoken have put this Amendment in the most favourable light that it was possible to put it. We do appreciate the accelerated speed with which this Bill has gone through. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) said that we doubtless were surprised at it. But I would tell hon. Members that nowadays time is money. I have been struck by the suggestion made by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) and his illustration. Hon. Members opposite have in this matter blown both hot and cold. At one time, they have said that this Bill is a crime. To-day, they are asking for more benefits. The Clause which the hon. Member is seeking to enlarge is a Clause which gives a free gift to a very large number of women in this country on the conditions laid down. Hon. Members are seeking for further benefits, and I hope that subsequently they will not forget to point out the very many benefits that are conferred by this Bill in this particular relationship. The hon. Member now suggests that we should increase the benefits of widows. That, he suggests, would be an advantage in two ways. But it would mean not only extending the widow's allowance for another two years on 2090 account of her child remaining at school till 16, but it would bring in a- very large additional number of widows as well. I am bound to advise the House to reject this Amendment, mainly on the ground of cost. To some hon. Members, perhaps, the Amendment seems to involve a rather small sum. The acceptance of this Amendment, it is calculated, would cost approximately £1,100,000 in the first 10 years of the Act. That is, perhaps, not a large sum of money, but more perhaps than hon. Members anticipated. That is our present advice in this matter.
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEBut this provision disappears altogether in two years. It is a wasting provision.
§ Sir K. WOODStill, the figure I have given of £1,100,000 is the effect of this Amendment over the next 10 years.
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEIt does disappear in two years. It only refers to the cases of children who are over 14 years of age to-day, and who come out of the scheme when they reach 16, even if they keep at school. Surely, the hon. Gentleman is confusing this Amendment with one on the next Sub-section relating to a somewhat similar matter.
§ Sir K. WOODNo, Sir. The number of children who are now under 14, and who under the provisions of this Amendment come in—
§ Sir K. WOODUnder the hon. Member's Amendment, they come in later, and then go on from 14 to 16. At any rate, the advice that we have been given under these circumstances is what I have stated, and I do not think we can do more than we are doing in this particular direction.
§ 7.0 P.M.
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEMay I ask the hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been drawn to this fact, that a woman with children under 14 to-day should continue to get benefit after they have reached 14. The only effect of this Amendment is to deal with women whose children are already over 14 and still at school.
Major HORE-BELISHAI only rise because the Parliamentary Secretary has not answered the point put by the hon. 2091 Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), who moved the Amendment. The real substance seems to be that you are going to get a very unfortunate contrast between two classes of person, and a contrast is particularly undesirable because the present-day widow already has a very considerable grievance. If one can judge by the correspondence one receives, nearly the whole of the criticism against this Bill is coming from the present-day widow. A woman who becomes a widow a week after the Act is not only to get a widow's pension for the rest of her life, but allowances for her children up to 16. The woman who becomes a widow a week before gets no widow's pension for her life, and is only to have an allowance for her children until the children are 14. Therefore, in a double respect you are treating the present-day widow very harshly and unfairly. You are not only depriving her completely of a widow's pension, but you are not giving the same chance to her children as to the children of the woman who becomes a widow after the Act.
The Parliamentary Secretary said that this is a gratuitous payment. We are distributing largess. Surely, the woman who falls a widow a week after this Act is also the recipient of largess. She has made no contribution towards the benefits which she will receive for the rest of her life, nor has her husband made any substantial contribution. For at least 15 years, I imagine, the State will be distributing largess, because the weekly contributions cannot possibly be sufficient to justify payments of 10s. a week for the rest of a person's life. If it is a question of distributing largess, it is better to distribute it on a sane principle than on an insane principle, and it is better not to create an anomaly of this kind which will give rise to a grievance in respect of two women living next door, one a young woman about 21, who will get a pension for the rest of her days, and another a woman who has brought up a family to whom you are saying, "We will not assist you to keep your children at school till 16." Unless this Amendment, which is a very simple one, is accepted, you will give rise to a grievance which will never abate and which will constantly agitate people until the Act is amended. We shall never hear the end of 2092 these things, and it is better to spend £1,000,000 compensating the widow who is not going to get a pension all her life than to withhold it and make an injustice.
