§ The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
70. Mr. C. I. ORR-EWINGTo ask the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is yet in a position to make a statement about the report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee with regard to widows' benefits.
§ The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter)With permission, I will now reply to Question No. 70.
Yes, Sir. Her Majesty's Government have now considered the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee which was laid before this House on 3rd February. The Committee in its Report stressed that its recommendations should be considered as a whole. Her Majesty's Government have decided to accept in full the recommendations of the Committee. These are set out in detail in paragraph 87 of the Report.
The Committee, in paragraph 37 of the Report, recommended that a substantial increase should be made in the benefits paid in respect of the children of widowed mothers. It felt, however, that it was precluded from recommending a particular figure by its terms of reference. The Government have come to the conclusion that it would be appropriate to increase this benefit by 5s., thus raising the payment for each child from 11s. 6d. to 16s. 6d., including family allowance.
Similar improvements in respect of the provision for children will be made in the Industrial Injuries Scheme.
833 These changes will require legislation, which will be laid before Parliament in due course. It will not be possible to proceed with this legislation this Session, and it would, in any event, be desirable before legislating to see the other Reports on which the Committee is engaged and to which it refers.
There remains the question of the 10s. widow, as those widows whose title derives from their husbands' insurance under the scheme which was superseded in 1948 are commonly called. As the House will be aware, the Advisory Committee did not feel able to make any recommendation in respect of the rate of these pensions, though it gave full and careful consideration to the position of these widows. The Committee said that its recommendations would cover the obvious cases of real hardship among them. The Committee went on to point out that the great majority of these widows are in work, and that the proportion of them resorting to National Assistance was smaller than for National Insurance beneficiaries generally.
The Government have also had in mind the fact that most of the widows who now draw this pension draw it in circumstances in which other widows in precisely the same circumstances draw no pension at all. For these reasons they feel that cases of hardship are best dealt with by the Committee's recommendations, which the Government have accepted, and that, apart from hardship, it would not be right to place on the National Insurance Fund an increased burden for the purpose of granting larger pensions to this particular class of widow.
Mr. Orr-EwingIs my right hon. Friend aware that the Government's decision to deal generously with widows who have children and have very considerable problems will give great pleasure? Could he also tell the House what proportion of the 10s. widows are in work at present?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterIn reply to the last part of that supplementary question, the National Insurance Advisory Committee in its Report refers to the fact that a large number of 10s. widows are in work at the moment. As to the first part of the question, the Committee places great emphasis in its Report on the desirability of making further provision in respect of the widow with children. We 834 have endeavoured to implement those recommendations in the decision which I have announced.
§ Mr. MarquandIs the right non. Gentleman aware that while we on this side of the House welcome the complete acceptance of this useful Report, nevertheless there are certain details which we should like to examine critically during the course of making the legislation? In particular, with respect to the recommendation concerning children, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that 16s. 6d. is still a pitifully small sum on which to bring up, feed and clothe a growing child? If that is the most he can do, will he not at least do it at once?
I can see the right hon. Gentleman's case for postponing some of the recommendations of the Report until other Reports from the same Committee come forward, but in this case, if it is here and now necessary to provide 16s. 6d. at least—which we on this side of the House think too little for these children—would the right hon. Gentleman not do it at once by special legislation? If he will, we on this side will certainly do all in our power to hasten the passage of that legislation.
Even though the right hon Gentleman feels that the improvements in the position of the 10s. widow proposed by this Committee do, as he claims, cover some of the obvious cases of real hardship, Is he not aware that there are still some cases of hardships left? Is he not aware that, in particular, the Government's refusal to consider any increase at all in the 10s. basic rate for these widows at present will be greeted with the greatest dissatisfaction throughout the country? Is it not the case that since that sum was fixed prices have risen and are still continuously rising? Ought there not to be for these widows an improvement in their pensions similar to that which has been just granted by the House to civil servants, teachers and other kinds of pensioners?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterIn reply to the first part of that question, naturally I should like to get ahead with the recommendations in respect of children as quickly as possible, but it is not possible to separate this aspect of the matter from the inevitably fairly complicated legislation to implement the Committee's Report.
835 As to the 10s. widow, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman and the House to remember that this pension was never treated as a subsistence pension. It was a provision preserved by the 1946 Act from the pre-existing scheme. I think the House will bear in mind that it is not without importance that the majority of these pensions are paid in cases where there is no pension at all paid to a widow similarly circumstanced who depends for her protection on the National Insurance Act itself.
Mrs. JegerIs not the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the real difficulties of the 10s. widow is that in order to preserve her title to insurance she has to pay more than half this 10s. as a National Insurance contribution? Could the right hon. Gentleman not do something to alleviate that special hardship?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI have sympathy with the idea behind the hon. Lady's question, but we have to preserve fairness in this matter as between different types of widows and, when Parliament has provided, as it did in the main National Insurance Act, for no pension at all for a great many widows under that Act who have to contribute in the ordinary way towards retirement and sickness benefit, it would be very difficult to give this special privilege in respect simply of a reserved right under the old scheme. Although I am not unsympathetic to what the hon. Lady has said, I do not think that that is a feasible way of dealing with the matter.
§ Mr. ChetwyndCan the right hon. Gentleman say when he hopes that the increase in allowance will come into effect? Could he not meet the children's allowance out of National Assistance?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterThe coming into effect of this proposal depends on the 836 presentation of legislation and on Parliament's willingness to pass that legislation. I do not think it would be right for me to speculate at this stage. As regards National Assistance, it is not possible to deal with the matter in that way, because that is a scale recommended by the Board and approved by Parliament in Regulations.
§ Mr. H. HyndWhatever the argument may be on whether or not the 10s. widow should get the pension, would the right hon. Gentleman not give special attention to the fact that the 10s. which she originally received ought at least to be adjusted in accordance with the cost of living?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI appreciate the force of that argument, but I think that the hon. Member on his part should also appreciate that this was never intended to be a subsistence pension. If we introduced a consideration such as the cost of living into this, which—and I do not want to make a party point—right hon. Gentlemen opposite did not do when they increased other pensions, we should be introducing some element of subsistence into what is not a subsistence pension but a reserved existing right going back to 1926.
§ Mr. SimmonsThere is a reference in the Question to disabled ex-Service men, but nothing was said about them in the right hon. Gentleman's answer. What is he doing about the aged disabled?
§ Mr. Boyd-CarpenterI think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. He will find that Question No. 70, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing), makes no reference to them.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We should get on.