§ 1. Mr. Mappasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will now increase the present apprentices' earnings limits to enable parents with younger children, in qualifying for family allowance, to consider more favourably apprenticeship schemes.
§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher)No, Sir. My right hon. Friend has no reason to think that an alteration in the family allowances rules would have the result that the hon. Member suggests.
§ Mr. MappIs the Minister not aware that in 1963 the Insurance Commissioners themselves in an appeal suggested that, in respect of a boy of 15 to 17, 85s. and 90s. were unrealistic for the problems arising in a home where there are other younger children? In view of the announcement covering a wider field made by the Prime Minister 814 a few weeks ago, is it not time that the Minister sent this matter to a committee for re-examination, because the present figures are unrealistic for a family of more than one child?
§ Mrs. ThatcherI am aware of the Commissioner's decision relating to September, 1960. It was after that that the present Measure was introduced. We have no reason to believe that where an apprentice is earning up to 40s.—until that time the family is qualified to receive a family allowance—the receipt of 8s. or 10s. a week would have any influence on the decision of whether or not to take up the apprenticeship.
§ 6. Mr. Montgomeryasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will introduce legislation to provide for a fatherless family allowance to be paid to a deserted mother and collected by the State from the husband.
§ Mrs. ThatcherMany provisions of existing legislation already help deserted mothers and their children and my right hon. Friend has no proposals for extending them in the way my hon. Friend suggests.
§ Mr. MontgomeryIs my hon. Friend aware of the tremendous hardship there is in this sphere and the difficulty that some women have in getting any money at all from their husbands to support their children? Would it not be possible for some system to be devised whereby the State got this money and paid it to the mothers by this sort of allowance, rather than for these women to have to go to National Assistance, which they do not like doing and which represents an unnecessary drain on the taxpayer? Will my hon. Friend look at this matter again?
§ Mrs. ThatcherWhere a mother is unable to get any money due to her under a maintenance order, the National Assistance Board already helps to a considerable extent. The Board will, on occasions, take over the responsibility for getting the money from the husband and pay the mother the allowance instead.
§ Mr. MontgomeryDoes my hon. Friend think it fair that these women should have to go to National Assistance? Is it fair, when husbands avoid payments, 815 that the general taxpayer should pay for some man's wrongdoing, particularly when the man may be living with another woman and supporting children who are not his own while his legal children must suffer great privation?
§ Mrs. ThatcherThe designation "fatherless children" covers a large number of children whose needs are already covered by the National Insurance system, which covers widowed mothers' children, orphans, for whom provision is made under National Insurance, and children of divorced parents where the father died while maintaining the children. As I say, a great deal is already done under National Insurance.
§ 12. Mr. Millanasked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he will make family allowances payable to grandparents or other relations having the care of children in cases where the parents themselves are not qualified to claim the allowances because of residence abroad.
§ Mrs. ThatcherFamily allowances are payable in these circumstances if the parents are not contributing at the rate of at least 8s. a week to the support of each child. My right hon. Friend has no power to waive this condition.
§ Mr. MillanDoes not the Minister have power to change the law, with the consent of the House, which I am sure would be readily given? Is not the hon. Lady aware, from details of a case which I have sent her, that there is an anomaly here? Is it not quite ridiculous that family allowances should not be payable in these cases because the parents are contributing even as little as 8s. a week, which is completely out of touch with today's cost of living? Will the hon. Lady look at this whole question again?
§ Mrs. ThatcherThe general rule that a parent can draw family allowances if he or she is contributing 8s. a week to the support of the child is one which is very beneficial to a large number of parents who cannot afford to contribute a great deal. To alter this rule would put very many parents in a very much worse position indeed. The other rule which comes into play in this case is the fact that, I think, the father has been abroad for a period of nearly ten years, and it is the inter-action of these two 816 rules which has caused the decision here. If I could help here I would, but I cannot.