Mr. SOMERVILLEI take it that the hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) means the case of a widow who has made a sacrifice to keep her youngest child at school up to the age of 16. I think that widow is especially worthy of help. If the cost is not too great. I would suggest to the Minister that it would be as well to grant this Amendment. The class of widow to whom this help would be granted is the most deserving kind. One is conscious of the very great benefit which is being conferred by this Bill, but one does not press the matter at an unreasonable charge to the country, and I would ask the Minister to consider it.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI rise to answer the question by the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence). He is usually clear headed about the reading of his own Amendments, but I am rather surprised to see him tripping on this occasion. He appears to think that the whole effect of this Amendment would pass away in two years. Surely, he has not appreciated what is the effect of the Amendment. The Clause deals with the case of a widow of a man who died before the commencement of the Act, and it provides that she is to have a pension which is to go on until six months after the time when her youngest child has attained fourteen. He proposes, instead of that, to put in words, the effect of which would be that she would get that pension until six months after the child had attained the specified age, either the age of fourteen or the age of sixteen, up to which the child remains under full-time instruction in a day school.
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEWhat the right hon. Gentleman says confirms me that he has misunderstood the Amendment I am moving. The Amendment is the first of the two Amendments in my name, and refers to paragraph (c). The paragraph to which he refers is (d), and I am moving a later Amendment to that paragraph. That is what I thought when the Under-Secretary said it would go on for years. The Amendment is in page 19, line 18, to leave out the words "of 2093 fourteen," and to insert thereof the words "specified in Section one of this Act." That only makes this difference, that when any of those children are over 14, and are at school, they will be able to get a pension. The widow will only got her own part of the pension six months after the child is 14, but she will get a child allowance in respect of that one child for the brief period between the present age and the age at which it is taken away from school, which must be before 16. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the Amendment.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI quite agree. I have misunderstood it. I was under the impression that the Amendment referred to paragraph (d) and not (c). The effect with regard to paragraph (c) would be to give an additional allowance in the case where the widow of a man who died before the Act was already keeping her child at school before the age of 14. The answer to that is that she has already adapted herself to her conditions. We are not dealing here with the contributory principle, but with what we can afford to give to people who neither themselves nor through their husbands have paid any contributions, and we have gone as far as we can go in that direction.
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCENow that the actual character of the Amendment is understood, will the Minister give the correct figure which takes the place of the £1,100,000 which the Parliamentary Secretary gave and which I think should be a few tens of thousands for two years.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI am afraid the figure is too correct. I have made a mistake, but the actuaries did not.
§ Mr. HARRISI happen to represent a very large number of women who live in the East End of London, largely on the borders of the City of London. A large number of them are poor widows who have to keep their families and they go out charring. I do know the great efforts many of those women make to keep their children at secondary and central schools in order that when they grow up they can make the best use of their abilities. These women are now to be under a new sense of grievance. A next-door neighbour, just through the accident of circumstance, may be getting not only a pension for herself for life but 2094 assistance for her children to stay at school up to 16, while another woman who is keeping her family together, through no fault of her own, because she. has not come within the purview of this Act, may have to pay the whole cost of the educacation and maintenance of the child. There is a very important principle in making law, and that is that there should be no differentiation between various classes of people. I beg the Minister to make some concession, however small, to relieve what is a real grievance felt by a great number of women who would have been quite prepared to contribute or whose husbands might have been prepared to contribute if this Bill had been an Act of Parliament a year before. As he has recognised the principle that people are to get some concessions from the State, I appeal to him to make a concession in the way of encouraging education and encouraging women who are struggling to keep their homes together single-handed and to keep their children at school as long as possible. An appeal has boon made by an educationist of great authority behind the right hon. Gentleman, and I would ask him to give a sympathetic hearing to this strong appeal from the hon. Member.
§ Mr. SPENCERCan we have an answer to the last question of the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) with regard to cost? The Parliamentary Secretary said £.1,000,000. Instead of being two years, by the law of average it is only one year. In actual fact, the child has to be at school before the woman can get a pension, and it means in the law of averages that the allowance you give is for one year. It must be a negligible cost, and surely in a small item of this character a concession could be made, because the object of the Bill is to bring in only people who have children over 14 actually at school already. Under those circumstances, seeing that the cost is so little, this is one of the points on which the Minister should meet the House and grant the small request desired.
