WIDOWS, ORPHANS AND OLD AGE CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS BILL. (Hansard, 4 August 1925)

§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY)
My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.

§ LORD ASKWITH
My Lords, may I, before the Question is put, ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he has been able to consider, as he said he would, the Amendment that was advocated by the noble Lord. Lord Arnold, and myself?

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords. I am very glad to be able to respond to my noble friend's request. I have considered it very carefully in consultation with my colleagues. The Amendment for which the two noble Lords made themselves responsible had the effect of extending the privilege which was granted in the House of Commons to children of widows of men who died before the passing of the Bill, so that not only should the children receive the increased allowance, but the widow herself should receive her pension until the youngest child had passed school age, whether that was fourteen years or sixteen years, as the ease might be. I am speaking now of Clause 18 in relation to the children of widows of men who died before the passing of the Bill. When the Bill was introduced in the House of Commons no privilege was granted to children who remained at school after fourteen years of age. but as the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, reminded me, it was inserted at the instance of the Opposition and, if I may say so, very properly inserted.
706 It was said: "Surely you are going to extend this privilege to children above fourteen years of age who are still at school to the case of widows whose husbands died before the passing of the Bill," and great pressure was brought to bear on the Government to make that concession. It was pointed out that this might mean that widows themselves were to have their allowance continued until the youngest child passed the age of sixteen, if it was still at school, and that that would lie an additional burden on the Fund which it could not bear. Thereupon the Opposition said that that was net the idea: all they wanted to do was to protect the children; they did not desire that this additional privilege, should be extended to the willows of men who died before the passing of the Bill. Upon that a bargain was struck, that the children—not the widows—should receive the allowance in respect of that extended age of the child. I am afraid we cannot vary that compromise. If we do we open a very important element of expense: not that some of us do not sympathise with the noble Lord in the largeness of our hearts in the desire to do good to as many people as we can. At any rate we cannot afford it, and I am afraid the matter must remain as it stands.
I do not see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, in his place, but as I promised to consider his Amendment before the Report stage perhaps I might be allowed to say a word or two in respect of it now. The noble and learned Lord proposed an extension of the Bill with regard to the provision that when a woman proved to be unfitted to look after her children, the additional allowances shall be taken away from her administration and administered by the local authority. That is already in the Bill, and the noble and learned Lord proposed that this provision should be extended to the women themselves, that their pensions should be taken out of their hands and administered for them where they were shown to be unfit to manage them themselves. This also has received very careful attention. I can quite see the reason why the noble and learned Lord moved the Amendment. Personally I sympathise with his object, but it must be remembered that the argument on the other side is extremely strong.
707 It is not proposed to extend similar action in the case of men. It is not suggested that where a man who is an old age pensioner is shown to be in a similar condition his pension should be taken out of his hands and administered for him. The pension is the man's as a right and that follows logically the whole contributory principle. Where a man or woman contributes, when the money is paid by them it is not possible to make conditions of that kind. It is theirs as a right. That is the essence of the contributory scheme and it is a strong measure to say that, because they are not fully equipped for dealing with their pensions, we must take them out of their hands. And when it is shown that you are prepared to do this in the case of women but not in the case of men, then the argument remains no longer tenable. For these reasons the Government do not feel it possible to make the change, which would be a very far-reaching one. It would have to include both sexes and it involves changes which are far too extensive to enter upon at this period of the measure.

§ LORD ASKWITH
I am much obliged to the noble Marquess for his investigations and in the circumstances I do not think I can press the matter any further.

§ LORD ARNOLD
My Lords, the noble Marquess has spoken about two Amendments. I regret very much that the Government has not seen its way to accept the first Amendment which was moved by Lord Askwith last Friday. However, I will not pursue that matter now. I do not think I am misrepresenting the position of the Government when I say that there is no other reply to the proposal except the reply that there is Do money. They have come to the end of their resources, so far as money goes. On the Second Reading I emphasised the reason why there is no money for these concessions. The Government have given it away in other directions. Perhaps, however, this is not the last Insurance Act which will be introduced in another place. It is quite likely that there may be an amending Bill brought in next year. Then, perhaps, there may be a little money available which the Government have not given away and which may 708 be used for the purpose of granting these concessions.
In regard to the noble and learned Lord's Amendment the position was an extremely difficult one. Lord Buck-master contended that the omission from the Amendment of the words "or otherwise" would seem to remove the possibility of interfering busybodies threatening widows and that the debate in another place centred round these two words. It is true that a great deal was said about these two words in another place, but it is scarcely the case that there was not a great deal said about the provision itself, and the noble Marquess has alluded to a matter which is of great importance in regard to this Amendment This is a consideration which the noble and learned Lord scarcely took sufficiently into account. In one portion of his speech he said that these pensions were paid partly by public money and partly by employers, and he seemed to leave out of account the fact that the woman and her husband may have paid contributions for a long series of years. That is a very important consideration, and it was strongly urged in another place, not merely from the Labour Benches but also from the Liberal Benches and by certain Conservative Members.
There are other considerations which I need not go into now. The noble Marquess has not accepted the Amendment; and the point raised, as I say, was extremely difficult. Although it is true that the deletion of the words "or otherwise" seemed to remove some of the difficulties, they by no means removed all of the difficulties. I feel certain that if the Government had taken another course their action would have been subjected to the closest scrutiny, because certain results might have occurred under that Amendment which I think would have been most undesirable. However, as the noble Lord is not putting the Amendment in, I do not think that I need detain your Lordships any longer.