§ Mr. Glenvil HallI beg to move, in page 4, line 8, to leave out Subsection (5).
We have proposed to iron out what was thought to be an anomaly because under the 1944 Act where a widow had several children, all the pensions could not be aggregated. We have looked at it again and do not see why we should. If a widow has several children, there is no reason why she should not have the benefit of the law under the 1944 Act. She is bringing up the children and normally will not have more than she needs, and we do not want to harass her in any shape or form. This is a small matter—a technical point—and there can be very few 411 cases, but we do not want by making additional provisions in this Bill to put some widows in jeopardy of losing any of the increases which would come under the Bill.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. Glenvil HallI beg to move, in page 4, line 20, to leave out Subsection (6).
This concerns much the same point as the last Amendment. If a woman has a child who has an income of its own of over £52, under the law as it stands that child is not treated as a dependant, and it has been suggested in this Bill that it ought to be. We think that it is rather niggling and not worth doing, and that the law should remain as it is.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the- Bill.
§ Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.