Miss WILKINSONThe right hon. Gentleman said that the widow had already made her arrangements, and, therefore, there would be no hardship. May I point out that we are debating this matter in July. This is the end of the 2095 school term of most of the elementary schools. August would be the time when the widow would be making up her mind whether she could afford to let her boy or girl take advantage of a scholarship and remain another two years. She has reluctantly to make up her mind that it is not possible, and the boy or girl, possibly a very bright pupil, is withdrawn from school, sent to a blind alley occupation in which to swell the ranks of the unemployed, and involve cost to the State. I know there are only a small number of cases, but it makes such a difference to the widow.
§ Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKI rise to ask whether it is quite impossible for the Minister to give way on this point. The right hon. Gentleman says the widows are accommodating themselves to their present situation. I am perfectly certain they could accommodate themselves to the new situation. Surely, there cannot be a sufficient number of cases to warrant the statement that the expenditure will be over £1,000,000.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINIf I may say another word by leave of the House, I think that probably the figure that I gave of £1,100,000 was intended to cover the two Amendments which the hon. Member has put down on the Paper, but I do not see how I can separate them. How can you possibly make a distinction between the widow who has already kept her child at school and the other widow? Surely, if we give way in one case, we must give way in the other. I find myself in that difficulty. The actual cases may not be very large, but when you put two together we are faced with a very large demand.
Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCEIt is not my intention in this Amendment, and I thought it was not so in the wording, to convey that the 10s. a week paid to the widow should be continued beyond what was set out in paragraph (d). The object of paragraph (c) is to give a child an allowance which by the technical terms of the Bill is included in the words "widow's pension." There is no means of giving the child an allowance except by calling it a widow's pension. If this Amendment which I am proposing is made in paragraph (c), that will not carry the 10s. to the mother beyond the 2096 six months after the child is 14. My intention was simply to give the child allowance to the woman whose child is already over 14 on precisely the same footing as she will at present get it if the child is a month under 14 at the time the Act comes into operation. If my Amendment covers the extension to a widow up to 16, that was not my intention. It was my intention, in moving the following Amendment to paragraph (d). What I thought, and still think, it would mean is this. Supposing a child reaches 14 in December, and the widow keeps her child at school, she continues to draw the widow's pension of 10s. a week for herself and the child allowance, but at the end of six months after the child is 14, that is, in June of next year, she drops out of the 10s. for herself, but retains the child allowance as she would under the following paragraph.
§ Viscountess ASTORI would ask the Minister if this is complicating it. Could he draft a Clause which would cover what I think most of the House desires, that the widow, whose child is at school, should draw the child's pension till the child is 16?
Mr. CHAMBERLAINThere are two classes, those who have children under 14 and those who have not. Paragraph (c) says widows' pensions shall be payable only if there is living at the commencement of the Act at least one child under the age of 14. Under certain conditions, that means to say that certain women, who will get no pensions under this Bill, will get a pension if this Amendment is carried. Therefore, the hon. Member's Amendment would have the effect of increasing the number of widows who would draw pensions in this respect. I think the intention was that the widows should not obtain pensions for this, but should get an allowance in respect of their children.
Mr. H. WILLIAMSAs I understand this Amendment and the obvious consequences that must follow, it is that a child born on 3rd January will of necessity have to come under this proposal, and this will affect the finance of the Bill for 16 years. Assuming the child is 2097 kept at school until it is 16, and assuming all the children were treated in this way, it would very much increase the cost of this Bill, I believe to the extent of one-seventh. That is the conclusion I have arrived at, and I wonder whether the Minister can inform me it my interpretation is correct.
Mrs. PHILIPSONI do not think that was the intention of the Amendment. I think it was intended just to discriminate between the two widows with children, and it was intended as an inducement to keep the children with the widow. She wants to keep the child at school until it is 16 years of age, and that was the intention of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment. I hope the Minister will consider this Amendment sympathetically, and, if it is not drafted properly I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider it and to propose another Amendment to this effect, so that widows are treated equally in the matter of the children's education. There are a good many working women in the country who wish to keep their children at school until they are 16 years of age.
