Fair Treatment for Widowers (Hansard, 13 April 1994)

§ Mr. Hartley Booth (Finchley)
I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ensure fair treatment for widowers.
I say immediately that my Bill deals with widowers with dependent children. Some 10 per cent. of all lone parents are men. If one discounts those who were never married, there are about 60,000 isolated widowers with children, who are a forgotten minority in our country.
The problem is that the treatment that widowers and their children receive is different from that received by widows and their children. The treatment amounts to discrimination, and results in spiralling poverty and hardship; it frequently splits the children from their fathers when they are taken into care.
Why do we have the problem? There are two reasons. The first is the system in this country, and the second is due to history. We have a system that is rigid; it is ordained by Whitehall on nationally made assumptions. It is inflexible, with little ability to deal with minority hard luck cases.
As for the history, the subject was raised by our much-respected colleague, the late Mrs. Judith Chaplin, who died last year. In 1948, a system was introduced on the basis that widows needed more support than widowers. At that time, one woman was employed for every two men, but that is no longer the case. Now, for every 10 women employed, 11 men are employed. It is no longer possible to assume that, when a woman dies, the children will suffer financially as a result.
That was the unhappy position of discrimination and inequality in which Mr. John Kao, who sits in the Public Gallery with one of his children—

§ Madam Speaker
Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is unaware of the fact that we do not refer to people outside the Chamber. There are Members and strangers, and we do not refer to a stranger in the House. We refer only to a colleague in the Chamber.

§ Mr. Booth
I am obliged to you, Madam Speaker. I was not aware of that rule.
The wife of one of my constituents died on 3 November 1990. My constituent was left with six children under the age of 15, the youngest of whom was only five and a half months old, and the oldest is still at school now, aged 17. My constituent has had to bring up his children alone in a position that has been not only disadvantageous, but positively discriminatory.
My constituent was unemployed at the time of his wife's death, and the authorities told him to get a job, as he would then be better off than he was on social security. That was wrong. He would have had to find a job that would give him £400 a week. Of course, such a job was not available. His previous employment a few years earlier had provided only £250 a week. My constituent was being asked to obtain the impossible.
What was my constituent receiving from our system? He was receiving £114 a week. Had he been a widow, he would have received £1,000 on the death of his spouse, and between £198 and £250 per week.
That is not the final twist in this unhappy tale. Had he been fortunate enough to obtain a job earning £400 a week, every penny—apart from child allowance—would have been removed. Had he been a widow, none of it, apart from 213 the small amount of £10, would have been removed. The benefit would have been ring-fenced and secure had he been a widow, but it was removed because he was a widower. That is further discrimination, and not only my constituent suffered but his children. I went to see Mr. Kao —may I refer to him that way?

§ Madam Speaker
The hon. Gentleman may refer to his constituent in that general way.

§ Mr. Booth
I am learning on my feet, Madam Speaker.
I saw Mr. Kao at his house, and found him to be an admirable manager of a difficult situation. After paying for fuel, he had £64 left to spend each week on the seven mouths in that household. After allowing for clothing, only 80p per day each is left for Mr. Kao and his children—an appalling situation.
I was extremely angry that such a thing could happen in this country. It is an indictment of poverty in a civilised nation, of discrimination against men and their children, and of a social security system that has the laudable aim of targeting those most in need but has failed in this case.
The Government cannot use the excuse that there is no money, or produce figures to show that a huge amount would have to be spent if every widower were to be dealt with. The Government have a policy of targeting those most in need. Mr. Kao and his children are most in need, and they are not being helped.
My Bill hopes to address that situation. We must help Mr. Kao and other widowers and their children. I hope that my Bill will do so.