§ 11. Mr. John Wellsasked the Minister of Social Security whether she will remedy the anomaly, whereby a widow whose husband dies of cancer or multiple sclerosis, gets less generous treatment than a widow whose husband dies of an industrial accident or disease.
§ Mr. LoughlinI would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling) on 4th December,—[Vol. 755, c. 923.]
§ Mr. WellsSurely the Parliamentary Secretary is aware that many industrial deaths are due to the fault of the person killed, whereas these people are suffering through no fault of their own, and their widows should be suitably compensated.
§ Mr. LoughlinI could not accept the first part of that supplementary question. The hon. Member must realise that there is a distinct difference between National Insurance benefit and Industrial Injuries benefit. It is a preference that is based upon a compensatory payment. I appreciate the difficulties involved in the matter, but the hon. Gentleman's suggestion is certainly not the way to solve it.
§ Mr. AstorCan the Minister confirm that those who are covered by Industrial Injuries benefit do not pay any greater contribution than anybody else? If so, why should not other people enjoy equal benefits?
§ Mr. LoughlinThe hon. Member knows that the make-up of the contribution for Industrial Injuries benefit is the same throughout, but this is not the same thing as the question put to me.
§ 15. Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Social Security whether it is the policy of the Government to provide more help for widows with children as a result of the incease in prices following devaluation.
§ 69. Mr. Peter Millsasked the Minister of Social Security what progress she has made to provide more help for widows with children as a result of the increase in prices following Government measures such as devaluation and the Selective Employment Tax.
§ Mr. LoughlinWidowed mothers benefited from the increases in national insurance widows' benefits in October, 1967, which contained a margin against increases in prices, and they will also benefit from the changes in family allowances and national insurance dependency benefits in April.
§ Dame Irene WardArising from that reply, am I to understand that when the Prime Minister gave his pledge on the devaluation issue he had in mind that everything had been arranged before, so that his pledge was not worth the paper it was written on?
§ Mr. LoughlinMy right hon. Friend has already made some references to this issue this afternoon. What the hon. Lady has to bear in mind is that the increase in the cost of living is something like 1.6 per cent. since devaluation. My right hon. Friend has indicated the real value of the pension since then. We ought to make quite clear to the House what we have done for widows instead of being put on the defensive. Since 1964 widows' pensions have been increased from 67s. 6d. to 90s. If one takes the widow with two children, the children's allowances in that time have increased by 32s. 6d. It is a better record than that of the Conservative Government.
§ Miss HerbisonIs my hon. Friend aware that in the first two months after we became the Government, in 1964, many widows were relieved from the earnings rule, which was a very great help?
§ Mr. LoughlinMy right hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) brought in many innovations during the time that she was Minister. I obviously could not deal with them all now.
§ Mr. MillsWill the Minister realise that these widows with children are being particularly hurt with the increased cost of food, clothing, fuel and all the other things? Will he make another special effort to see that they are helped?
§ Mr. LoughlinI assure the House that we are as much concerned about widows and widows with children as anyone else. We will keep the matter constantly under review, and the pledge given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be honoured.