Mr. MELLERWe all know the difficulties with regard to the finance of this Bill, and we have had concessions made from time to time. The proposal which has been made this afternoon is one which must appeal to the House, and even if it means the expenditure of something like £1,000,000 I hope the Minister will consider it, and he might consider whether it could not be spread over two years. I would like to point out that in connection with the secondary schools many parents are being asked to sign a declaration that they will retain their children at school until they reach the age of 16. Speaking as one who has been the Chairman of Governors of Secondary Schools in connection with an Education Committee I know the difficulties we have to deal with, especially in cases where the father dies within the last two years of a child's life at. school. The Education Committee goes as for as it can and gives a maintenance grant, and it may grant a free place for the child. I know that widows do make very great efforts to keep their children at school, and this means of obtaining 10s. for the child for a period of two years may be the means of keeping many bright children at school who have gone to the Secondary Schools because of 2098 their particular brilliancy in the elementary schools. I think this is a very important matter and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to see whether some means cannot be found, even if it cost £500,000 or £1,000,000 to finance this scheme in order that this injustice may be remedied.
Mr. BANKSI know the sympathy of the House is with us in this matter. We have heard the Minister state what would be the effect of this Amendment, and I am in agreement with him in supposing that the Amendment in the form in which it now stands would not only impose upon us a liability for paying the children's allowance between the ages of 14 and 16 but it would also impose a liability to pay pensions to a very large number of widows who are not pensionable under the Clause as it stands. I am of the opinion that the lawyers in this House would be disposed to agree with me in my interpretation of the Amendment and it is the same interpretation as the Minister of Health has put upon it. If the right hon. Gentleman could accept another form of words which would have the effect of putting into operation the meaning of the hon. Member's Amendment I feel perfectly certain that in every quarter of this House it would find favour.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINI rise to respond to the invitation which has just been addressed to me by my hon. and learned Friend. We have no further opportunities of making Amendments, and the words I have drafted have been very hurriedly put together, but I think they will carry out what I now understand is the intention of the hon. Member who moved this Amendment. Those who have the Bill before them will see exactly what is meant, and these are the words I suggest. I suggest that in page 19, line 18, at the end of paragraph (c), we should insert the words.
Provided that if a pension is payable by reason of there being no child under the age of 14, but there is a child over the age of 14, in respect of whom if the widow was entitled to a widow's pension an additional allowance shall be payable in respect of that child.That does not give the pension in respect of the widow, and if that satisfies the House I shall be glad to move it in that form.
Mrs. PHILIPSONOn behalf of the members of our party, I wish to thank the Minister for his concession. The idea was right, but the words of the Amendment were wrongly drafted.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think it would be better if the proposed Amendment read:
Provided that if no widow's pension is payable by reason of there being no child under the age of 14, but there is a child over the age of 14, in respect of whom an additional allowance would be payable if the widow were entitled to a widow's pension, an additional allowance shall be payable in respect of that child.
§
Amendment proposed: In page 19, line 18, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that if no widow's pension would otherwise be payable by reason of there being no child under the age of 14, but there is a child over the age of 14, in respect of whom an additional allowance would be payable if the widow was entitled to a widow's pension, an additional allowance shall be payable in respect of that child.—[Mr. Chamberlain.]
§ Colonel GRETTONAll these matters, and many others, are very desirable from many points of view, but I do look with some anxiety on the, increasing cost of this Bill. I am not aware that any proposal has been made to meet these new charges by increased contributions, and under those circumstances the cost of all these concessions, the present one included, will fall upon the taxpayer. Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea as to the cost of this concession which has been made? I am not finding fault or raising any criticism, but I venture to think it is desirable that as the House progresses in these matters we should have some idea of the demands which the Bill will make upon the Exchequer. It is quite clear that the estimate as to the charge on the Exchequer in future years will be very largely exceeded.
Mr. CHAMBERLAINOf course, this is a very important matter, and we are undoubtedly adding to the charges upon the Exchequer, but obviously I cannot, at a moment's notice, give an estimate of the cost of this particular concession. May I remind the House of one or two considerations which will make it clear that this cannot, in any case, be a very heavy charge? First of all, this concession can apply only to the widows of men who died before the Bill came into operation. This is a limited number, and it cannot be increased. Secondly, it can apply only to children who are kept at school after the age of 14, and that, again, would affect only those widows who have children and who wish them to stay on at school. It will he seen that the charge now is very different from what it would have been under the terms of the original Amendment, and I do not think we need be under any anxiety about this particular item, although I do agree that it is very necessary to keep an eye upon these charges.
§ Amendment agreed to.