WIDOWS', ORPHANS', AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS [MONEY]. (Hansard, 21 April 1931)

§ Miss LAWRENCE
Hon. Members will perceive that the only additional charge on the Treasury is that concerned with Sub-section (1, d) of Clause 1. No additional provision has to be made as far as widows are concerned, because, when the original Act was passed, it was believed that the 5,000 widows or thereabouts who, as a consequence of a judgment of the High Court, have been excluded, would be in receipt of pensions. It is necessary formally to move that they should be included, but, as far as these 5,000 are concerned, there will be no additional charge on the Treasury. The additional charge on the Treasury will come with respect to the second class of widows. It is estimated that there are 750 of them. They are widows of men who attained the age of 70 before 1912 and survived after 1926. The additional charge will be the small sum set down for the 750 widows. It will be approximately, for the 10 years, £70,000, assuming that they live to an average age. The additional charge on the Treasury is therefore, a very small matter.

§ Sir K. WOOD
I regret very much that the Government have decided to go on with the financial Resolution at this time. It would have been far more reason able if the spirit and letter of the Prime Minister's undertaking had been observed. When he was asked by the leader of the Opposition how far he proposed to proceed, he said he would go as far as he could with the Orders on the Paper so that we should not sit late, or unduly inconvenience the House. There is a Report stage and the Government do not 947 really advance their business by persisting in an endeavour of that kind. The Government, however, have decided to proceed and, however much it may inconvenience hon. Members, I must offer a few observations upon the Resolutions, because in many respects this is perhaps the most important stage of the Bill. Do not let hon. Members deceive themselves. It is no good telling their constituents they wished to move Amendments in Committee on the Bill to bring in hard cases but were stopped owing to the rules of the House. This is the opportunity if they seriously intend to press any hard cases. After the Resolution has been passed, the House is bound by it and Amendments in Committee on the Bill to extend its scope will not be allowed. That is a very rough and imperfect way of describing the rules of the House, but I do it in order to emphasise the importance of the Resolution and the necessity of discussing it however inconvenient it may be at this time of the night. Various Members on the Second Reading said they had undertaken to inform their constituents what they intended the Widows' Pensions Measure should contain and they gave the House a number of cases.

§ The CHAIRMAN
This is rather a long prelude to the Resolution itself.

§ Sir K. WOOD
That may be so, but however long the prelude may be, I do not think it is out of order. The length of the prelude, if I may respectfully suggest to you, does not determine its relevancy or otherwise.

§ The CHAIRMAN
The right hon. Gentleman must get down to the Resolution before the Committee.

§ Sir K. WOOD
What I am endeavouring to point out—and I emphasise it particularly, I hope at not undue length—is the importance of this Resolution. Further, this is the only opportunity that is given to us to press upon the Government the necessity for extending this Resolution, because—

§ The CHAIRMAN
The right hon. Gentleman knows that that cannot be done at this stage. If this Resolution were to be extended, it would have to be withdrawn.

§ Sir K. WOOD
In that case I would urge the desirability of pressing upon the Government the withdrawal of this Resolution in order that, if necessary, a further one may be brought in to carry cases that are not already carried by this Resolution. This Bill is very severely drafted, and unless we urge on the Government at this stage sufficient grounds to withdraw the Resolution, which, I take it, we are at full liberty to do, the only opportunity that we have will be gone. I recollect that on many occasions Governments have been induced, on the discussion of a Financial Resolution, to withdraw it in deference to the strong expression of the opinion of hon. Members that under it there would be insufficient scope for a number of cases to be brought in. [Laughter.] I say say to hon. Members opposite that I do not see any particular reason for amusement. If one is to treat the speeches that have been made to-night seriously, the whole trend of the discussion has been that this Bill and this Financial Resolution itself are not drawn in sufficiently wide terms to permit many of the cases to be included. I have known of various occasions when there has been a sufficient appeal from hon. Members in all parts of the House to the Government to withdraw a Resolution, in order to meet the desires of—

§ Mr. McSHANE
On a point of Order. Is not that three times that the right hon. Gentleman has repeated himself?

§ The CHAIRMAN
I have not counted the number of times.

§ Sir K. WOOD
I am very sorry. I had no intention of doing so, and I will not repeat it again. I wanted to emphasise that fact, and perhaps I did it in a fashion which displeased hon. Gentlemen opposite. I will complete that portion of my observations by saying that, if hon. Gentlemen are serious in desiring the extension of the Bill, their only opportunity is to press the Government to-night to withdraw the Financial Resolution.

§ The CHAIRMAN
No Amendment has been put down affecting the Resolution, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman, at this stage, can rightly discuss anticipated Amendments which may be put down to the Bill.

§ Sir K. WOOD
With very great respect to the Chair, which you know I always pay—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I think that the Chairman will agree with me. I do not recall any occasion on which I have wilfully disobeyed, or desired to disobey, your Ruling, Sir Robert. But I submit that there is no need for Amendments to be put upon the Paper before Members of the House can press upon the Government the necessity for withdrawing the Financial Resolution because it does not have the full scope which they desire. I feel confident that the suggestion I have made on a point of Order can be substantiated. I wish to fortify the position in order that the matter may further be pursued when we reach the Report stage of the Resolution. I am fairly confident that the point which I have put to you is in order and that I can, without any Amendment having been put upon the Paper, adduce reasons why the Government should withdraw the Resolution because it is too limited in form. I will endeavour to support that particular view when we come to the Report stage on the Financial Resolution, if it is seriously controverted in any quarter. Having said that in order to have it placed on record in the OFFICIAL REPORT, to which we can refer later, I will leave the matter so that we may return to it, if necessary, on another occasion.
The terms of the Financial Resolution are simply limited to the three cases set out in the explanatory Memorandum. It is only in respect of the three particular cases which are mentioned in the Memorandum that the Financial Resolution carries any further extension as far as the present Measure is concerned. Let us he perfectly plain upon that fact. I hope that no one will controvert me when I say that it is only within the compass of those three cases that any extension, as far as the Bill is concerned, can be made. After reading the Memorandum and the statement which 950 has been made by the Minister, no one can say that he is not aware of the very circumscribed nature of the proposal. I hope that no one will say that we did not do our best to get the matter extended and that we ignored this important part of the Measure. It is true, as the Minister has said, that it really does not make any considerable demands upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the Financial Resolution had made any considerable demand upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer we should not have seen the Bill. The reason we are discussing the Resolution is because it is limited in its terms. Anyone who knows the financial position of the country knows that that is the reason, and to talk as the Parliamentary Secretary did about what was going to happen next Session is a case of talking through one's hat, if one may speak of a lady in that way. The reason why a number of people are excluded who on many grounds ought to have been included, is largely due to the financial position and the mismanagement of the country by the Government. While we regret that the Financial Resolution is not more just, we do not propose to offer any opposition to it, but we note what the Minister has said and what hon. Members opposite have said and we shall watch very carefully what they say when they go on the public platforms.